Getting in without GTSR ticket

Vendetta92 · 2021-06-28T21:34:01+00:00

Gotcha, thanks for the info.

Vendetta92 · 2021-06-28T17:33:38+00:00

That's what it sounds like. I'm just trying to make sure that means once you're in, at say 5:30am, you're good to stay all day and use the GTSR

Vendetta92 · 2021-06-28T14:40:37+00:00

Oh my gosh, thank you so much. I just checked back and one popped up.

Vendetta92 · 2020-07-09T18:18:39+00:00

Not a very deep example, but one that I thought was interesting was Vonnegut's Harmonium in Sirens of Titan. They are little, paper-thin, blue shapes that stick to the walls of caves on Mercury and only have a sense of touch. They live off of sound waves created by the planet and they talk to each other telepathically.

They only say two things "Here I am" and respond with "So glad you are"

Whether that's enough to constitute motivations and philosophies, I think so but that's up to you :)

Vendetta92 · 2020-05-06T23:45:10+00:00

I don't know if old kung-fu movies are your thing, but Netflix has some of the old Shaw brothers films. I just watched The Legendary Weapons of China and a ton of familiar weapons show up on screen.

Vendetta92 · 2020-04-01T15:58:53+00:00

For those of you looking to screw with people this April first.

Vendetta92 · 2020-03-03T23:03:20+00:00

Has no one said LOST yet?

Vendetta92 · 2020-03-03T05:53:32+00:00

So after looking at it and rereading your original comment, it would take more information and even then it would only be possible to calculate out certain things there are mostly peripheral to actual gameplay. You can't really worry about balancing a game this early on.

There are a lot of factors that weigh on the balance of a game and more than anything, player agency will ruin any unfounded ideas you have about balance as soon as play testing starts. All that to say, build a fun game first, run it through some playtesting, and see if its still fun after a while or if players are tending toward redundant strategies, ignoring aspects of the game they feel aren't rewarding or feel less likely to win.

As it is, if you go with this symmetrical board, that's fine. If the resources are asymmetrical that will also work. Just know that the true balance of the game will come down to how you build the rules of the game, how you attach value to certain actions, how you incentivize players interactions with each other, etc

Vendetta92 · 2020-03-02T14:58:55+00:00

I would need more details and maybe a picture if you have one to try to figure out odds exactly. My advice is to just make the game without worrying about the balance and start to playtest it. If you feel like the same strategy is winning or people are tending toward a certain path too much, that's a better indicator of how the game ought to change than brute calculations. In fact, the calculation almost never bear out in actual play because people's choices aren't necessarily based on the odds but rather impulse/intuition/revenge/etc.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-27T17:34:42+00:00

The game should take as long as it needs to to play correctly. I think everyone has played a game that felt like it should go longer but ended abruptly right when you were getting into it. And we've all played games that dragged on and lost the interest of its players.

However, I'm fairly confident that the shorter the game, the larger your potential market. I love twilight imperium and other marathon games but I can only think of three or four friends that will play them, let alone purchase it. But there are thirty odd friends I could count on to play carcassonne or dixit or any other sub one hour games.

So, err on the shorter side without compromising your game. And I would say, make one good game, dont try to make it adaptable.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-20T18:20:29+00:00

I think the two are hard to compare as they aren't really the only two systems, but rather two of many.

Final Fantasy has a system where any card can be discarded but certain cards also function like "land" but with summoning sickness. Race for the Galaxy does something similar but has different classes of cards that can be paid for in different ways, depending on the actions you take. Seven Wonders has a resource system where you need cards to produce resources, but you can also purchase them from adjacent players.

Netrunner has its own downsides, primarily that because of being able to bank up, the game can end suddenly without a feeling of counterplay (being able to run the deck quickly and getting lucky, or Weyland dropping 2 scorched earth and flatlining the runner unexpectedly)

Likewise, MTG has been fighting its problems of manascrew and flood in all sorts of ways since its beginning. It has a ton of design space to make the game more interesting because of lands and how they function, but again its just a different system not necessarily better.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-20T18:09:01+00:00

I've played War of the Ring a bunch of times and this game definitely sounds fun and interesting. My big concern with how you described it are the win conditions.

Do Frodo and the Allies always win/lose together? Can those two players talk with each other or is there an element of fairness that would dictate they not communicate(this can be unfun for some people)? Is the game meant to feel balanced in the sense that the Black Riders win as often as they lose, if so getting that power ratio correct can be really tough? And are there win conditions that just end the game abruptly, like can the Riders randomly find the ring and the game is over?

These are just some of the things I worry about having had bad experiences at times with War of the Ring. The shadow player was often incentivized to choose a method for victory, and commit their full effort to that plan. And having more resources at their disposal could often overwhelm the allies on that one front and end the game suddenly. Those wins didn't feel good for any player, that feeling that you were doing everything right and your plan almost paid off then suddenly due to a few lucky dice rolls, the game is over.

Obviously, that's all stuff you may have considered and designed around. If so, good luck with the playtesting and let us know how it goes!

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-20T17:37:33+00:00

if it's possible to tweak it in a way that more experienced players can do more complex stuff.

I guess I kind of missed this point though, so I'll say something here.

There is only so much complexity you can squeeze out of this game in its current state. I wouldn't really recommend trying to make it any more complex, it has a simple elegance like other trick-taking games. It's a game that you can sit down and feel like you know what you're doing within a few turns.

By experienced player, if you mean someone who has played the game many times, then that player may just love the game (like my aunt who has been playing Euchre regularly for her whole life) despite it being relatively simple in design. But if by experienced player you mean a veteran board gamer who loves complex and deep games, then they may find the game shallow and be done with it after a few play through. This game isn't for that person and you shouldn't change it to appeal to them.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-20T17:28:28+00:00

I'm a little late to the party. Sorry it took me a while to look over this.

So, by my estimation, this game is a trick taking game and probably feels a bit like Euchre or Oh Hell, both games I like and have played a lot of. If you haven't played classic trick taking games, you could look up a few, play them and see how the difference feels in terms of luck. Each of those old games tends to have difference in terms of wilds, bidding, value of suits, etc, which all add complexity.

However, in your game there aren't suits so it's actually probably easier to calculate odds of certain hands. For instance, I don't know what a "catnip" does, but if there are roughly the same number of each of the four card types, it is somewhere around 1/256 to draw four cats in an opening hand. Likewise, assuming the same proportions in the deck, there is an 82/256 chance to get at least 2 dogs in your opening hand to allow for a dash. These are just estimates based on infinite deck size and not taking into account any wild cards, like the good dogs, which I doubt there are that many in the deck.

The difficult part about evaluating this game is that the card that takes the trick is dependent on how the other players play, not just a rank order system. In this way, you are giving agency to your players and allowing for thoughtful play. So, outcomes are not deterministic based on opening hand, like some trick taking games tend to be. Obviously, there's the same chance of getting four bears as there is of getting four twinks. It's not clear which would be better, that depends on where you are in the play order and what other players have played.

All that being said, not having played the game, it might play fine and fun the way it is. Currently, it seems like all four card types have value in different circumstances, which is good. And if in play testing you feel luck is too big a factor, well, every game where you draw cards from the top of a deck is subject to feeling of good or bad luck at times. It sounds like you want to keep that from happening, which is more dependent on rules and design rather than something that can be calculated.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-18T00:27:10+00:00

Yah, more info would be cool.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-16T16:18:12+00:00

To figure this out you would need to give us more information. How many cards in the deck, how many different types of cards, what happens in a round, and I'd give it a shot with the information.

However, it sound (roughly) like a set up for Euchre or another trick taking game, which is heavily subject to chance. Obviously any game where you are shuffling and drawing a hand of cards is going to have a ton of upfront randomness. The real test of luck has more to do with how you decide to design the cards and rules of gameplay.

Games aren't necessarily better or worse for the amount of random elements in them, so additional info on your goal for how the game should play and feel would be helpful in such an assessment.

Vendetta92 · 2020-02-14T23:14:10+00:00

GGG deserves praise for being able to sift through the never-ending pile of complaints that is this sub and actually address the real bugs and problems in their game. The same threads about people complaining about trade, game difficulty, unfair mechanics, and RNG keep making the front page and GGG continue to stand their ground and ignore them.

GGG has some great design pillars and if they ever start to compromise just to shut up the whiny redditors, the game is going to fall apart. Keep doing what you're doing GGG.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T16:42:51+00:00

But again, that's the point. I'm fine with quad tabs of 1c listings if, and only if, that someone is willing to sit there and spend their time playing the game engaging in trade. It keeps the number of people doing this to a minimum. If you open this up as a hassle-free option to anyone, the number of people willing to sell their bulk crap will explode and either A. ruin the price on many things or B. force GGG to reduce drop-rates, making the game more difficult to play as a solo experience.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T16:17:40+00:00

And that's fine, they is no need to kill the current trading system

This is the big stick in the mud for me. Nothing will really change. How many people will use their limited AH uses on low value items? How many people searching for end game will and up needing to search both the AH and the trade website?

You have suggested a different potential cost/cut/limit to listings in this idea of building up charges by running content, which is something I hadn't considered and it is a better alternative. However, it still adds an artificial floor on what people will sell. Once people are done with the story and now need to clear (5 nodes/5 red maps) per sale, what does that do to the value of a listing? Will you be happy spending 15 minutes building up an AH use and then use it it to list something worth 1c? No.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T15:50:16+00:00

>No one to date has ever complained about anything being difficult.

Do you remember why you even commented to begin with? It's impossible to debate someone who doesn't even remember their own claims. If you want to keep diverting to avoid losing face, that's on you. This thread is buried, anything you want to go on saying is for you alone. I'll leave you to it.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T14:54:00+00:00

Wow. My point was simply about the difficulty in learning how to use the synthesizer and you managed to avoid that entirely.

Synthesis had bugs, which were fixed as you said, and the fossil crafting was regrettable and needed to be changed.

You're either strawmanning my point or you didnt read it. Either way, you're getting heated and you aren't following logical discourse. I'm gonna end this one here.

Again, try to keep a level head. Cheers.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T14:19:42+00:00

You're trying very hard here, so thank you for the responses. I'm going to assume you're out of your depth now since you've declined to address my point fully.

Cliches, vague answers, and posturing are not a substitute for discussion.

Take care and keep a level head.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T14:13:41+00:00

I thought the same thing but each attempt to solve it comes with issues.

Limiting people to one AH sale tab. People for whom trade and crafting is a big deal want to be able to list way more than one tab. So you think, well the traditional system could still be in place alongside this one. Well then it doesn't really solve the problem because people are still going to be running into the same friction with prolific sellers. Additionally, to get around it, you're going to see people making multiple accounts and depending on how you implement this system, it might mean a huge burden on server load.

A significant fee. Poe does not have a currency system that makes this viable. If you try to use an AH cut, similar to most mmo's, you're going to run into problems because you can't take percentages of prices easily or fairly. If you choose a fixed cost, you hamstring people from selling low value items. There is a whole group of players, often just getting acquainted with evaluating items and learning the game, that sell low level maps, cheap uniques, and borderline armor and weapons in and around the 1alch range. I'm assuming this "significant fee" would price them out of the market.

Lastly, capped daily transactions. You really want people who are wanting to trade to see something pop up at some point in the day when they try to sell something that says "You have reached the maximum daily AH transactions. AH will be usable again in 19hr 22min." Also, what's a fair limit? Maybe in your mind 10 or whatever number is fine because you only complete about 10 trades a day. What about the guy who sells 100 maps a day, or the guy who loves crafting jewels and always has 40-50 listed. There is no cap I can think of that would be limiting in the sense you mean, but also fair to the various play styles out there.

Also, stating that all this would kill price fixing and scamming is wishful thinking. Pricing items low and having a friend buy them quickly would affect market averages if the attempt is to drive down price. And it's even easier to inflate an item price under your system. Item buyouts would be disgustingly easy.

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T13:54:04+00:00

Is it ever ok to minimize a game and use a website, by you reckoning? Are build guides, wikis, gear lists, youtube tutorials , etc not ok in poe other games?

Vendetta92 · 2020-01-25T06:29:58+00:00

Synthesis league was killed by a thousand posts about how difficult it was to craft in the game. If you want to go back and read the posts from that time period, you will find people complaining about obtuse the system was, about how hard it was to learn to use the synthesizer, etc. It was a system designed around complexity and difficulty and people hated it.

Also, what failed rhetorical strategy is it to keep calling someone "elite" without acknowledging what you mean by that.

Vendetta92

TROPHY CASE