|
Mister Sinewave posted:Talk about what you think and feel and why instead of trying to convince people of something or helping them see the matrix. I mean something like (and this is my statement, not an attempt to put words in your mouth) "I like looking at pretty girls, and a card game with pretty girls in it seems great to me because it combines two awesome things and even if art is bad it's still a good card game. The idea that I should feel bad about enjoying the art or liking a game regardless of the art because I'm somehow helping bad things happen doesn't make any sense to me" would be more relatable to people even if they don't agree. If you are trying to share what you're thinking or feeling but what you wrote doesn't make you feel like you have exposed some part of yourself, then you probably haven't written anything worth thinking about. Ok fair enough! I used to be a pretty hard core into feminist communities, but after a while a began to feel treated like my opinion was not valued simply because of my gender. I joined the community to get away from that sort of thing so I found it pretty aggravating. I was also disturbed by the level of irrational fanaticism that came out of the community, and petty name calling and doxxing to resolve disputes. Now I would like to be as far away from feminism as possible. I don't give two figs about anime titties, I don't want vicious feminist patriarchy theory anywhere near anything that I enjoy. You can say it is triggering for me. I'd prefer to just talk about board games. VVV  that a micro aggression, don't marginalize my experience!
Rutibex fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 12, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
good news, no one has ever stopped listening to your opinions because of your gender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Ok fair enough! I used to be a pretty hard core into feminist communities, but after a while a began to feel treated like my opinion was not valued simply because of my gender. I joined the community to get away from that sort of thing so I found it pretty aggravating. I was also disturbed by the level of irrational fanaticism that came out of the community, and petty name calling and doxxing to resolve disputes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
poo poo you even admit that you aren't arguing in good faith, and instead you are acting from a knee jerk reaction to protect "your hobby" from the barbarians at the gates. There aren't any barbarians out there, just people that want to share a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Ok fair enough! I used to be a pretty hard core into feminist communities, but after a while a began to feel treated like my opinion was not valued simply because of my gender. I joined the community to get away from that sort of thing so I found it pretty aggravating. I was also disturbed by the level of irrational fanaticism that came out of the community, and petty name calling and doxxing to resolve disputes. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Going from "feminist communities" to "doxxing to resolve disputes" makes it sound like you joined a toxic group on the internet and some trolls hosed with you so you decided you hate feminism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Puerto Rico is where we've had our most "time to do some arithmetic" moments. You could end the game, and you know you'd either come first or second by a slim margin. Do you end the game? In our group, what you do is you count and find out. Everyone knows it's not really fun, but we all allow it. Ending the game and finding that you lost by a point is less fun. Prolonging the game instead of winning is also less fun. It's just a not great situation. What can solve it is having proper score trackers so you can always figure out everyone's score without having to spend 2 or 3 minutes doing math. This kind of analysis is actually one of the reasons I like three player Puerto Rico. We play with open VP and it's pretty easy to figure out what you can force both of your opponents to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:Nah, that's Chaos in the Old World. You beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
I'm very slowly being convinced that 3 players is the optimal number for any board game that's not head to head. At least all the games I tend to play are balanced around 3 and adding another player swings the game to the point where the leader profits off the weakest link who may as well not be playing because they're doing so poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
I'm confused by what you mean by "not head to head." Do you mean full co-op games?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Puerto Rico is where we've had our most "time to do some arithmetic" moments. One of our most frustrating ones was actually Alien Frontiers. Quite often in the end game you reach a point where you have a bunch of stuff you can do, with lots of techs and powers and ways you could change your dice. So there's a good chance there's a way to win the game on your turn, but it might take a few minutes to plan out. You can't plan it out before your turn, so everyone just gets to sit there and watch you consider. It feels especially frustrating here because it's otherwise a pretty quick game. Another casual feeling game that ends up with this problem is Steampunk Rally; you get this explosion of options as the game continues, and quite often there's a very direct and real "if I think this through another couple minutes I win" situation on the last turn which makes it really hard to just throw up your hands and do something. In many games, AP is mostly just wasting time between decisions that can't really be distinguished; if another minute of thinking means you win right now, it feels justified and hard to discourage. If we include terrible games in the consideration, the worst has to be Rummikub. Stupid game, and Jebus it ends in some bad consideration stalls. Mister Sinewave posted:Rutibex, the reason people are treating you like a cartoon of a human being is because of how you're speaking and acting. You aren't communicating your ideas in any sort of way that makes sense or resonates with people. I agree with you, but I'll also say the "other side" hasn't been particularly well reasoned on this point (excepting small doses in a couple good posts). I'd love someone to do up a semi-effort-post on gender issues and gaming - really make the case. I would, but I honestly don't have a clear case in my head (though I agree with many of the conclusions on sort of a gut feel). Similarly, I was disappointed by the discussion about racism and archipelego - not because I don't agree it's there, but because nobody did even a passable articulation of exactly what the problem is - they just yelled at anyone who disagreed (which is why I didn't say anything at the time, I don't feel like getting piled on). On this issue, personally, I have much more issues with something like Tanto Cuore than I do with Exceed (though I'd never consider buying either). I think TC promotes a "women are machines with no internal life, but if you press the right buttons they dispense sex" sort of gross-fantasy-worldview that is desperately awful, prevalent, and very directly warps people and their ability to basically relate to each other. That's not to say that out-of-place oversexualized women as in Exceed (or MtG or comics or, well, a good percentage of general media) isn't bad - it's divisive, exclusive, and reductive and dumb - and as a general problem with media it's a big issue for society and it does hurt people. But taken as an individual product/choice, I have to say Exceed (and its very common ilk) are an order of magnitude less bad than something like TC. The fact that TC wears its awfulness on its sleeve and lacks other redeeming qualities (ie. people who buy it are asking for it) is no sort of defense. Edit: whoops, I screwed up my quoting before somehow - sorry Guy/Sinewave/cenotaph/jimbo. I have no idea what happened there... jmzero fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
^^^ I didn't say that! ^^^Some Numbers posted:I'm confused by what you mean by "not head to head." Do you mean full co-op games? I think he means "not 2 player head-to-head", but rather multiplayer free-for-all. I agree that 3 and 4 player games for competitive strategy is my favorite number, just for time purposes. Any particular examples of games where a 4th player provides a weak link? I tend to play a lot of games where there isn't direct attacking (Dominion obv, RftG, Galaxy Trucker, etc) so maybe that helps avoid a "weakest link" scenario?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I'm confused by what you mean by "not head to head." Do you mean full co-op games? Head to head as in strictly two-player games like Chess. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that 3 players is optimal for any game that's about the collection or distribution of finite resources. Looking over the scores of games I've played I find that among equally skilled players, 3 results in a close spread while 4 or more deviates wildly. Guy A. Person posted:^^^ I didn't say that! ^^^ Off the top of my head there's El Grande where the point distribution punishes 3rd place harshly. But there's so little room on the board that someone is going to end up having nothing while another player gets everything. It results in really wide gaps in scoring. Then there's 7 Wonders where wars and trading only affect your neighbor. 3 player games means everyone is involved with everyone else and that's the kind of interaction that keeps the game engaging. al-azad fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Here is the response I got when I posted what I previously posted on their Facebook page: My original post: VERY VERY disappointed in the art chosen for EXCEED. Do you realize that nearly half the attendees at Strategicon in Los Angeles (with over 1800 attendees) are women? I wish I never would have bought this crap, and I'll certainly be doing much more thorough investigations of any future Level99 Games games. I trusted you and you let me down. Lust for male money overcame you I guess, but I know a number of men will be turned off from the art as well. Jennifer Schlickbernd Their response: quote:Hey Jennifer, thanks for sharing your feelings on this with me. When we work with a license, the licensor tells us which characters and artworks are going to go into the final product. We didn't design these characters or have creative control on how they would be portrayed. I sure hope they can do more of their own stuff and I also hope they tell the art company that they got this feedback.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
I didn't say what I was quoted in either. I quite like three players for many games but some of them don't work well, especially if one weak player can throw the game out of balance. 1830 comes to mind as fitting both categories. Chicago express would probably be pretty lame with three.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
al-azad posted:The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that 3 players is optimal for any game that's about the collection or distribution of finite resources. Looking over the scores of games I've played I find that among equally skilled players, 3 results in a close spread while 4 or more deviates wildly. For me it kind of varies with the game - there's lots I like best at 3, but others that I think really go the other way. Like, I think Keyflower is much better at 4. At 3, it seems like your optimal moves are often about screwing each other, and the game ends up revolving around who gets screwed the most, and nobody gets to do what they want. At 4, it feels like the game tips, and now it's more effective to push yourself forward than to try to keep 3 other people in check (of course you still do counter-play sometimes, but it doesn't feel like as much of a focus, which makes it more enjoyable for me). Edit: and somehow I even quoted the right person! I think! jmzero fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Does anybody else seek more optimal play at the expense of speed the fewer players are in a game? I find that in a two-player game I am more likely to play slowly and more tolerant of my opponent doing so. Also, in 2-player I'd be totally fine with keeping notes, or open points in Dominion (probably Scythe too). But in multiplayer I'd rather people just make an estimate and move on rather than trying to come to the optimal solutions. This may be because in multiplayer I'm keeping more people waiting, and additionally the math is usually more complex. At the other extreme, my pace is completely glacial in solo games, when the only person I'm slowing down is me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Then there's 7 Wonders where wars and trading only affect your neighbor. 3 player games means everyone is involved with everyone else and that's the kind of interaction that keeps the game engaging. That's actually a really interesting one. I do like big games of 7 wonders because it involves everyone and plays fairly quick, but at a certain point I feel like I'm not really have as much control. Someone at the other side of the table from me wins the game because the people around me were stronger players.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
That's one of the reasons I think 7 Wonders Duel is a better game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Or 7 Wonders using the team variant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
It's three months to Spiel. Are we planning a Goonmeet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
SirFelixCat posted:Sorry about that. You weren't kidding about the rulebooks though. Small City's I can only hope gets some clarifications and Clinic (2nd ed. at least) still has awkward, awkward wording of things. Ironically, the iconography made sense the most, despite it seeming to be a big complaint. I mean, this isn't Race for the Galaxy levels of arcane scrawls (and I've always had to reference icons in any Ignacy Trzewiczek game). There's just a really bad set of rules. I can't really be too angry about this; but I would definitely warn any purchasers that you'll be wanting to find whatever online resources you can to learn Small City and Clinic. I got the expansions for both in today. Between the alternate map boards and new city zones, Small City has a Godzilla expansion that looks to totally undermine a lot of strategy in the game but in a way that I can't help but laugh at (basically you take a deep strategy game and then roll dice to see how many spaces a big Godzilla meeple ruins with radiation). Clinic doesn't have any particular expansion as outlandish as that, but its expansion come in cardboard dossiers and one of them had the worst idea ever to use pill capsules as resource components that you're supposed to magically stop from rolling everywhere. Though admittedly I haven't gotten any of the more obscure 18XX stuff from deepthought, I think Clinic has to be the most niche gaming I've acquired. I don't even want to say it's worth the hassle, but most of that is that the drat thing sold out so fast. At least Viard is making a new game, Tramways, and preorders are up for that. The kickstarter video kind of feels perfect for how Clinic and Small City left me feeling (strangely happy and confused). Well, if Small City never restocks, maybe see if you can eventually nab Antiquity from Splotter Spellen if that restocks 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Nah, you know what. gently caress these niche, expensive, mosty out of print games. Just go, like, buy Keyflower and/or Agricola for tile-laying worker placement. Hell, Ora & Labora is fantastic and even gives you the lackluster component design experience  But I mean, I hope everyone's taking all this stuff I'm saying with the addendum that "these are the games I'm buying after a lot of easier-to-get classics; this is deep down the loving rabbit hole." Like, I'd recommend Power Grid before diving into an 18XX that will take a year to get shipped to you if you get my drift.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
On a side note, what's happened to Bloose? He hasn't posted in here (this thread, not the board, obviously) in months, and there's been more than few posts that would've riled him right up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
The End posted:On a side note, what's happened to Bloose? He hasn't posted in here (this thread, not the board, obviously) in months, and there's been more than few posts that would've riled him right up. Most of the stupid poo poo of recent has been said by about one person that the thread has been doing a pretty good job of responding to already. Other points have been stuff that either Bloose or others have already made good points about before. Though I hear if you believe to like Cosmic Encounter enough, the spirit of Broken Loose will visit you and curse you with his horrible, horrible luck forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Should I be backing the Yokohama Kickstarter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
rchandra posted:Does anybody else seek more optimal play at the expense of speed the fewer players are in a game? I find that in a two-player game I am more likely to play slowly and more tolerant of my opponent doing so. Also, in 2-player I'd be totally fine with keeping notes, or open points in Dominion (probably Scythe too). But in multiplayer I'd rather people just make an estimate and move on rather than trying to come to the optimal solutions. This may be because in multiplayer I'm keeping more people waiting, and additionally the math is usually more complex. At the other extreme, my pace is completely glacial in solo games, when the only person I'm slowing down is me. I assume you mean for your own individual play. I have two modes: winning and impression. If I'm trying to win the game, I'll slow down to AP levels. I'm not in this mode often. Everyone needs to know the game well and I need to know the other players well on a personal level to gauge how frustrated they will be if I take a long time. If I'm trying to make a good impression, either for myself or the game, I'll play fairly quickly. I don't care about winning that much, as I'm either trying to convince people to play with me, both in general and a specific game. I'm just trying to let them have fun with the game. I rarely win games when I introduce them to new crowds, especially if there is a degree of player interaction. If I get people excited about a game, they want to play it again which will allow me to be more focused on winning. I will note that I generally play fairly quickly, as I think on my opponent's turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Shadow225 posted:I assume you mean for your own individual play. I have two modes: winning and impression. If I'm trying to win the game, I'll slow down to AP levels. I'm not in this mode often. Everyone needs to know the game well and I need to know the other players well on a personal level to gauge how frustrated they will be if I take a long time. If I'm trying to make a good impression, either for myself or the game, I'll play fairly quickly. I don't care about winning that much, as I'm either trying to convince people to play with me, both in general and a specific game. I'm just trying to let them have fun with the game. I rarely win games when I introduce them to new crowds, especially if there is a degree of player interaction. If I get people excited about a game, they want to play it again which will allow me to be more focused on winning. I will note that I generally play fairly quickly, as I think on my opponent's turn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5vnpOp0U_g Play fast. It throws 'em off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
The End posted:On a side note, what's happened to Bloose? He hasn't posted in here (this thread, not the board, obviously) in months, and there's been more than few posts that would've riled him right up. I was wondering the same myself. I miss his commentary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I'm assuming he took a break for the sake of his blood pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Trynant posted:Nah, you know what. gently caress these niche, expensive, mosty out of print games. Just go, like, buy Keyflower and/or Agricola for tile-laying worker placement. Hell, Ora & Labora is fantastic and even gives you the lackluster component design experience For me, I've played all of those other ones, and I own them and am looking for something different. With All Aboard Games taking up the 18xx slack, I can get 18xx games fairly quickly now (there might be another alternative as well, I can't remember). Also Power Grid is simply not 18xx at least not vanilla Power Grid. The stock market in 18xx is what makes it what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Head to head as in strictly two-player games like Chess. Dungeon Lords is *significantly* better with 4 than 3. Gimnbo posted:Should I be backing the Yokohama Kickstarter? From what I hear, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Potentially a bit niche for the deals section, but... For those who have Prime, Alexa, and play Lord of the Rings LCG, you can use Alexa to order any expansion over $20 and get $10 off. I just did it and got an expansion for $10. Yay for weird deals on Prime Day! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Broken Loose has been busy with the CEO fighting game tourney stuff here in Orlando
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Shadow225 posted:I assume you mean for your own individual play. Both for my speed, and the speed I want from my opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Broken Loose has been busy with the CEO fighting game tourney stuff here in Orlando I hope it goes well for him!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:Should I be backing the Yokohama Kickstarter? I need to know! The Orleans Deluxe KS was great, even if the game was actually not that great!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
I hate to link to anything Tom Vasel, but there's been a draught of info on Via Nebula. The game looks great, but Jesus Christ Tom Vasel is a completely useless reviewer. And what the gently caress is "exploition" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnRwyMLRSxg
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Lorini posted:For me, I've played all of those other ones, and I own them and am looking for something different. With All Aboard Games taking up the 18xx slack, I can get 18xx games fairly quickly now (there might be another alternative as well, I can't remember). Also Power Grid is simply not 18xx at least not vanilla Power Grid. The stock market in 18xx is what makes it what it is. Aside from the first paragraph of my post being utter flippancy, the point I was hoping to get at was that "hey this niche-game rant is coming from a someone who already has Keyflower, Agricola, other classic euros; and I can't recommend this tiny print-run game over a lot of mainstream stuff." I hope that my ranting is obviously for some fairly niche stuff, but I guess it's worth a reality check now and again. In this particular case, I'm really liking Clinic and Small City and hope Town Center proves good, but I wouldn't be shocked if more people (even in this thread?) would enjoy Suburbia as a city builder or Keyflower as a worker-placement tile-layer. Then again I did mention over and over that the Viard games are brain-melters and hard to get so I guess that's implicitly stated. EDIT: And to clarify, Lorini, I'm totally in your boat, and yeah 18XX's stock market tile-laying is very unique to them. And now to look at All Aboard Games.... Trynant fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Kiranamos posted:I need to know! The Orleans Deluxe KS was great, even if the game was actually not that great! I'd like to know if there's a reason you feel this one. Orleans is one of my favorite games released last year, and I've played it several times with different groups and it worked in all those settings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 03:49
|
|
