Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

The Forgotten Planet» Forums » General

Subject: 1st Player advantage? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
In a two player game with the basic scenario, we could not help but feel the 1st player had an advantage to the 2nd. Did this come up in play testing? Was there any thought to give the 1st player one less energy or resource in the 1st turn to help offset this?

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michele Quondam
Italy
Roma
Roma
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
For my opinion that is not true. My statistical of winners is indipendant by first player position.

Anyway as I know that many gamers cannot live with the idea that the other player makes some action more you can avoid that giving 1 resource more to the players following the first one.

Mike

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Thanks Mike. I have certainly not played enough to know the impact so it is good to know you did not notice any advantage for the start player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michele Quondam
Italy
Roma
Roma
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
You welcome :-)

Anyway, I will make some further investigation about basic 2-player game. My stats are too fews for this starting scenario.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
laudemar gonzalez
Canada
toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Hello, Michele.

I bought your game last week and I playtested it with a friend yesterday. I really like the theme and mechanics, but I would like to bounce a couple of ideas off of you to see what you think.

i) When rolling to "build" a mine, what do you think of the idea of distributing the results this way: 1-empty tile, 2-brown mine, 3-white mine, 4-blue mine and 5/6-player's choice? This would reduce the chance of NOT being able to build a mine to 16.7% (down from 33.3%). It would also give a player a 50% chance (a 5 or a 6 on the die) of being able to get a mine he really needs to build a base (the variety of cubes). Thus, if I needed a brown mine, I could get it on a 2, 5 or 6 (50% chance).

ii) Perhaps having a special mine in the centre to start the 2-player game gives too much of an advantage to the starting player? I know you suggested giving the second player an additional cube, but I don't think that's enough compensation. I also realize that the game area shape is not limited to the suggested form and that people can do what they want, but what do you think of the idea of just using a random (brown, white or blue) mine in the centre? A special mine in the centre of the 7x7 scenario gives the starting player a huge advantage because he can always get the variety of cubes needed to build a base (one of each colour). A random, normal mine in the centre might be enough to encourage the players to advance/interact.

I will try to play your game with 3 or 4 players as soon as I get the chance. Thanks for an excellent and fun game. Cheers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michele Quondam
Italy
Roma
Roma
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, nice suggestions!

1) I think players need to be pushed to going in contact. For that the % to not get a mine are so high. If you need mine, you have to take them to the opponent. As you know, if both players are able to have all mines they want, you could play this game in "Germany style" (alone)... boring :-)
I know actual % are well balanced, but maybe with your correction is better!

2) Here players can do all they want. Suggested scenario are only... "suggestions", just to start to play. So feel free to try following your style!

After some play you wil find that make mines is only a way to play. I always prefer to attack ;-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
laudemar gonzalez
Canada
toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Hi again, Michele.

After playing your game with two players about half a dozen times with one of my friends, I've come up with another idea/variant rule.

When one explodes a robot on a space, one can choose to destroy either one wall (that borders the tile) or all the robots on the tile, but not both. The cost for exploding a robot is 2 energy points. The cost of the self-destructing robot itself is two energy points plus two cubes plus one energy point to move it to where you want it to blow up. In other words, it's usually too expensive to do except in very particular circumstances (for example if your opponent is stupidly mining with two of his robots on a single mine that is within your reach).

In order to encourage more agressive gameplay I present add-on modifications 2 and 3:

1) Original rule: For 2 energy, self-destruct a robot and destroy either all robots on tile or one bordering wall.

2) Double overload rule: For 3 energy, self-destruct a robot and destroy all robots and one wall on the tile.

3) Triple Overload rule: For 4 energy, destroy all robots, bordering walls and any base or mine on the tile. Replace a destroyed base or mine tile with a plain land tile (if possible, insert one that was not originally being used in the game).

With these variants, self-destructing a robot becomes a much more viable and thus frequent choice. With these options, you can customize the explosion to suit your goals. It truly encourages agressive, tactical and interactive gameplay.

I'm sorry if these suggestions are annoying you. In my defense, I would say that only those who really like a game create/try variants. Please give me any feedback/counter-proposals/etc. Cheers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michele Quondam
Italy
Roma
Roma
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
wow, a very good idea
Also well balanced. As soon as possible I will try it (at the moment I'm fully playtesting my next game, Gladiatori, so few time left for the moment)

Ciao!
Mike

PS. Don't worry, you are not annoying me, I like critics, comments, suggestions, it's the best part of making games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.