Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 191492 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: Naming disease

January 9, 2016, 6:02 am
$
0
0

by Blue Link

I am sure we are not the first ones, but we thought of the Dr Mario viruses when it came to disease name and identification.

Red - Fever
Blue - Chill
Yellow - Weird

Black is the odd ball since there is no black virus unless you consider the Gameboy game which is just Fever again.
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Question Regarding February *SPOILER ALERT*

January 9, 2016, 6:19 am
$
0
0

by dugman

Nemisis wrote:

This is probably obvious but do you clear the board of any existing Quarantine Markers at the end of a game or do they carry over into the next game? Pretty sure they need to be cleared right?


Like they said, quarantines are all removed. That being said an upgrade option to make quarantines permanent at the start of each game would be kind of cool. :) Maybe they can add that in Season 2. (Or maybe that happens later in the game? I'm not telling!)
↧
↧

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

January 9, 2016, 6:23 am
$
0
0

by skifreak737

I've owned A Few Acres of Snow, but sold it because I strongly dislike the deck-building area control combo.

Guess it's time for me to go rate Mythotopia (and AFAOS) with a 1, or else other prospective players will not have the full benefit of knowing an experienced gamer despises the game's primary mechanisms, considers the games broken, and no one should play them.

Keep those PL 1's coming -- they continue to prove my point: in spite of the hate votes, it's overwhelming popularity keeps it #1.
↧

Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher

January 9, 2016, 6:25 am
$
0
0

by tuethuc

the sticker says : the researcher can pass any card

i understand that if the researcher is co worker with whoever, she can pass any card she wants anywhere.

i know that it makes the game much easier but i have no other interpretation.

can you guys please clarify?

thanks
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher

January 9, 2016, 6:33 am
$
0
0

by dugman

Yes, Researcher having that relationship allows her to pass any card she wants to the other person with the relationship from anywhere on the board. It's amazing if you can get her and the Scientist with that relationship pair, we used that in my first playthrough and did really well. :)

My second playthrough isn't using the Researcher and they're doing just as well so far so it's not like there aren't other useful upgrades and combos. Researcher with Co-Worker is great but totally optional.
↧
↧

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

January 9, 2016, 6:54 am
$
0
0

by dugman

mfl134 wrote:

dugman wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

dugman wrote:

mfl134 wrote:

dugman wrote:

clydeiii wrote:


Mike is right: there is a huge selection bias in the population of users rating PL. Over 95% of them have played Pandemic. A vast majority of those users rank P as 7+.
.


Keep in mind that a very, very high percentage of BGG users in general have played Pandemic. Saying a lot of the people who rate Legacy have played Pandemic is like saying a lot of people who rate games here have played Monopoly.


this is looking at it backwards.

it isn't the fact that the people who rate PL have played pandemic. It is the fact that the people who like pandemic aren't playing or rating PL.


He and I said "rate" not "like".


I'm equating "Rate as 7+" as "like". is that an unacceptable assumption?


You can assume what you like, neither of us said "like".


Are you kidding me?

let me rephrase...

it isn't the fact that the people who rate PL have played pandemic. It is the fact that the people who rated pandemic low aren't playing or rating PL.


I got your point, I just don't like your passive aggressive tone.

Also I was responding to his post above, not your posts, where he was using the fact that the bulk of people who rated the game played Pandemic and that Pandemic is popular with them skews the results.

Allow me to give a really similar argument to what he posted:

95% of players of players who rate the game are still alive. Of those people many of them played Pandemic and gave it a 7 rating. Therefore the results are skewed because the players who aren't still alive never got the chance to play the game and that kept them from giving it a bad rating.

That was his argument in that post and it's logically faulty. The fact that the majority of people who rated the game played Pandemic and gave it a good rating could be in part due to the simple fact many people played Pandemic and that it is a good game. Even if we were talking about a completely separate game from Pandemic you would expect a lot of the people rating that other game to have played Pandemic and liked it because that is what the overall rating pool is like.

Here's another hypothetical example. Say 1000 people are in the rating pool that could have rated Legacy. 999 of them played Pandemic and liked it, the other one hated Pandemic. When Legacy comes out the 999 all rate the game and give it high marks, the one outlier doesn't rate the game. Legacy's rating is techincally "skewed" because 100% of the people who hate the game didn't rate it. But the overall effect of that bias is trivial because that negative population is so small. Therefore in order to show this sort of bias to have a major impact the poster above would have to demonstrate that the potentially missing negative votes were numerous enough to skew the overall ratings. Not to mention there could also be a lot of missing positive votes from people who missed out on the first print run, for example, or who didn't have time to get into a big campaign but otherwise would like the game. Maybe it's biased in a positive direction, maybe it's not, but he didn't argue any of that in the post I replied to.

So I'm not disputing that it's possible the ratings are skewed one way or another, I'm saying his logical argument was faulty and that to show the results are really biased you need to show the missing votes would actually have been enough to turn the tide of the positive votes.
↧

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

January 9, 2016, 7:15 am
$
0
0

by mfaulk80

We crushed every Search without the Soldier or the Immunologist. Well, we actually used the Soldier one game, but we lost that game. With 2p, we used the Scientist every month, the Quarantine Specialist in the middle when searches started (until she turned out to be the traitor), the Soldier for that game we lost, and then switched to the Operations Expert to finish the year out.
↧

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

January 9, 2016, 7:21 am
$
0
0

by Granite26

dugman wrote:

(T)o show the results are really biased you need to show the missing negative votes would actually have been enough to turn the tide of the positive votes.


I'd say you'd need to show that the missing votes show a statistically significant difference in average, and that there are enough missing votes to change the rating. 'Turning the tide' isn't necessary.

That's quibbling, though.

Realistically, there's probably an effect. Just look at the difference in rating profile between the PL players that rated P and P raters as a whole.

The average rating of P is 7.66
The average rating among P given PL is 7.85*

*According to the poll, which is itself fraught with issue.
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Question Regarding February *SPOILER ALERT*

January 9, 2016, 7:47 am
$
0
0

by clivej

It's hard to give the option of making things permanent when they don't even last the entire of one game.

A Quarantine marker that never went away would be immensely powerful!
↧
↧

Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Suggestions for How to Correct January Legacy Error [Possible Spoilers]

January 9, 2016, 7:55 am
$
0
0

by RudeMechanical

Hi!

My friends and I played our first game last night and we made a mistake that seems to be relatively common: we didn't realize that you are supposed to continue through the Legacy deck after the second epidemic card is resolved. We went on to lose the game due to outbreaks after curing two diseases and eradicating one.

My question is this: what would be the best way to correct for this error at this point? Should we simply play the second January game and go through the Legacy cards after the second epidemic in that game? Or would it be better to try and remove the stickers and replay the first game? Or is there a way to retroactively incorporate whatever happens in the Legacy cards we didn't read before playing our second January game?

I looked through old posts but only saw people saying that came up with various ways to fix it without saying exactly what those ways were, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Suggestions for How to Correct January Legacy Error [Possible Spoilers]

January 9, 2016, 8:11 am
$
0
0

by Aubigny

The good thing is: You lost the game. ;)
I would suggest to just start the second January game, but read the additional Legacy cards at the start of the game. You must remember one fact from the first game, but even if you don't remember you could just use a random decision for that one Legacy card.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Suggestions for How to Correct January Legacy Error [Possible Spoilers]

January 9, 2016, 8:40 am
$
0
0

by clivej

Mmm. I agree that reading the legacy card right now is probably the best fix.

If you can't remember the state of play after the second epidemic, go with the game-end state. If you can't remember that either, improvise in the obvious way based on which disease you eradicated and which two you cured.

Or do anything else which seems fair and reasonable to you.

Incidentally, this is probably the right moment to warn you: when you open flaps in the dossiers, always look at the space behind the flap as well as the flap itself. Otherwise, you'll overlook important stuff.

Good luck!
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Suggestions for How to Correct January Legacy Error [Possible Spoilers]

January 9, 2016, 8:47 am
$
0
0

by therobbot

Been there. :)

We only realized our mistake when we were about to start the second January game. What we did:

[o]We drew a color we had not eradicated in the first January game to be C0dA. We then drew a random C0dA card and gave this city a panic level upgrade (as punishment for our mistake). Then we played the second half of January as it should be played (with the new rules).[/o]

Others have completely reset the game but we didn't want to do this. I think this is a sensible solution.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher

January 9, 2016, 8:55 am
$
0
0

by isellsunshine

If you start game one in January with both those players in play, you can never put that combo together.

It's awesome if you can manifest it though.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher

January 9, 2016, 9:07 am
↧
Search

Thread: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: London Hive Mind!

January 9, 2016, 9:12 am
$
0
0

by mech_gamer

Anywhere I can pick up a copy (don't care which colour!) this weekend? Tried Orc's nest and Leisure Games, and waiting to hear back from Draughts but am not hopeful...

Any suggestions gratefully received... did Hamley's, John Lewis etc pick up any copies? Seen it anywhere weird?

Thanks!
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Suggestions for How to Correct January Legacy Error [Possible Spoilers]

January 9, 2016, 9:13 am
$
0
0

by clivej

How did you lose early January, though?

OP lost on outbreaks anyway, so it's hard to imagine they'd have suffered more had they looked at the legacy deck at the appropriate time. They might have done better if they'd looked at the legacy deck; I think losing that opportunity is their "punishment" for goofing. Bumping a city's panic level seems harsh.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher

January 9, 2016, 9:15 am
$
0
0

by clivej

Because you can only establish a relationship when you "create" a character (play it for the first time, giving it a name). The relationship must be between the newly-created character an an existing one.

If you play both Scientist and Researcher before relationships are introduced, you can't create a relationship between them.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: [No Spoilers] Old Rob Daviau video on legacy game design and balance

January 9, 2016, 9:24 am
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher

January 9, 2016, 9:33 am
$
0
0

by Sparticuse

If you look at the manual, you "create" a character every time it is chosen. Not just when it is named.
↧
Viewing all 191492 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>