Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 191814 articles
Browse latest View live

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by mfl134

Steinman wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

Steinman wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

I do agree that the ratings would be higher if not for the unneeded hate/spite votes. I'd bet some of the negative ratings are real though.


If we assume ratings 2-10 are legitimate and they are normally distributed P:L should have around 34 1's. Removing those 186 votes on 1 from the calculation would change its average from ~8.67 to ~8.98 - a quite significant change.

Doing the same for TS (harder to extrapolate 1's since the other ratings aren't as straight as for P:L) would give it about 100 1's, which would change its average from ~8.33 to ~8.37.


Aren't you going to make an adjusted for all the people that dislike coops or. Dislike pandemic that never bothered playing pandemic legacy because they found out they probably wouldn't like it before playing?


If any numbers were available that would be fun. Would like to have numbers on what all the players who don't like long wargames who haven't played Twilight Struggle would have voted on it too.


as I said, "don't like" with no experience isn't quite the same as "don't like" with experience. "Don't like" with no experience isn't irrelevant though.

I'd say that many/most people who don't like wargames found out while playing Twilight Struggle. Because if you were about to get into war games, it seems like a pretty logical first choice.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by mfl134

getdafunkout wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).


sorry, there was a poll that was supporting this. I haven't digged into the numbers.

I'll happily revise to:

It is the "thought" that some (not all) people who rated pandemic lower aren't play or rating PL.

I never meant all, sorry if the words gave that impression.


I can't speak to how many Pandemic-haters play Pandemic Legacy, but I can confirm some do. In my own play group, one player described himself as 'hating Pandemic' (I think he rates below 5) but he was interested in playing Pandemic Legacy because of the legacy aspect. He has rated Pandemic Legacy very highly. Additional info, he is not huge into coops and plays mostly heavy-medium Euros.

One example, but I think a fair number of others will have a similar backstory. It seems like the draw of the game will be the Pandemic element for some, the Legacy element for others, and the combination of those elements for still more gamers. Clearly those same aspects may turn some people off, but clearly the combination seems to be an appealing for many.


I agree lots of people will have such a backstory. But even if 50% of the people who don't like coops/pandemic have that back story, the other 50% are also being included and that group as a whole not voting is probably favorable for PL's ratings.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by mfl134

Granite26 wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

Granite26 wrote:

For the record, I think Michael's right, I just disagree with his estimation of the size of the affect.


oh, I have no idea how big the size is. I think it could be very big or very small. Sorry if I implied (or directly said it was big). I still think it is bigger than all other games up at the top except for maybe caverna. but they might all be relatively small. My hypothesis is that it isn't insignificant, but that is nothing more than hypothesis. :)


Define top?

Edit-One of the problems I have here is that it being unique in the top is evidence of the lack of effect (otherwise lots of games at the top would be there because they were getting a boost from the same effect.) Saying that this game has a unique advantage compared to other games at the top makes me ask why other games with the same advantage are not dominating the rankings.


over 8.00/10.00 un-adjusted rating and in the top 25? (just throwing something out there)

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by clydeiii

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).
Sure, there are a few. But the game has nearly 5000 votes at this point. If you rate P a 4 and then play PL, you're crazy. It's incredibly unlikely you'll enjoy yourself.

All we really know is that someone already took a poll on this topic and the evidence was pretty substantial that only P lovers are rating PL.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by clydeiii

mfl134 wrote:

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).


sorry, there was a poll that was supporting this. I haven't digged into the numbers.

I'll happily revise to:

It is the "thought" that some (not all) people who rated pandemic lower aren't play or rating PL.

I never meant all, sorry if the words gave that impression.
Anyone remember where that poll was? I went looking but can't find it. There's too many threads about PL at this point.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by mfl134

clydeiii wrote:

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).
Sure, there are a few. But the game has nearly 5000 votes at this point. If you rate P a 4 and then play PL, you're crazy. It's incredibly unlikely you'll enjoy yourself.


i don't know that that is true. I'd expect you less likely to enjoy it than if you actually enjoyed Pandemic though.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by clydeiii

239 out of the 255 respondents had played P before PL, and of those, only 53 rated it below a 7.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by spaff_

You could argue that people taking the poll suffer from a similar bias: People who like Pandemic will be more likely to frequent places where such polls are posted and take polls about Pandemic...

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: DEUTSCH / German: Zentraler Thread Deutsche Errata (Spoilerfrei!)

$
0
0

by TheCze

Okay muss jetzt nochmal was nachhaken, wir haben jetzt den Oktober abgeschlossen, glaub aber theoretisch könnte der Spoiler auch erst später, von daher vorsicht beim angucken ;)
[o]Wir haben gerade die Aufgabenkarte P7-3V erhalten. Dort heißt es "Impft 6 erloschene Städte, Seid ihr erfolgreich, zerreißt diese Aufgabe am Ende des Spiels". Am Ende des gesamten Spiels? Oder am Ende der Partie? (wie es auf den anderen Karten heißt).[/o]

Resolutions? Let's start with more drinking please :)

$
0
0

by Jonathan Warren



At this time of year lots of people make New Year resolutions. You know, the things we say we're determined to do this year, but have quite forgotten about by the first week of February. I want to quit smoking - well, that's easy for me, as I never started in the first place. I want to quit the heavy drinking - well, I don't drink to excess either. I want to lose weight - well, my weight is fairly consistent no matter what I seem to eat and I am 'average' build, whatever 'average' means (my wife says that I'm just 'lucky').

I don't really make resolutions; I have never seen the point in making them. However, there are some goals that I really would like to accomplish at this early stage in the year (just remember that February is just around the corner, so not long before I've forgotten, heh?).

1. I'd like to cull my game collection somewhat. I have far too many unplayed games sitting in various boxes. I started this well, selling games on a Facebook board gaming group. My wife is happy... she has been eyeing up a new 3-piece suite for some time and the proceeds WILL go to that. How come, my money is always spent on what the wife wants? Anyway, we do need a new 3-piece suite, so I'm moderately happy to go along with that.

2. The second goal is for Fenland Gamers. We have seen our little group grow in the six months it's been running, from two of us to almost twenty members (some of whom we're yet to meet, so I'm not sure if I can claim that just yet). Our main monthly game evening gets an average of seven of us, which I think is an amazing growth, considering that when we started, Matt and I thought we'd have a really hard time finding gamers in the area. I want the group to grow a little more during 2016, hitting at least ten on average at our main meet.

3. Another goal for Fenland Gamers is to have a better website. Our website is functional and does what we need it to do - that is, organise our gaming evenings - but it is run on a free domain and server provider. That is fine for now because domains and server space from a more reliable provider cost money; we run Fenland Gamers as a free group and I wouldn't want to charge, as some groups in the surrounding area do. I am privileged that the venue we game at is provided at no cost to us.

Whether or not these goals get reached is the subject of another post later in the year (perhaps February? ;)), but for now, I'm happy to start with those.

Moving on, our first unofficial session of 2016 (the official main group session is next Wednesday) was an impromptu session that took place on Wednesday evening 6 January. Matt, Darren and I met to get a game of Viticulture Essential Edition played. I have been determined to meet with my friends and get them up-to-speed, ready for the Fenland Gamers Drinking Games session to be held later in the year (that will comprise Vinhos, Brew Crafters, Glen More and Viticulture); this might have the added bonus of attracting more members... perhaps for the wrong reasons though!).



I have mentioned already that I expect that once the extended board from Tuscany: Expand the World of Viticulture is added into the game, Viticulture might well surpass the excellent Brew Crafters to become my favourite game.



After a slow start - I had to nip home to pick up the metal coins that I had forgotten to pack - the game got going. It all integrates well to deliver a tight, tension filled, thematic worker-placement Euro game.



Although we played a rule incorrectly (a game changing rule, regarding the bonus action spaces), this was still a very good introduction for the others. Darren won the game, eeking out small point bonuses here and there, with Matt and I concentrating on fulfilling contracts. The incorrect rule would have changed the entire flow of the game (and made it a better game in my opinion), but we really enjoyed the tension that the game provided.



I mentioned that I do have the Tuscany expansion for the game. Whether we play with the 'Legacy' aspect to this or not is yet to be decided. As the Essential Edition already contains almost all of Tier 1 of the Tuscany expansion anyway, there might be no point in playing the game in that way and instead just jump into the expansion that we find the most appealing.

It got the seal of approval from Darren and Matt; in fact, Darren has already placed it on his wishlist.



Planned for this year at Fenland Gamers are a couple of team games. The first being Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective. I want to run this one evening for a team of sleuths during winter. The plan is to have two teams and each play one of two cases (case number 1 from the game and a fan-made case). Once this is done, those that want to carry on and explore the other cases will form a single team and then we'll go from there and work through the game cases.

At the session, Darren brought up for discussion the other team game. Of course, that game is Pandemic Legacy: Season 1. We have now put together a team for this and it is now just a matter of getting that team together at the same time to get the game underway. We're really looking forward to this.

Finally, Matt brought along a recent Kickstarter delivery that had piqued my interest, Trickerion: Legends of Illusion. I am interested in magic, so a game with this theme was bound to be of interest to me. We did not have the time to play it at this session, but we had a good look at it. I am impressed with the artwork; it really gives it that Victorian period feel, the beginning of a golden age of magic with some of the most influential performers of the art. Of course, all those great performers were nothing compared to "the most influential magician in the history of magic" (his words) and, 'The man Paul Daniels could have been' (Loughborough Times, 2009), David Lemezmer. In fact, this game is crying out for a David Lemezmer promo ;)



Things are looking good for Fenland Gamers and I am looking forward to gaming with a great group throughout 2016.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by clydeiii

getdafunkout wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).


sorry, there was a poll that was supporting this. I haven't digged into the numbers.

I'll happily revise to:

It is the "thought" that some (not all) people who rated pandemic lower aren't play or rating PL.

I never meant all, sorry if the words gave that impression.


I can't speak to how many Pandemic-haters play Pandemic Legacy, but I can confirm some do. In my own play group, one player described himself as 'hating Pandemic' (I think he rates below 5) but he was interested in playing Pandemic Legacy because of the legacy aspect. He has rated Pandemic Legacy very highly. Additional info, he is not huge into coops and plays mostly heavy-medium Euros.
Did he play all 12-24 games of PL?

I'm a coop and Pandemic hater, and my initial impressions were very high of PL (rated it a 9). But as the months have gone on, my rating keeps dropping and I remember what I hated about Pandemic, since PL basically has 12x of it.

Reply: Betrayal at House on the Hill:: General:: Re: Scooby doo Scenarions

$
0
0

by Cringing Dragon

Scooby Trail at House on the Hill
I bought a set of Scooby minis to use with mine, but I haven't got any themed scenarios.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: September spoiler rules questions

$
0
0

by shelbeeray

[o]I don't know how to do the quote in quote spoiler thing...

as far as not placing a military base in a city where one has been destroyed, that is what the rules sticker says:
"...place a starting military base...that does not contain a starting military base or sabotaged military base sticker...."

As for the 4th step, we debated that...was it step 4 of setup or step 4 of play or step 4 of epidemic.... For some reason we settled on epidemic as the middle ground effect, thinking step 4 of setup would make it too easy and step 4 of play too hard.[/o]

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

$
0
0

by Aweberman

I'm gonna be honest: I didn't follow all of that math. (High school calculus is quite a ways in the rearview mirror.) But it seems like you're saying that the math supports the reality of the BGG rating going up more than the average rating.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by xuzuthor

clydeiii wrote:


I'm a coop and Pandemic hater, and my initial impressions were very high of PL (rated it a 9). But as the months have gone on, my rating keeps dropping and I remember what I hated about Pandemic, since PL basically has 12x of it.


I had the opposite experience.

While I appreciated the slow start for easing in my parents (who enjoy Pandemic/On the Brink), it was less enjoyable for me as it wasn't even as complex as having On the Brink.

As the months pass, it gains in complexity, and I've enjoyed it more. (though I hope it doesn't gain too much more since my parents are nearing their limit I think!)

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Anyone else get owned in January? *January spoilers*

$
0
0

by rjginther

Oh yeah!!

We got owned in Game 1 of January. 8 Outbreaks was the loser.

Game 2 we were 1 card away from winning, we had zero cities with 2 cubes and the bottom card drawn for the last Epidemic was on only 3 cities with 1 cube already, which triggered the Outbreak that got us.

You all know how the board looks!!

Ron

Looking forward to February

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by getdafunkout

mfl134 wrote:

getdafunkout wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).


sorry, there was a poll that was supporting this. I haven't digged into the numbers.

I'll happily revise to:

It is the "thought" that some (not all) people who rated pandemic lower aren't play or rating PL.

I never meant all, sorry if the words gave that impression.


I can't speak to how many Pandemic-haters play Pandemic Legacy, but I can confirm some do. In my own play group, one player described himself as 'hating Pandemic' (I think he rates below 5) but he was interested in playing Pandemic Legacy because of the legacy aspect. He has rated Pandemic Legacy very highly. Additional info, he is not huge into coops and plays mostly heavy-medium Euros.

One example, but I think a fair number of others will have a similar backstory. It seems like the draw of the game will be the Pandemic element for some, the Legacy element for others, and the combination of those elements for still more gamers. Clearly those same aspects may turn some people off, but clearly the combination seems to be an appealing for many.


I agree lots of people will have such a backstory. But even if 50% of the people who don't like coops/pandemic have that back story, the other 50% are also being included and that group as a whole not voting is probably favorable for PL's ratings.


I am not disagreeing with you. The fact that most of the people who play it have at least some interest in playing it does bias the pool of potential raters. That is true for most (all?) games, isn't it? Aside from people who decide which games they will play/buy by throwing darts at a selection chart (or some other randomizer), don't we all bring our biases to our ratings when we choose to play one game and not another? Even if the selection process isn't freely randomized it is often influenced other factors.

I guess we could kidnap a bucnch of Pandemic-haters and coop-haters and force them to play and then rate Pandemic Legacy.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Proof this deserves #1 rating

$
0
0

by getdafunkout

clydeiii wrote:

getdafunkout wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

spaff_ wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


Is this a fact? Without evidence you can only state this as an assumption- But even as an assumption this is simply false. I did a quick look at the reviews of Pandemic Legacy and with minimal effort found multiple members who rated Pandemic Legacy poorly (4> ) had previously also rated Pandemic poorly (4> ).


sorry, there was a poll that was supporting this. I haven't digged into the numbers.

I'll happily revise to:

It is the "thought" that some (not all) people who rated pandemic lower aren't play or rating PL.

I never meant all, sorry if the words gave that impression.


I can't speak to how many Pandemic-haters play Pandemic Legacy, but I can confirm some do. In my own play group, one player described himself as 'hating Pandemic' (I think he rates below 5) but he was interested in playing Pandemic Legacy because of the legacy aspect. He has rated Pandemic Legacy very highly. Additional info, he is not huge into coops and plays mostly heavy-medium Euros.
Did he play all 12-24 games of PL?

I'm a coop and Pandemic hater, and my initial impressions were very high of PL (rated it a 9). But as the months have gone on, my rating keeps dropping and I remember what I hated about Pandemic, since PL basically has 12x of it.


Final months. I will ask him his thoughts when it is over. Judging by his behavior, I think he'll rate it in the 8-9 window.

See, I thought your rating dropped at least partially as a reaction to the game's position on the BGG ranking page. Full disclosure, I think I dropped my rating a bit after playing as far as we have.

;)

Reply: Betrayal at House on the Hill:: Organized Play:: Re: The Chants

$
0
0

by trigiani

Ox

Nope. Crystal ball can only find item or event cards. Not sure if that is useful.
Everyone else don't forget your items.
Viewing all 191814 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>