|
Gutter Owl posted:Care to comment on Merchants? It's been lounging around my "need to play" list for a good long time. I mean, I know it has a roll-and-move system of all things, but it seems like one of those rare few games that features post-roll decisions for movement. uh the big issue with merchants of venus is that i can confuse it with xia: legends of whatever
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Gimnbo posted:I believe it took over a decade and multiple shifts in what the "best" characters were to get to where we are today. Back when I used to play cosmic I would just try to cycle cards as quickly as possible in order to search the deck for the cards that will actually let you win. If the rest of the group cottons on to that and also makes frequent colony for colony agreements in negotiates (which is reasonable, usually) the game drops to like 45 minutes. Unfortunately you're still playing Cosmic Encounter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:marvel I agree that Marvel is good and CE is bad, it was just a good analogy to explain why some people like CE.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:I don't care for Cosmic Encounters, but say what if you used the top 10 races in it? Also doesn't MvC2 have many characters in it? Shouldn't it be more balanced out of the gate? MvC2 lacked character balance among its entire cast, but it had mechanical balance. The good characters had lots of good options available that were interesting and viable in their own ways. The game had a functional anti-infinite system (despite its reputation for the opposite) that encouraged players to take risks which benefited their opponents in order to score high damage payouts. Contrast this top 4 match from 10 years into MvC2 with this top 4 match from MvC3 this year. Note how often a clean hit in MvC3 leads to an extremely long combo followed by a dead character, whereas MvC2 mechanically encourages players to "reset" (purposely drop their combo and start a new one without the opponent noticing) which involves more interaction and tension from both sides of the match. A game with bad mechanical balance has trap choices or no choices for players, to the point where a perfectly character-balanced game ends up lovely and broken (The Prisoner's Dilemma, were it to be a game, comes to mind). The other thing is that the top 10 in MvC2 exist because the other 46 are redundant. There's no reason to play Rogue when Magneto does everything she does but better. There's no reason to play Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Dan, or Sakura, because Cyclops does everything they do but better. Cosmic's race balance isn't so simple-- in a game with the Loser (who can reverse fight outcomes) and the Masochist (who wants to lose fights), the Warrior (who levels up every time he participates in a fight and makes winning easier in the future) is completely screwed from the start. Race powers are all over the board, and while imbalances are apparent at times the real issue is that man races serve as hard counters to other races without concern for what the countered players will get to do in such a game outside of... well, getting their asses kicked. It's not so easy to just remove a bunch of races from Cosmic because the whole ecosystem is poisoned. If you look at Cosmic from a "How was this made?" perspective, it all falls apart. It's a bad bluffing game that rewards luck over lying. The powers are purposely bad to the point where their badness does unintentionally bad things. It's bad filler because it takes at least an hour. It's a piece of poo poo from 40 years ago that sticks around because it's a GW piece of poo poo from 40 years ago. It is everything wrong with nostalgia goggles and aggressive ignorance in gaming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Reading about spergs on BGG getting upset that Viticulture is getting another edition that also has two super duper minor rule tweaks is quite funny. Also anyone who doesn't have Viti and wants a solid entry level WP game...The new Viticulture Essential Edition will definitely be the one to get. It includes a couple of the best 'low level' expansion elements of Tuscany (mammas&pappas, solo, cleans up the visitors, and property)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:20 awesome board games you may never have heard of. Heard of 18, played 12. Not bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Reading about spergs on BGG getting upset that Viticulture is getting another edition that also has two super duper minor rule tweaks is quite funny. What are the tweaks? Nm, just found it. Those are both good changes, people are ridiculous. Prairie Bus fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:20 awesome board games you may never have heard of. god loving drat it why the hell is heroes wanted on that list it is literally the worst game I've played these last few months.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Cosmic Encounter is the Marvel vs Capcom ( I mean MAHHHVEL) of board games. Everything is a broken unbalanced mess but some people like that. Marvel vs Capcom 2 is my favourate fighting game  I really need to get a copy of Cosmic Encounter, it sounds right up my alley
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
If you made a balanced Cosmic Encounter with rationally negotiable decisions (but kept its core VP/alliance basic setup and combat cards) it'd be a straight-up terrible chip taking game. From a design perspective, the randomness and imbalance is a hedge against politics: you can't tell whether Bob will win next turn because the game state is too opaque (a product of complexity, hidden information... well, and normal political fog). It's like a version of Smallworld's hidden VPs, only it still works when the players are awake. In the end, Cosmic Encounter is still too political for me most days, but it's hard to say it's a bad design in general. And this isn't a "everything is subjective, no games are bad, have some pretzels" defense. Nor is it a nostalgia defense (the first time I played Cosmic was just a few years ago, after playing a lot of other games). I think Cosmic does a reasonable job of delivering a high-variance, high-politics, potentially-memorable-narrative game; that's just not what I, personally, want very often. Edit: That said, I would hate to be trapped in a 2 hour game of Cosmic (we played in 40 minutes or so). I also don't understand how long games happen; swapping colonies is win-win until everyone has a few, and the Munchkin-esque endgame shouldn't prompt that much delay or AP. jmzero fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
jmzero posted:If you made a balanced Cosmic Encounter with rationally negotiable decisions (but kept its core VP/alliance basic setup and combat cards) it'd be a straight-up terrible chip taking game. From a design perspective, the randomness and imbalance is a hedge against politics: you can't tell whether Bob will win next turn because the game state is too opaque (a product of complexity, hidden information... well, and normal political fog). It's like a version of Smallworld's hidden VPs, only it still works when the players are awake. I believe that CE's politics are too elementary to actually consider it a political game. You cannot choose who you attack. You only choose to invite other players for the attack or for the defense, and that choice is largely not a choice. If I can win with what I have in hand, I'm not inviting anybody, and if I can't, I'm inviting only players who won't win the game without me if I invite them. There's more politics involved in Codenames than in Cosmic Encounter. The endgame of Cosmic is heavily dependent on either RNG or a #ofPlayers-1 way alliance. I could see it flooring at 40 minutes if the alliance players were decisive about ending the game or if the RNG were consistent enough in giving out colonies instead of perpetuating the game. Then again, I've also seen it push 2 hours for the opposite reasons-- alliance-resistant players and an uncooperative RNG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
If you use modern design principles, Cosmic Encounter fails every single one of them I can think of. Sheriff of Nottingham is a better political game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:What are the tweaks? Yeaaaaah, I guess I could I have said what they were for people who already have Viticulture. 1) The 'hard cap' of 25 points is no more. 2) The wine tasting room now only gives 1VP if you have at least 1 wine token somewhere in your cellar. 3) I think The Promoter visitor was changed from an AND to an OR. Stegmaier also said it really doesn't matter too much if you use any/all of these updates haha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:If you use modern design principles, Cosmic Encounter fails every single one of them I can think of. Sheriff of Nottingham is a better political game. Is there a list of modern design principles? I find stuff formula baselines quite interesting (and I'm wondering how Splendor falls on it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:20 awesome board games you may never have heard of. Oh dear god Civ AND Antiquity on the same list it's like they're trying to turn people off board games. But then, Dominion. Iunno, I am pretty pleased that a reasonably mainstream press organ is actually pointing out that this hobby... you know, exists. ChiTownEddie posted:Yeaaaaah, I guess I could I have said what they were for people who already have Viticulture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The first one I support, the second one makes basically zero difference in our meta, but looking at BGG it seems like our meta is very different from most. I don't think we've ever had anyone get a tasting room. Yeah, I haven't played the game more than a few times, but I was thinking about the tasting room, and if you can sell a grape, take the VP turn order incentive, and perform a tour with the tasting room, that's 3 points per round starting on turn 2 or 3. Combine that with a visitor that gives VP or a single wine order and you've ended the game in 5-8 rounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:Is there a list of modern design principles? I find stuff formula baselines quite interesting (and I'm wondering how Splendor falls on it). Not formally, no. But breaking down the math to any RNG should reveal reasonable patterns, players should be given choices within the confines of their game, rules should be clearly enforceable given the information available to all players, optimal actions ingame should be identical to in-character actions, all starting positions should have an equal chance to win, and acceptable length is arguable but ultimately clear when extremely unacceptable. Splendor kind of hits most of this while Cosmic misses a great deal of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
quote:If I can win with what I have in hand, I'm not inviting anybody, and if I can't, I'm inviting only players who won't win the game without me if I invite them. When we play, a core mechanic is to say, effectively, "I'll invite you for free points buffet, if you invite me for free points buffet". And the other players get on that train because otherwise they'll lose to the people who co-operate. This isn't terribly hard or complicated: if a game lets you harm or benefit specific other players (and CE does that by letting you choose who to invite, and also which players you'll help when invited to), you should expect this sort of behavior to dominate. And for our group, it absolutely does - and if you played with us, with your little heuristic, you'd lose to all of the co-operators. But, as we've established in previous discussions about Coup or Resistance, you are playing with a group of people I completely don't understand - so your experience of Cosmic quite possibly has nothing to do with mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
I liked the cap. Made tiebreakers interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I've also seen it push 2 hours for the opposite reasons-- alliance-resistant players and an uncooperative RNG. This is usually it. If no one wants to win together, it's a slog through the trenches.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:Is there a list of modern design principles? I find stuff formula baselines quite interesting (and I'm wondering how Splendor falls on it). I'd have to assume people have codified it, but Bl covered it pretty well. A game doesn't have to follow all them, but when you see multiple things being violated it's a a strong sign that it's not a good game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Yeah, I haven't played the game more than a few times, but I was thinking about the tasting room, and if you can sell a grape, take the VP turn order incentive, and perform a tour with the tasting room, that's 3 points per round starting on turn 2 or 3. Combine that with a visitor that gives VP or a single wine order and you've ended the game in 5-8 rounds. Given that most of our games end in that sort of time frame anyway, I'm not convinced that the tasting room really needed nerfing. That being said, in the expanded boards from Tuscany competition for the tour spaces is MUCH less fierce, so I could see the tasting room being more valuable at that point because you're far less likely to be kicked off it. And you're likely to be able to spend the money you get on points two or three times per round.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
jmzero posted:When we play, a core mechanic is to say, effectively, "I'll invite you for free points buffet, if you invite me for free points buffet". And the other players get on that train because otherwise they'll lose to the people who co-operate. This isn't terribly hard or complicated: if a game lets you harm or benefit specific other players (and CE does that by letting you choose who to invite, and also which players you'll help when invited to), you should expect this sort of behavior to dominate. And for our group, it absolutely does - and if you played with us, with your little heuristic, you'd lose to all of the co-operators. I don't play enough CE to figure out why you wouldn't break up your alliance the moment the first cooperating alliance was firebombed into the stone age. I think around here (in the general area of Victoria Canada, not just my close group) we'd rather take our chances with the RNG than help another player. Why in god's name would you help someone else win?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Given that most of our games end in that sort of time frame anyway, I'm not convinced that the tasting room really needed nerfing. Yeah, a typical game of Viticulture on the basic board ends on turn 6 or 7 and we've only once had a no-wine strategy win. Tasting Room didn't need a nerf at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
I got the tasting room papa once and it felt blow out-ish. Like playing an aggro or "red deck wins" magic deck against something durdley. No one was actively trying to thwart me though. This was the Tuscany board, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
quote:I don't play enough CE to figure out why you wouldn't break up your alliance the moment the first cooperating alliance was firebombed into the stone age. Yeah, I don't think you're thinking of Cosmic Encounter. It's not like you can choose to attack Bob and Sam, and blow up all their factories or something. So if you've got people playing "let's each invite each other for free points" and other people playing "why would I help someone else win", the first group is going to win. jmzero fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Weird request, but does anyone have a link to SU&SD talking about playing board games (or Netrunner in particular) in more "mainstream" or less nerdy situations/environments? Either a blog post or video works. I know Quinns developed a Netrunner scene in London by hosting events at local pubs, something like that would be great, or even just one of their videos where they engage a game in a particularly welcoming way. I'm writing a brief piece on defying cultural stereotypes, and I think SU&SD, for all their faults, actually does a good job of addressing the idea that these nerd cliches need not apply to tabletop games. Also Fields of Arle sounds badass but I'm broke af
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Rumda posted:god loving drat it why the hell is heroes wanted on that list it is literally the worst game I've played these last few months. That was another one that had me go  . It has to be the least notable one on the list.Rutibex posted:Marvel vs Capcom 2 is my favourate fighting game I knew he wasn't a troll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:Is there a list of modern design principles? I find stuff formula baselines quite interesting (and I'm wondering how Splendor falls on it). There really isn't anything to my knowledge either, which is a real shame. "Game design" as a discipline is attaining more and more mainstream status, but the problem is that "game design" is seen in a lot of eyes as "game development", when "game design" and "game development" are about as related as philosophy and political science. There's a lot of literature out there on game development, but very little on game design, and actual critical looks at games are rare (The closest equivalent is a pair of British guys who think Cosmic Encounter is the greatest game ever). Richard Garfield has done a whole bunch of stuff on the subject, as I recall, and you'll find the odd video game designer out there who does presentations on the process (Soren Johnson). You can actually get a lot of good insight on the subject from Mark Rosewater, the (I believe still) Head Designer of Magic: The Gathering, as for over a decade now he's put out a weekly article on the subject of designing the game, and a ridiculously large number of the facets therein. While it's Magic specific in many ways, and you have to deal with preview weeks where the goal is to promote the upcoming stuff, it's nevertheless one of the closest things you'll find to a repository of essays on "pure" game design from someone who has literally made it their living for longer than some of the game's players have been alive. Past that? Here, actually. While the joke is that "fun" is a dirty word, the fact is that fun can come from elements of a game beyond the design (Aesthetics, situation, intoxicating substances, etc.) and the goal of game design is, in a nutshell, to create an experience people will derive fun from, and this subforum is one of the better discussion fora out there that can have a discussion on what makes a game good and not with that principle in mind. But, to create a discussion, what do people think are good design principles for games? Three things that come to mind: -Balanced variability, where a game can, on multiple plays, have varied states to promote new experiences and gameplay while still being on an equal footing for all players. -Minimum player downtime. This covers situations like analysis paralysis, player elimination, and larger games where other players are reduced to virtual or actual spectators for extended amounts of time. -Multiple, viable routes for victory, with the "right" amount of flexibility. I guess the best way to explain it would be an extended game of Rock Paper Scissors, where you can play Rock and you see the opponent pick Paper so you switch to Scissors so they switch to Rock and you have to balance the resources spent to switch with the resources spent on actual victory. These are, of course, extremely broad, but I think it covers a lot of otherwise "good" ideas. I'm not counting in things like components, packaging, player count, etc. as those don't make for good discussion, and I'm not counting rulebook presentation, as I think the consensus on that one is don't be stereotypical FFG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Yeah there's not really any unified school on game design. It's getting there but unfortunately it's mostly driven by video game devs, and they have a lot of baggage. The best of them are either trying to drag their colleagues up to the level of modern board game design first or are interested mostly in the non-'game' aspects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Is Sheriff of Notingham good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
I played it and I cant really tell. Does feel good to pull out a giant stack of contraband at the end of the game though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Is Sheriff of Notingham good? I think it is, though it's definitely not perfect. It's fun to argue and wheel and deal if everyone gets into it, but as an exercise of victory point optimization it's a little too luck dependent. If you want a light social game in the 45 minute area for 4-5 players you'll likely get your money's worth, and I'd rather play it than something like Small World or Ticket to Ride if I want lighter fare, but it's not super amazing. It is pretty interesting though, and at worse it's a $35 price for an hour of cock and sack jokes, and that might be worth it for some.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Is Sheriff of Notingham good? I found it really, really bland. Looks nice, and passing the bag around feels like you're doing more than you are, but in the end just comes down to how much you and your group feel like loving with each other. It's not so much a game as it is an excuse to say snide things and act like an arrogant prick...which would explain why it's so popular in my campus's gaming group. And yes, if you think hearing twenty variations of, "sack full of cocks" is funny, you might like this game. enigmahfc fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Is Sheriff of Notingham good? Depends. Do your friends hold grudges? Last time I played I managed to get 3 contraband past one of my friends and for the rest of the game, she wouldn't deal. Doesn't matter if she wins now, I have to lose. Sure, she'll let that bag of 5 "apples" go through for a couple coins bribe? My poo poo, gently caress no! You want that sack to pass by uninspected, I'll need all of your chickens? No, how about 15 coins? Doesn't matter that whatever is in the bag can't possibly equal that value. If you want it, you'll pay. So yeah, it came down to complete luck of the draw to get sets of legal goods, which is tough. Basically it comes down to you betting against the other players luck of the draw. Sure, you can bluff... But that's all there is to it. If they are just top decking, you have no other way to get information. Did you just draw 5 apples? That seems unlikely, I'll just check. Of course you did, you rear end in a top hat. Anyway, not a fan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Its always 5 apples.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Weird request, but does anyone have a link to SU&SD talking about playing board games (or Netrunner in particular) in more "mainstream" or less nerdy situations/environments? Either a blog post or video works. I know Quinns developed a Netrunner scene in London by hosting events at local pubs, something like that would be great, or even just one of their videos where they engage a game in a particularly welcoming way. I'm writing a brief piece on defying cultural stereotypes, and I think SU&SD, for all their faults, actually does a good job of addressing the idea that these nerd cliches need not apply to tabletop games. The closest I can think of off the top of my head is intro to boardgaming, but that's more about how the stereotypes about games aren't true any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Is Sheriff of Notingham good? The elevator pitch: Does your playgroup like Liar's Dice? If so, they will probably like this. I recently picked it up. We've had a good time with it. It is lightweight and silly, but not entirely empty calories. It's all about messing with your friends and trying to get away with lying, while trying to pay enough attention to what people have and are building towards to see if their actions make sense or if their claims are probable. It is very social as you have an excuse to do voices and tell stories as a means to cover your lies. Twilight Struggle, this game is not. At the same point, there are some weird things about the mechanics. The two discard thing where you can draw from the discard has lead to those piles being choked with contraband that no one wants, so after a few turns, people universally draw from the deck. The game does quickly become 'draw off the top and try to get sets' but there are rules in the game that mitigate the luck factor: you can keep what you like and discard before drawing, and you can keep whatever goods you want so long as you don't get inspected. Also, there is very little risk to the Sheriff to not check bags with only two goods in them, which is slightly limiting to merchants who draw poorly and want to try and be honest. But you don't have to take my word for it. If you want to know if you'll like it, watch Rodney's excellent Watch It Played video to learn the rules in detail. If you still think you might like it, you can check out either the Tabletop playthrough or the Dice Tower live stream playthrough. (Full disclosure: the Dice Tower guys were responsible for getting the game reprinted.) Neither is as good as one of Rodney's playthroughs, but they should give you the general idea of how it plays. And so far my group has not made a cock joke, so maybe we are just lame and/or cool depending? QnoisX posted:Do your friends hold grudges? That person sounds like a peach to play with in any game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Weird request, but does anyone have a link to SU&SD talking about playing board games (or Netrunner in particular) in more "mainstream" or less nerdy situations/environments? Either a blog post or video works. I know Quinns developed a Netrunner scene in London by hosting events at local pubs, something like that would be great, or even just one of their videos where they engage a game in a particularly welcoming way. I'm writing a brief piece on defying cultural stereotypes, and I think SU&SD, for all their faults, actually does a good job of addressing the idea that these nerd cliches need not apply to tabletop games. How about podcasts? He appears on quite a few of the Netrunner podcasts Here's one with him and Leigh: http://runlastclick.blogspot.com/2015/04/episode-30-how-we-build-it.html They talk a bit about one of his beginner tournaments and how he also reserved some tickets for women who wanted to participate. They talk a bit too about trying to make the scene more welcoming to women and new people. Here's the event http://www.eventbrite.com/e/quinns-netrunner-tournament-for-beginners-tickets-16215205115 He's also on a bunch more Run Last Click and Terminal7 podcasts. There's this piece he wrote for the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/14/netrunner-took-over-my-life-and-why-it-should-take-over-yours-too And this piece him and Leigh wrote about her trying to get comfortable with Netrunner and how it was opaque at first: http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/test/ Frankly, I have a lot of newfound respect for Quinns after binging on everything Netrunner for the last month or so. I enjoy the gently caress out of listening to those Run Last Click guys talk about Netrunner jank with him. It reminds me of the old SUSD days  Also, Netrunner is the poo poo Edit: also as the Twilight Struggle of this thread (#1 poster) I hereby declare this page 500 of this thread. Everyone take the day off tomorrow Edit: oh yeah, he's playing netrunner in a pub at the beginning of the doomtown reloaded review video fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Its always 5 apples. I'm always the Duke, and you're always the Ambassador.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:47
|
|
