|
sector_corrector posted:It's a huge piece of poo poo on the PC. Depending on what you're trying to do sometime you have to right click on the card to get to the interaction menu, sometimes you can only drag it, sometimes you just click and it works. Constructs that should automatically generate resources need to be clicked on for some obscure reason. The whole thing is flashy and ugly, with a shitload of unnecessary animations. Dominion.NET is free, and better by miles. The PC version is just an iOS port, considering they're porting a game made for a 4 inch touchscreen to a 24-inch monitor with a mouse. It works flawlessly on iOS. The PC dev team shut down or something happened so they ended up just moving the iOS port over while they write an "actual" PC version. Constructs that do something are clicked on only if it gives you the option to do something. Like you aren't forced to draw a card with The All Seeing Eye, and you might want to wait to draw depending on what you do the rest of your turn. Some constructs effects are forced to activate, so they happen at the start of the turn without your interaction. Card points are worth a lot in some strategies, like Mechana Constructs are 1:1 price:honor, so they give you the greatest return of any single acquisition. Things like Lifebound Heroes are worth more at the start because they generate honor more often when played (and aren't often worth much in the deck), so when the pool is running low, it's often way more valuable to pick up something like a Mechana Construct over a Lifebound Hero, regardless of your deck synergy. Also, since Lifebound tends to deplete the honor pool quicker, if you're playing from behind, you can delay the end of game by just filling your deck up with higher value cards and going for 0 honor turns. Also,  
PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Oct 7, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
MorphineMike posted:Is there a difference between the worst of board gamers and someone who goes through life acting like one ironically? Or, better put, "Doing The Thing ironically is still Doing The Thing, Charlie Brown." Huxley posted:Some people want to exert their will and have their superior play be rewarded, and they feel insulted by a game whose mechanics don't feed that desire. I think it actually hits closer to "I want to feel like my input matters" in a game instead of "I want to be rewarded for superior play." I mean, the two are nearly synonymous, but the former is much more sympathetic to the point where it's the primary complaint against things like quarterbacking. Even scrubs have that complaint. Nearly everybody wants to feel like their input matters, except for the absolute worst of the hobby who just want to have their attention span held by moving objects for as long as possible (the "beer and pretzels" people).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:It's a huge piece of poo poo on the PC. Depending on what you're trying to do sometime you have to right click on the card to get to the interaction menu, sometimes you can only drag it, sometimes you just click and it works. Constructs that should automatically generate resources need to be clicked on for some obscure reason. The whole thing is flashy and ugly, with a shitload of unnecessary animations. Dominion.NET is free, and better by miles. Who the gently caress calls pc programs apps? We're all talking about mobile apps, and it's pretty much flawless on that platform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Woman just don't like board games on average. There are currently 1463 male chess grandmasters in the world, and only 33 female. Chess is not a sexualized game at all, so it can't be misogyny that's keeping woman from playing it. Given that any board game is going to have a 98% male audience, it stands to reason that it should be marketed in ways that appeal to men. I started to type a reasoned reply, then realized that there's no possible way you aren't trolling. So in summary: This is dumb. You are dumb. Caedar fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Caedar posted:I started to type a reasoned reply, then realized that there's no possible way you aren't trolling. So in summary: This is dumb. You are dumb. If chess isn't mysogynistic then why does the game end when the KING is captured? Also, why does the queen start boxed in by kings and bishops who hold her back from having any effect until they choose to let her out? Checkmate, egalitarians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Who the gently caress calls pc programs apps? We're all talking about mobile apps, and it's pretty much flawless on that platform. Interesting point. Counter point, go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:the gaming triad or w/e you call it really undermines how complex people are imho. like it's a marketing tool that people try to apply sociologically or psychologically because everyone likes saying "I'm a Johnny mixed with a Spike" and it just doesn't work. There's several more categories in it, at least (weird names like Melvin and Vorthos). Lots of people don't seem to know that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Who the gently caress calls pc programs apps? Microsoft. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:There's several more categories in it, at least (weird names like Melvin and Vorthos). Lots of people don't seem to know that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Who the gently caress calls pc programs apps? We're all talking about mobile apps, and it's pretty much flawless on that platform. I first heard "apps" referring to applications on PC when phones looked like this. That wasn't a new term then either. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:I first heard "apps" referring to applications on PC when phones looked like this. That wasn't a new term then either. vernacular changes dude
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:There's several more categories in it, at least (weird names like Melvin and Vorthos). Lots of people don't seem to know that. Those two are probably more prevalent in board gaming than Magic given how little flavor (and whatever Melvin is for) there is in building vaguely viable decks nowadays
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Oh by the way if anyone tries to pull Rutibex's chess grandmaster poo poo ask them if professional chefs being 95% male all the way up to michelin star level means women just don't like cooking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Oh by the way if anyone tries to pull Rutibex's chess grandmaster poo poo ask them if professional chefs being 95% male all the way up to michelin star level means women just don't like cooking. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Oh by the way if anyone tries to pull Rutibex's chess grandmaster poo poo ask them if professional chefs being 95% male all the way up to michelin star level means women just don't like cooking. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Oh by the way if anyone tries to pull Rutibex's chess grandmaster poo poo ask them if professional chefs being 95% male all the way up to michelin star level means women just don't like cooking. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Oh by the way if anyone tries to pull Rutibex's chess grandmaster poo poo ask them if professional chefs being 95% male all the way up to michelin star level means women just don't like cooking. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Oh by the way if anyone tries to pull Rutibex's chess grandmaster poo poo ask them if professional chefs being 95% male all the way up to michelin star level means women just don't like cooking. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:I first heard "apps" referring to applications on PC when phones looked like this. That wasn't a new term then either. The only time I referred to applications as apps was when I spelled it "appz" and they took me a week to download.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Played Dominion tonight, drafting the Kingdom with my opponent as we like to do (each draw 3 randomizer cards, pick one, reveal them simultaneously, discard the other 2 and draw 3 more). Second pick I picked Bandit Camp. Third pick I found Goons, which I picked instantly because I remember hearing "Play Goons, win game" from this thread a few times. Goons + Bandit Camp =   
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:Played Dominion tonight, drafting the Kingdom with my opponent as we like to do (each draw 3 randomizer cards, pick one, reveal them simultaneously, discard the other 2 and draw 3 more). Second pick I picked Bandit Camp. Third pick I found Goons, which I picked instantly because I remember hearing "Play Goons, win game" from this thread a few times. You know there's already a gooncamp smilie, right? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Also played King of Tokyo. Review: It is a game you play with people. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Also played King of Tokyo. Review: It is a game you play with people. You can kill a
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
King of New York is significantly better
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Bottom Liner, tell me about Mottainai please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
It's action selection with multi-use cards to the extreme. There are five card types, of different tasks/materials/helpers/sales and a unique "work" (souvenir) you can build for points (every card is all 5 of these things). Every turn you select an action, then follow your opponents actions from their last turn, then complete yours. Your action is played at the top of your board, to the left are helpers that boost the number of actions for cards of the same type, to the bottom are your resources used to craft the works, and to the right are "sales" that are worth extra points at the end of the game, if you have corresponding works built to cover them (think they increase the value of the completed works). You move cards around with the various actions, like taking them from the floor (which is made up of your opponents previously used tasks) and adding them to your helpers or craft bench. You have to consider what action you're doing and how much it might help them vs you, but also the fact that you are possibly giving them a card they need for resources or as a powerful work to complete. If you can't or don't want to do a particular action, you can always draw a card (praying) for your next turn, which can be really powerful when you have a boosted action that lets you draw 3-4 cards each time you do that (you choose 5 for your hand at the start of your turn and return the rest to the deck). Every card in the deck is unique as well, and completed works have powerful effects like making your opponents unable to follow your actions of certain types, etc. One card even ends the game when you complete it, if you choose, and it's not even hard to complete. The game has a really interesting flow of figuring out where you need to be placing cards now to complete works and moving them around later for maximum points. You can build works on the left of your board to boost helpers (extra actions and double extra actions) or on the right (for more points at the end with boosted sales). It's crazy how difficult it seems to learn at first vs how easy it actually is to play. The game can end in 10-15 minutes once the players all understand the flow. Turn's really boil down to a simple structure: discard your last action to the floor, pick your action for this turn, follow your opponents action, do your action, but with all the possibilities it can seem daunting to new players. 
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:There's several more categories in it, at least (weird names like Melvin and Vorthos). Lots of people don't seem to know that. No, they just ignore it because it's dumb. Timmy/Johnny/Spike is a basic way to look at what people get from playing your game. Then people were like "but what about me I like flavor!" and so some guy came up with Vorthos to describe that person. And then someone was like "but but I like elegant mechanics and want to be a special snowflake!" and you have Melvin. Thing is, those are describing something completely different. Vorthos and Melvin and any others aren't about how you engage with the gameplay. It's about how you engage with the game in general. "I like flavor text that draws me into the world" tells me nothing about how you actually play. It's important to think of, of course, but it tells me nothing when I'm trying to figure out who my mechanics are meant for. Additionally, it's a different origin. T/J/S are marketing psychographics. Traditional demographics are "males 13-25" or "girls 6-12" or "college students with no life skills and little time". You can't rely on those for "who is my product made for?". Hence, a division based on "how do I approach playing this game?", because when you're designing a 700-1000 cards years all at once years before the public will ever see them, you need some way to understand your market and figure out who you're targeting. Vorthos and Melvin aren't for marketing. They're self-identification by players, not market identification by the creators. No one at Wizards of the Coast in Magic R&D sits down in a meeting and says "Alright, we need to have some cards for Vorthos in here so he doesn't feel left out when he cracks open a pack" because that's a) not their job, that's why they have a whole Creative department, and b) not in any sort of opposition to their gameplay psychographics of T/J/S. Hell, Melvin and Vorthos are often brought up as some sort of spectrum like enjoying rules and enjoying flavor are mutually exclusive which is dumb and wrong in almost every way. Now, the design might conflict between these extremes: something might sacrifice mechanical elegance for flavor and vice versa. However, people do not. In fact, the entire point of T/J/S is that they are three separate personas that, at times, conflict with one another. Big and flashy can conflict with competitiveness, for example. A flavor based T/J/S equivalent would be something like humor/drama/storytelling (make up your own drat names) because when creating your flavor for a game you may need to choose and balance between elements like that in order to nail down who you're targeting. For example, Dungeon Lords is all about humor, jokes, and making you smile at how ridiculous everything is. It's not going to have art or flavor text that describes the horrible working conditions of the imps or the bodycount your Witches have racked up. By the same token, Twilight Imperium would never dare include those sorts of jokes. Both are very flavorful games, but they aim their flavor at a particular target. In short, people took some useful game marketing shorthand and turned it into some sort of adolescent identifier for themselves, bastardized it, and wonder why they get weird looks when they call themselves Timmy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
How does it compare with Glory to Rome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Never said it was a lovely game, just that Ascension cuts to the luck more directly, which can be better and more fun. Especially for playgroups with large skill differentials. Good game design. I'm pretty sure the randomness will help the new players win some of the games and not feel bad when they lose with only 5% of the points of the winner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Good game design. I'm pretty sure the randomness will help the new players win some of the games and not feel bad when they lose with only 5% of the points of the winner. Pretty sure that your scenario would be the same as a competitive MtG player busting out a top tier combo deck and walloping someone with a store bought starter deck. That's not a good way to judge the game for either side. Very few games work well with someone that has a lot of experience vs. a new player. Good Ascension players are often racing towards the broken combos and getting their first or denying makes for an interesting game. Huxley posted:Never said it was a lovely game, just that Ascension cuts to the luck more directly, which can be better and more fun. Especially for playgroups with large skill differentials. I don't agree with this either though, someone that knows the game and cards will be able to deal with bad RNG and still demolish a new player. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Pretty sure that your scenario would be the same as a competitive MtG player busting out a top tier combo deck and walloping someone with a store bought starter deck. Yes, but I'm not arguing that Magic does something to negate skill differences, like people are doing with Ascension. Bottom Liner posted:I don't agree with this either though, someone that knows the game and cards will be able to deal with bad RNG and still demolish a new player.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Oh right, we're on the same page then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
So what games, if any, do you feel do a good job of mitigating skill differences and creating an even playing field?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Pretty sure that your scenario would be the same as a competitive MtG player busting out a top tier combo deck and walloping someone with a store bought starter deck. That's not a good way to judge the game for either side. Very few games work well with someone that has a lot of experience vs. a new player. Good Ascension players are often racing towards the broken combos and getting their first or denying makes for an interesting game. Apples and Oranges. One player will have a deck that costs literally over 10 times as much as the other. In Ascension, both players WOULD have the same resources to test their skills...if not for the terrible market row. Bobfly posted:So what games, if any, do you feel do a good job of mitigating skill differences and creating an even playing field? I feel like those are mutually exclusive to being a good competitive game. If a game has flattened the skill curve out so much that a novice and an expert have roughly the same chances of winning, then I would conclude that the strategy in the game is paper thin and that my choices do not actively affect the outcome. Even games with high dependence on luck like Blackjack and Texas Hold'Em have enough strategy that an expert is going win significantly more than a beginner. Maybe a game that is played independent of other players like...Yahtzee? Shadow225 fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:So what games, if any, do you feel do a good job of mitigating skill differences and creating an even playing field? Chutes and Ladders
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:So what games, if any, do you feel do a good job of mitigating skill differences and creating an even playing field? Pictomania. It uses drawing skill though, which is just a non-gaming skill I guess. Also any game with a bunch of politics, like Risk or whatever. Good players should be shot down and conspired against by any sensible newbie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
So I tried Netrunner for the first time the other day. Mixed feelings. I got thrown right into it with a specialized deck from a high skill player. He sat next to me coaching me a bit throughout. A lot of the cards in the deck were very dependent on being used toward comboing with certain other ones, which was hard for me to know. The coach had to point me towards ist. It wasn not FUN in any regular sense. I am impressed by the asymmetrical gameplay. How I felt like I was poking at the chinks of a big wall formed by the corporation. But I feel like the enjoyment of the game itself really isnt there when playing like this. The enjoyment would come from knowing the cards, theorycrafting decks. Testing them against opponents and then changing them. The act of the play itself would be more fun as a culimination of a long meta going on with me, the game and other players. And just like with magic, I really don't want to invest so much time to the meta of a single game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
lordsummerisle posted:I got thrown right into it with a specialized deck from a high skill player. To be frank, this was never going to work. I'd definitely ask to try it again with a simple deck you can mess around with, so you can separate out whether you enjoy the game or not. I play Netrunner a bit with my girlfriend and we've only got the core box; there's a decent game there involving bluffing, hand management etc without requiring you to enjoy deck construction. That said, now we've played it a fair bit, we're both looking at the expansions to start getting into the larger game. The Supreme Court fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:To be frank, this was never going to work. I'd definitely ask to try it again with a simple deck you can mess around with, so you can separate out whether you enjoy the game or not. Yeah. Same player introduced me to LotR LCG by having us play against one of the toughest scenarios from the expansions with 4 decks tailor made to beat said scenario. To enjoy that kind of game you need to get your sense of experimentation piqued.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
lordsummerisle posted:Yeah. Same player introduced me to LotR LCG by having us play against one of the toughest scenarios from the expansions with 4 decks tailor made to beat said scenario. To enjoy that kind of game you need to get your sense of experimentation piqued. Wow. I get this impulse, but it's such a terrible way to introduce new players to games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:56
|
|