I can gladly say I have no interest in most those games and/or already own those games. However, the 7 Wonders, King of Tokyo, Tokaido, and Dominion offers are worth it if you have the scratch to drop.
Lewis & Clark would have done well to incorporate hidden information for the race section of the game. Either that or have a catch up mechanic to at least make the ending less of a no contest slog.
Lewis & Clark would have done well to incorporate hidden information for the race section of the game. Either that or have a catch up mechanic to at least make the ending less of a no contest slog.
There's no such thing as a catch-up mechanism. ;^)
Lords of Waterdeep is what cemented in my mind the point that catch-up mechanisms are illusory. The game either stays tight and competitive or it snowballs to the winning players benefit. I happen to be a fan of open ended systems where the game does not constrain performing well but allows a vastly superior player to grind opposition into dust.
A score of 43 to 11 in Dominion doesn't SEEM like a big differential but you beat the ever living shit out that person!
Lewis & Clark would have done well to incorporate hidden information for the race section of the game. Either that or have a catch up mechanic to at least make the ending less of a no contest slog.
There's no such thing as a catch-up mechanism. ;^)
You live for this shit.
If a game had a proper catch-up mechanism, one that would allow a player who royally fucked up his first few turns to make a massive comeback, then I would just say it's a shitty game. But there is plenty of opportunity for a medium-sized hail mary to add a bit of suspense to the game. Think about drawing new route cards on your last turn of Ticket to Ride. It's even less likely to work if you have a shitty network of trains, but there's a non-insignificant chance you can score 10-20 surprise points and edge out the leader.
What would we call a mechanism for intentional longshot, shoot the moon-type strategies? I'm thinking intentional starvation in Stone Age. I bring this up because Lewis & Clark has exactly this. There is a rather tempting strategy to take huge setbacks in the early game and balance it out with some ridiculously successful expeditions later. Catching up to, and potentially passing, the leader.
Lewis & Clark would have done well to incorporate hidden information for the race section of the game. Either that or have a catch up mechanic to at least make the ending less of a no contest slog.
There's no such thing as a catch-up mechanism. ;^)
You live for this shit.
If a game had a proper catch-up mechanism, one that would allow a player who royally fucked up his first few turns to make a massive comeback, then I would just say it's a shitty game. But there is plenty of opportunity for a medium-sized hail mary to add a bit of suspense to the game. Think about drawing new route cards on your last turn of Ticket to Ride. It's even less likely to work if you have a shitty network of trains, but there's a non-insignificant chance you can score 10-20 surprise points and edge out the leader.
What would we call a mechanism for intentional longshot, shoot the moon-type strategies? I'm thinking intentional starvation in Stone Age. I bring this up because Lewis & Clark has exactly this. There is a rather tempting strategy to take huge setbacks in the early game and balance it out with some ridiculously successful expeditions later. Catching up to, and potentially passing, the leader.
If it's possible for someone to catch up like that, then they weren't as far behind as you thought they were. Your positional heuristic was incorrect.
Who is in first place, A or B? The ladder is not a catch-up mechanism. It's no different than a blue shell in Mario Kart. If you think one person "caught up" your positional heuristic was just flawed.
The chutes and ladders diagram is a bit more nuanced - A and B both had an equal chance at landing on the ladder. B did not receive any special consideration because they're "losing" - the only reason we're on the edges of our seats is because B hasn't lost the opportunity that A already has.
A better example of a catch-up mechanism in chutes in ladders is forcing the winner to land on the end by exact count, keeping the race artificially close. Any mechanism that prevents a player from being logically eliminated from a game could reasonably be called a "catch-up mechanism". The leader still wants to get to the finish line as fast as possible, but will have trouble crossing it. The person in last place can still hope that luck favors them and they will win the game. Consider Killer Bunnies, a game where playing well just gets you more tickets for the final raffle that determines the winner.
I'm immediately going to contradict myself and say almost no eurogames actually have catch-up mechanisms as described above. Most games that push back on the leader become about mitigating that push, and skilled play takes that into account. Power Grid, Agricola, and Dominion are about understanding turn order, managing increasing demands for food, and dealing with a deck full of VP cards respectively. Once you give players enough control over the gravity that's pulling them back, it no longer feels like a catch-up mechanism.
(Most euros solve logical elimination by using hidden victory points - you're still out of the game, you just don't know it, yet.)
I've always agreed that most cited exampled of a catch-up mechanic are just bad heuristics run amok. The chutes and ladders diagram really adds nothing that we didn't already know.
This is going to devolve in a semantic argument between "I caught up!" and "no you didn't, I knew you had a 25% chance of winning this whole time!" Congrats.
This is going to devolve in a semantic argument between "I caught up!" and "no you didn't, I knew you had a 25% chance of winning this whole time!" Congrats.
Exactly. Their wasn't a mechanism to catch them up. You just thought they were further behind than they actually were. You need to take the ladder into account when it comes to your positional heuristic.
In Mario Kart 3rd place is often the real first place because blue shell.
If I'm buying 7 Wonders, should I get all the expansions or just 'Leaders' then add more if required?
Cities is fun. It adds a nice "Surprise bitches, pay the bank or take negative points" element to the game. It adds up to 8 players and the teams option as well.
If I'm buying 7 Wonders, should I get all the expansions or just 'Leaders' then add more if required?
Cities is fun. It adds a nice "Surprise bitches, pay the bank or take negative points" element to the game. It adds up to 8 players and the teams option as well.
I hate playing 7 Wonders with more than five players because any more than that and the game becomes much more luck based and the winner is usually decided by how competent/incompetent the players to your right and left are. Also, with 4-5 players, which I consider the game's "sweet spot," there's the chance that if you pass on a card, it might still come back around the table to you. With 7 players especially, once you pass on a card, you will never see it again. Additionally, you have very little impact on the people playing across the table from you. As a result, the competence/incompetence of other players plays a major role in how well or poorly you do as well as how well or how poorly another player does.
the competence/incompetence of other players plays a major role in how well or poorly you do as well as how well or how poorly another player does.
Almost all games break down to that in the end. Puerto Rico is completely ruined if one player is weaker than the rest, and the game comes down to their semi-random actions.
the competence/incompetence of other players plays a major role in how well or poorly you do as well as how well or how poorly another player does.
Almost all games break down to that in the end. Puerto Rico is completely ruined if one player is weaker than the rest, and the game comes down to their semi-random actions.
The only multiplayer games where this is not true are pure races.
If I'm buying 7 Wonders, should I get all the expansions or just 'Leaders' then add more if required?
Cities is fun. It adds a nice "Surprise bitches, pay the bank or take negative points" element to the game. It adds up to 8 players and the teams option as well.
So basically get all the expansions :^) ?
Yes. Really looking forward to the next one. Should be this month or next month, hopefully.
I'm sad that I won't get Tokaido KS Super Samurai edition until February 2015. I wanted to bring it to South.
I hate playing 7 Wonders with more than five players because any more than that and the game becomes much more luck based and the winner is usually decided by how competent/incompetent the players to your right and left are. Also, with 4-5 players, which I consider the game's "sweet spot," there's the chance that if you pass on a card, it might still come back around the table to you. With 7 players especially, once you pass on a card, you will never see it again. Additionally, you have very little impact on the people playing across the table from you. As a result, the competence/incompetence of other players plays a major role in how well or poorly you do as well as how well or how poorly another player does.
I can understand this sentiment, but my games consist of pro players. Even with the people learning the game, they are quick learners. I really don't care about the chance of getting cards you once had. That's the fun of the challenge with making the most with the cards you're dealt. It's like with Leaders to where you need to figure out your game plan. It's just another variable to add with your wonder to figure out what strategy you're going for.
I really want to try 8 player teams. I just want to play. I secretly hope and pray that they will release it on iOS, even though that seems unlikely.
the competence/incompetence of other players plays a major role in how well or poorly you do as well as how well or how poorly another player does.
Almost all games break down to that in the end. Puerto Rico is completely ruined if one player is weaker than the rest, and the game comes down to their semi-random actions.
What would anyone who's played seven wonders consistently consider the optimal life span for the core game before adding expansions to keep it fresh?
There is a lot of replay value in the base game alone. I would give it a good 15+ play times before it may feel stale. Your mileage may vary based on the variety of your gaming group. Even the Wonders pack, which adds like 3 or 4 Wonders, adds replay to the game. If you have to pick an expansion, Leaders is awesome, but Babel looks like it is going to be AWESOME! I bought it (Babel) tonight, and looked through the rules. It's two expansions in one box and definitely is not baby mode. I am looking forward to trying it out.
Also, see above post by Ro. I am very much looking forward to the iPad port.
Comments
Lords of Waterdeep is what cemented in my mind the point that catch-up mechanisms are illusory. The game either stays tight and competitive or it snowballs to the winning players benefit. I happen to be a fan of open ended systems where the game does not constrain performing well but allows a vastly superior player to grind opposition into dust.
A score of 43 to 11 in Dominion doesn't SEEM like a big differential but you beat the ever living shit out that person!
If a game had a proper catch-up mechanism, one that would allow a player who royally fucked up his first few turns to make a massive comeback, then I would just say it's a shitty game. But there is plenty of opportunity for a medium-sized hail mary to add a bit of suspense to the game. Think about drawing new route cards on your last turn of Ticket to Ride. It's even less likely to work if you have a shitty network of trains, but there's a non-insignificant chance you can score 10-20 surprise points and edge out the leader.
What would we call a mechanism for intentional longshot, shoot the moon-type strategies? I'm thinking intentional starvation in Stone Age. I bring this up because Lewis & Clark has exactly this. There is a rather tempting strategy to take huge setbacks in the early game and balance it out with some ridiculously successful expeditions later. Catching up to, and potentially passing, the leader.
Who is in first place, A or B? The ladder is not a catch-up mechanism. It's no different than a blue shell in Mario Kart. If you think one person "caught up" your positional heuristic was just flawed.
A better example of a catch-up mechanism in chutes in ladders is forcing the winner to land on the end by exact count, keeping the race artificially close. Any mechanism that prevents a player from being logically eliminated from a game could reasonably be called a "catch-up mechanism". The leader still wants to get to the finish line as fast as possible, but will have trouble crossing it. The person in last place can still hope that luck favors them and they will win the game. Consider Killer Bunnies, a game where playing well just gets you more tickets for the final raffle that determines the winner.
I'm immediately going to contradict myself and say almost no eurogames actually have catch-up mechanisms as described above. Most games that push back on the leader become about mitigating that push, and skilled play takes that into account. Power Grid, Agricola, and Dominion are about understanding turn order, managing increasing demands for food, and dealing with a deck full of VP cards respectively. Once you give players enough control over the gravity that's pulling them back, it no longer feels like a catch-up mechanism.
(Most euros solve logical elimination by using hidden victory points - you're still out of the game, you just don't know it, yet.)
This is going to devolve in a semantic argument between "I caught up!" and "no you didn't, I knew you had a 25% chance of winning this whole time!" Congrats.
In Mario Kart 3rd place is often the real first place because blue shell.
I'm sad that I won't get Tokaido KS Super Samurai edition until February 2015. I wanted to bring it to South. I can understand this sentiment, but my games consist of pro players. Even with the people learning the game, they are quick learners. I really don't care about the chance of getting cards you once had. That's the fun of the challenge with making the most with the cards you're dealt. It's like with Leaders to where you need to figure out your game plan. It's just another variable to add with your wonder to figure out what strategy you're going for.
I really want to try 8 player teams. I just want to play. I secretly hope and pray that they will release it on iOS, even though that seems unlikely.
At least 7 Wonders has one round where you pass right. Realistically, I can only hand my left-hand opponent the game 66% of the time.
I bought it (Babel) tonight, and looked through the rules. It's two expansions in one box and definitely is not baby mode. I am looking forward to trying it out.
Also, see above post by Ro. I am very much looking forward to the iPad port.