Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 192358 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Season 2 - wild speculation and deepest desires.

January 2, 2016, 4:03 am
$
0
0

by vruchten

[o]instead of just one disease mutating malicious, there could be two, three or four diseases mutating wildly into four different directions at the same time.[/o]
Also small labels to name permanent stations etc..
Or the ascension of Nergal or something lovecraftian..
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Fastest top 20 ever? (EDIT) ...I meant top 2

January 2, 2016, 4:04 am
$
0
0

by Aweberman

After yesterday's performance, I've been very curious to see how today would turn out.

Votes: 4303 (+149)
Average: 8.71 (-2)
BGG: 8.214 (±0)

Twilight Struggle: 8.201 (+2) -- 13 points behind (-2)


If you've been watching this play out with me, you'll recognize right off that 149 is a huge number of votes for one day, one more even than we saw on December 14, the day after the Terra Mystica fans unleashed their 1s -- and the day that Rob Daviau took to Twitter to talk about.

There was an understandably commensurate hit to the average rating from what I'm certain was a slew of low ratings yesterday ... though the average didn't drop as much as it had from the Terra Mystica debacle. And -- most encouragingly -- it had absolutely no effect on the BGG rating.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: BGG Ranking oddity

January 2, 2016, 4:06 am
$
0
0

by a_traveler

Aweberman wrote:

I believe the subcategory ratings only look at votes by users who have assigned it to one of the subcategories, a significantly-more involved process that is used by a much-smaller portion of the BGG membership. In other words, the pool of votes that is being used to determine a subcategory rating is much smaller than the pool of votes being used to determine the overall rating.

I don't think we know for certain one way or another, but this is almost certainly not correct: the number of people voting for which subcategory a game falls in is several orders of magnitude lower than the number of voters for most games, making the math not work out.

Instead, the leading hypothesis is that the number of "5.5" dummy votes used to determine the geek rating (~750 per game for games in the main ranking) varies per subdomain (from as low as ~100 per game for party games, to ~500 per game for strategic games).
(Numbers derived from looking at a sampling of 'non-controversial' games; for example Concordia has 5431 votes with an average rating of 7.86. with 750 dummy votes, its geek rating comes to 7.574, extremely close to its real geek rating of 7.575 (5431×7.86+750×5.5)÷(5431+750); in the strategy subdomain its geekrating is 7.649, and the calculated geek rating with 500 votes is 7.661, close enough for demonstration purposes.)

Then on top of that, it's expected that the secret shill busting algorithm (which is run once a month (?), 'discarding' outlier votes (hence the big jump in geek rating for this game on Jan 1st; all the hate ratings from the last month were discarded then)) is extended for the subdomains to also weigh votes less from people who've rated very few other games in the same subdomain. (So if you've rated only one party game, then your opinion of that game is not a good indicator of how it compares to other party games.)
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: BGG Ranking oddity

January 2, 2016, 4:11 am
$
0
0

by Aweberman

a_traveler wrote:

it's expected that the secret shill busting algorithm (which is run once a month (?), 'discarding' outlier votes (hence the big jump in geek rating for this game on Jan 1st; all the hate ratings from the last month were discarded then))

I've known about the first-of-the-month adjustment for some time. This is the first time I've seen it suggested that it's related to the bad votes ... and that makes a lot of sense to me.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: What is the objective of the campaign?

January 2, 2016, 4:41 am
$
0
0

by Steinman

The objective at the end is definitely a spoiler.

There's nothing official in the rulebook about what constitutes a "won" campaign, but if you win each month you could absolutely say that you've won. Also if you win December but lost a month or two on the way I'd say you've won.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.

January 2, 2016, 6:01 am
$
0
0

by JadedGamer

JoeNothin wrote:

The game also has a very bad meta-effect on a game group. You cannot play this game with different players than the ones you started with; it’s like watching a movie from the middle, or having your significant other watch half of a show without you.

So... no roleplaying game campaigns in your future - or past - then? Since that is basically what Pandemic: Legacy equates to? Did we really lose a whole generation of potential RPG players so that they now see a campaign game as a negative?
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: What if you're not great at Pandemic?

January 2, 2016, 6:24 am
$
0
0

by clivej

Miller4h9 wrote:

Is general ineptitude going to give us a negative Legacy experience? I certainly would be ashamed if we had to open Box 8....


You'll be fine! (Well... almost certainly.)

Even before you get to Box 8, if you do find the early months a challenge, you'll get more upgrades and more funding as you go into the trickier later months.

And, as clydeii has pointed out, Matt Leacock is on record as having deliberately balanced Pandemic Legacy to be a little easier than Pandemic, if that's what the players need.

Looking around the forums, I've yet to see anybody say the game was unenjoyably difficult. Some people found it too easy. A very few decided it wasn't interesting enough. Some are down on Pandemic Legacy without even trying it. A great number have stumbled here and there over the rules. But it's not too hard.

Some people appear to have opened Box 8 and still hugely enjoyed themselves. Overall, the polls suggest few people lose more than about half a dozen games in the year.

If you'd said "we're incapable of reading a few pages of clear and well-written English then doing exactly what they say", I'd be worried. If you're not great at Pandemic, that's quite OK.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Season 2 - wild speculation and deepest desires.

January 2, 2016, 6:26 am
$
0
0

by XDarkAngelX

Branching plot.
[o]Multiple unique mutated diseases instead of just one. Wildest desire: all four get unique.[/o]
Extra board(s), like the animal board from State of Emergency or sequencing from In the Lab, that come into play in a later month. (Imagine opening the box and seeing those bigger component boxes you will get to open later... *squee*)
[o]No zombie plot this time. Once is great, but need a different gimmick next time.[/o]
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Two or "four" players?

January 2, 2016, 6:34 am
$
0
0

by Bernaar

I recommend playing with two character each as well. More variety, challenge and interaction that way. I wouldn't worry about the difficulty: we experienced the game as easy the first few months and the games balances itself if it seems to be too difficult. Have fun!
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.

January 2, 2016, 6:51 am
$
0
0

by joelpetersen

JadedGamer wrote:

Did we really lose a whole generation of potential RPG players so that they now see a campaign game as a negative?


Apparently not, since PanLegacy ended up as #1 on BGG ;)
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.

January 2, 2016, 6:54 am
$
0
0

by Si Fei

The fact that you have to play with the same people shouldn't be viewed as a negative because the game is not designed to be otherwise.



Unless you think that this is a bad design decision in itself, which could be a perfectly valid argument.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Spoilers! Poll; What characters did you use in your game?

January 2, 2016, 6:54 am
$
0
0

by dugman

I played once through the entire campaign and we used Researcher and Scientist plus a rotating character for the whole thing. The Researcher and Scientist had a relationship that let the Researcher pass any card from anywhere on the board to the Scientist which made curing the diseases extremely easy, especially with the positive mutations. We did very well except lost in December (so close and yet so far).

I'm also in the middle of a second playthrough with a different gaming group. Currently we are in May and have used Medic, Dispatcher and Generalist in every month. We were undefeated through April but lost the first game in May (but we did manage to add two new positive mutations this month and will have two funded events next time so hopefully we'll win attempt two. :) ) Kind of interesting to play with a totally different combination of characters.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Pandemic Legacy No 1? I have a question.

January 2, 2016, 7:03 am
$
0
0

by dugman

Rapscallion_69 wrote:

I actually despised the original. I gave it a 1 here on the geek. It just seemed a broken game to me as basically two decks need to align "just right" or you lose, period. No amount of strategizing or discussion would change the fact the game becomes unwinnable and that happened far too often for my liking. My core group LOVES the game and they boasted a 66% win rate. Not with me in the group. I played it a good 5-6 times with them and several more on the iPad and every single time we/I lost. I finally said "Ya know what? There are other games I can play that I will enjoy much more than this!" Now Winning is NOT everything to me. I, for the most part, play games with people who are much more skilled at gaming than I am and I often lose. I have PLENTY of games I LOVE but rarely win at. This does not bother me. But when the game itself is so geared towards failure through a poorly thought out mechanic, it just becomes un-fun to me.
...


Sorry to say it but if the rest of your group wins 2/3 of the time and you lose every time it's not because "the decks didn't align properly". You're simply making strategic mistakes when you play. I'm not saying you need to like the game but claiming that the game is only beatable due to the luck of how the decks are dealt is patently false. Frankly it's not even all that hard to win compared to some other cooperative games.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.

January 2, 2016, 7:28 am
$
0
0

by johnnyspys

ras2124 wrote:

I am just going to say, you have a lot to say for a guy that owns and enjoys Agricola. Probably a good choice to use 2007 as your example year.

Just let Pandemic have its time; it is well deserved. It will fall out of 1st soon enough, but will stay in the top for sure. This isn't BGG getting too big or cult of the new (though there is some of that to be sure); it is simply people enjoying a fun game the same way they enjoyed the mass appeal of Agricola back when it was released.

Really good games are coming out every year, many of which are as good or better than those that have come before, and based on the ones you own, you agree, whether you want to admit it or not.

Sorry but I have a German copy of Agricola that came out almost a year before the U.S. release. It took awhile for it to get to number one on BGG.
↧

Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Relationships questions *minor spoilers*

January 2, 2016, 7:44 am
$
0
0

by Red_5ccg

Two questions about relationships:

1. Relationships are applied when a character is created, which means the 4 characters created for my Jan games can never have relationships between each other, only newly created characters, correct?

2. Specific question about the rival relationship. My wife and I have now won Feb-Apr pretty easily using the Scientist and Quarentine Specialist with the rival relationship. Granted we've had some really lucky infection deck draws making it rather easy to eradicate at least 1 disease and coda hasn't been coming up much at all, but Rival by itself has felt like an even more powerful, 2-way Researcher. Specific question about it: if the Quarentine Specialist discards a card (say, for being at hand limit), the Scientist then discards 2 cards to grab that card. Now, the Scientist has just discarded a card, so the QS can discard 2 cards to grab one of those? And, with enough extra cards in hand, the Scientist could potentially discard 2 more to grab one of those? We've found this kind of card trading without worrying about being anywhere near each other really powerful and have started to doubt that it was intended to work that way. We basically just have to keep things mostly under control (not too hard with the Quarentine Specialist as one of the characters) while drawing cards and tossing them back and forth.

Thanks!
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Post your May rules questions here (spoilers)

January 2, 2016, 7:53 am
$
0
0

by rossum

woodnoggin wrote:

Mechaniac wrote:

Late May/After May concerning upgrades
[o]I have a question after 1st May game. You get the permanent road blocks and road block tokens.
a) How many road blocks tokens are there (12) available. What happens if you run out. Take 1 from another city maybe like Quarantine markers.
[/o]


We had the same question (a) and decided that if you ran out you couldn't move them from elsewhere...
[o]They're already built after all. Seems like a lot of effort to take down a roadblock and move it elsewhere. That's not supported by any rules we could find, however.[/o]


We had the same question (a) and decided that we could make as many as we want/need. After all, the Quarantine token rule explicitly states that those tokens are mix-limited: if you run out to move a Quarantine token from one space to another. There's no similar qualifier about these tokens.

I'd love to hear any other thoughts and interpretations.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Reviews:: Re: A step down from Pandemic - avoid like the plague.

January 2, 2016, 7:58 am
$
0
0

by ras2124

It took Agricola one year since its original release in Europe, but as you mention it was pretty much unavailable in the US. As soon as it was released here, it took less than a month for it finally make it to number 1.

However, Agricola also had nothing to build upon. Uwe was mostly unknown at that point, only having made Bohnanza so it was pretty much European hype that led to its immediate success here.

This is very different from P:L since people LOVE Pandemic already. I mentioned several things before, but it is consistently number 1 on the Dice Tower's people choice by a landslide. And people also love Legacy.

So yes, I think Agricola, with no reputation to build on, and no American release for almost a year taking roughly a year after its European release is not that different from Pandemic:Legacy, with everything that came before it, taking only 4 months.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Relationships questions *minor spoilers*

January 2, 2016, 8:04 am
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Relationships questions *minor spoilers*

January 2, 2016, 8:08 am
$
0
0

by clivej

It sounds like you're playing relationships, and especially the Rivals relationship correctly.

The "with enough extra cards in hand" is the kicker, of course. We've done the trick of flying a rival somewhere to get a card out of their hand so their rival can discard two to take it, so the original player can discard two to take one of them. We did it just once, in direst need. Yes, it gets the right card in the right place at the right time, but usually, to set the ball rolling you've had to spend an action doing something bogus just to waste a card, then the rivals have to make a net discard of two more cards.

Yes, there are times when "spend an action and discard three cards to take a card from a specific other player's hand" is worthwhile, but not enough that it feels overpowered.

I get the impression the two-player (two-character) game is easier, and increasing the power of some of the relationships is part of that. On the other hand, you may find yourself suffering from a lack of diversity as new challenges arise. You may even find you have too many eggs in one basket, if either your Medic or your Quarantine Specialist is ever in the wrong place at the wrong time...
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Post your May rules questions here (spoilers)

January 2, 2016, 8:16 am
$
0
0

by clivej

rossum wrote:

We had the same question (a) and decided that we could make as many as we want/need. After all, the Quarantine token rule explicitly states that those tokens are mix-limited: if you run out to move a Quarantine token from one space to another. There's no similar qualifier about these tokens.

I'd love to hear any other thoughts and interpretations.

I disagree - once they're built, they're built. If you run out, that's tough.

That has to be the default, and the rules say no different. (By way of contrast, for various other things the rules do say different.)

Also:
[o]The rules explicitly state that you don't need to put this-game-only roadblock tokens on top of permanent roadblocks (this is different from the rules for starting research stations and military bases). There would be no reason to specify this unless roadblock tokens were intended to be a limited resource.[/o]
↧
Viewing all 192358 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>