- Posts: 573
- Thank you received: 685
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
Co-Opportunistic Game Questions
SuperflyTNT wrote: Part of the theme is pressure - you can’t alienate a player because their power to FYSU will be a deterrent, like so many adversarial games. Sort of a tread lightly in an armed society kind of thing.
It’s maddening to balance a game like this
Balance should be the absolute last thing you worry about.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- hotseatgames
- Away
- D12
- Posts: 7162
- Thank you received: 6270
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
hotseatgames wrote: This kickstarter by the mad genius Christophe Boelinger reminded me of your game. Obviously there are major differences, but there are some connections, I think. www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonioooh/...?ref=category_newest
I didn't see that, but now that I have, no. There's almost no connections at all. That's a resource game, this isn't about resources at all; it's about four people standing two-each on the ends of a see-saw and trying to walk towards the center without tipping it so they all fall.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
Gary Sax wrote: A dice version of archipelago?
I don't remember ever playing Archiapelago.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
Totally redesigning it. It’s going to be a dicier game where you’re moving pawns up the tracks individually, trying to be the best in each category.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- hotseatgames
- Away
- D12
- Posts: 7162
- Thank you received: 6270
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Now, there are ways that semi-coop games can work:
- Instead of the "game winning" it simply ends the game early and leads to some sort winner still being determined. You could even disincentivise someone tanking the game by penalizing them in the scoring for doing so (should you be able to determine they were truly the cause). This is more controlling the pace, I guess.
- Hidden scoring/objectives. If I feel like I could win, I'm not going to tank the game.
- Have a group that handle the meta-game of this appropriately, IE. makes sure no one "feels" like they are losing. Or using it as leverage. If I'm playing this game there's no doubt I will be leveraging the "tank the game" mechanic to my advantage: "Better give me 20 unobtanium or everyone will lose." Unfortunately I've yet to bne in a group that handles this well.
- Making "tanking the game" something that one player literally can't do alone. If you can get another player to tank the game with you, that tells me the leader(s) did a poor job at trying to maintain the balance. I would consider playing this type of game, that sounds kinda fun.
- Or, as others have said, have the chance that throwing the game gives the win to someone else. If I'm losing very badly, I may still take that chance at king making, but if I'm close I would think twice before doing that.
It's good to see the Geoff understands the problems here, because quite frankly I don't want to be tempted by any of his semi-coop designs...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
That “if you tank the game, the game wins, everyone ties for King if the Losers, but the tanker is the ultimate Loser.”
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
A: The game is broken because X
B: You are right, here's a small, painless fix for X.
A: I don't want to fix X. Don't care about how fun it is. The game is broken and all the people enjoying it are playing it wrong.
I'll be honest, I don't understand you guys. You gain absolutely nothing from this. So what is even the point? Is it being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn? Is it some game ideology thing? I'm not trying to pick up a fight or anuything, I truly don't get it. I can understand it from Clearclaw and other people who get off at the thought of playing superior games for superior people but you are not like that, so I'm baffled.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
- Open goal cards which people try to achieve before others.
- 2 secret goals for each player
- Player powers to screw with others
- Players choose a track and roll on it. Highest roll (modified by Power Cards, random) gets first go and a bonus (like Race For the Galaxy, kind of) goes first, second goes next, any others don’t get to use.
- Everything costs money OR gains money. So, placing a Population on the board costs 2$ but removing one gains 2$ and you can remove anyone’s, which permanently dies.
More shit but it’s intuitive. If I had a higher price point I’d design shields with hidden points and money...but I don’t.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Erik Twice wrote: I'll be honest, I don't understand you guys. You gain absolutely nothing from this. So what is even the point? Is it being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn? Is it some game ideology thing? I'm not trying to pick up a fight or anuything, I truly don't get it. I can understand it from Clearclaw and other people who get off at the thought of playing superior games for superior people but you are not like that, so I'm baffled.
You seem to be saying "letting the game win" is equal to flipping the table. Before this thread, I've never even equated the two, it was just another way to end the game. Why even have a "game wins" condition if you expect nobody to ever go for it? What's the point of it even being a thing? Sure, I guess it forces people to cooperate, which would probably piss me off even more if I'm losing badly and you expect me to help you win. I guess it could be a catch-up mechanic (those in the lead have to spend more actions/resources keeping the game from winning) but that only works if those in the rear are willing to let the game win (which is, apparently, a dick move). So I'm really struggling to find the appeal here.
This feels like we're making a statement about the "magic circle" our different groups work within. You appear to have a group that says we will always try to keep the game from winning above your own interests, even if everyone has ganged up on you all game or you are hopelessly last. And there's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean that the game can only be played this way. I would say most groups also have an unwritten rule about literally not flipping the table when they're having a bad game. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that point, and that is a social construct that all reasonable gamers adhere to. But my group has zero problems tanking the game to prevent someone from winning. It's simply another mechanism provided by the game, and we'll use it if it makes sense. I see this as being competitive, not a "superior" jerk. My group also has an unwritten rule about king-making: that if Player C's action will decide whether player A or B wins, they pick the option that gets themselves the most points (unless A or B did something to deserve ire within the game). This helps eliminate hard feelings in these situations.
And here's the thing: I'm not saying you are wrong for playing and enjoying semi-coop games. More power to ya. I also generally dislike social deduction games, but that doesn't mean they are bad games, either. I still think semi-coops are the worst, but that's just my opinion. Agree to disagree. I personally have found the discussion here interesting, as I've not really been exposed to this line of thinking.
And don't worry, it's not like you'll ever need to play one of these games with me, because I recognize these games aren't fun for me, nor will they be fun for those playing with me.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
For the same reason there's a "game wins" condition in Pandemic or why you can go bankrupt in Age of Steam: It's what drives the gameplay. It makes you cooperate, while your victory conditions makes you take selfish actions. This balance between the two is interesting and fun and in the case of RoR it creates an amazing historical narrative.cdennett wrote: Why even have a "game wins" condition if you expect nobody to ever go for it? What's the point of it even being a thing? Sure, I guess it forces people to cooperate, which would probably piss me off even more if I'm losing badly and you expect me to help you win.
The thing is that, if you treat the game as another player, not letting it game win is always in your best interest. If the game wins you are last. If someone wins you are in second-to-last place. The game winning is always the worst situation for you.You appear to have a group that says we will always try to keep the game from winning above your own interests, even if everyone has ganged up on you all game or you are hopelessly last.
Thematically speaking, in RoR you are a Roman senator. If Hannibal takes Rome you and your whole family are killed and your whole civilization is destroyed. That's a far worse fate than being a powerful rich guy who can no longuer declare himself dictator!
What is not in your best interest, however, is shouldering the costs of stopping the game from winning. So most of the decisions in the genre are focused on trying to be the one reaping the benefits of cooperation while not shouldering the costs. That's very compelling gameplay, I think.
The thing is, if you play these games any other way they'll break and you'll end up hating them! That's my issue deep down.And there's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean that the game can only be played this way.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
Also, in this particular game I’m adding a rule that irrespective of score, if the game ends prematurely on your turn, you are the sole loser. It’s worth noting that not only is that only
slightly to avoid this whole “conundrum of the semi-coop” but because in our testing I intentionally pigeonholed another player into two utterly shitty options, one of which was impossible for her to know: either tank the game and BE SOLE LOSER, or take one of two actions which would help me complete one of my secret goals.
Makes the game more sinister and that was the one thing that really made me want to continue down this particular path.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.