Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Pandemic» Forums » General

Subject: Has anyone played without an outbreak limit? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pete McPherson
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Having played about four games, I feel like losing by outbreaks is a bit anticlimactic, in a way. I would rather lose by running out of cubes of one color. I was wondering what Pandemic would be like with no limit to the number of outbreaks. This would lead to there being a lot more cubes on the board. I suppose it would just result in an easier variant of the game, since one of the three ways to lose would have been eliminated. I just love the tension that comes with massive chain reactions, though the result of these chain reactions often goes unseen due to the instant-loss of too many outbreaks. To compensate for the easier difficulty, perhaps the "epidemic" cards could be shuffled into the entire deck rather than into five or six piles. I'm going to give this a shot and see how it plays out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Fox
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting, I would think running out of cubes or cards would be the anticlimactic ways of losing, not outbreaks. To me, preventing outbreaks and finding cures are the major problems to solve in the game.

But in the spirit of discussion, that suggestion sounds like it would make the game waaaaaaay too easy. If you try it, I hope you'll post the results because I'd like to know exactly how that plays out.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Wardell
United States
Carmel
IN
flag msg tools
May 25
badge
I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed.
mbmbmbmbmb
Sheerignorance wrote:
Having played about four games, I feel like losing by outbreaks is a bit anticlimactic, in a way. I would rather lose by running out of cubes of one color. I was wondering what Pandemic would be like with no limit to the number of outbreaks. This would lead to there being a lot more cubes on the board. I suppose it would just result in an easier variant of the game, since one of the three ways to lose would have been eliminated. I just love the tension that comes with massive chain reactions, though the result of these chain reactions often goes unseen due to the instant-loss of too many outbreaks. To compensate for the easier difficulty, perhaps the "epidemic" cards could be shuffled into the entire deck rather than into five or six piles. I'm going to give this a shot and see how it plays out.


I'm surprised to hear you say that. I've heard many more complaints about running out of cubes being anticlimactic; and even more about running out of cards being anticlimactic.

It sounds like you'd just be making the game easier, for no good reason. Shuffling the cards into the entire deck doesn't necessarily make the game harder. It just makes it possible to have epidemics more clustered together, which is going to mess with the flow of the infection deck. I wouldn't recommend altering the epidemic setup.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Game Guy
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mb
Yeah, Pandemic's problem ( if it has a problem) is that it is a little too easy if the players are fully cooperative. Removing the Outbreak limit would make this the least challenging game ever.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. Stimson
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, I find outbreaks to be the greatest source of tension and those panicky moments where you realize you have 3 places you need to be THIS TURN. Without worrying about outbreaks, it is just a cube limit thing, which I find provides a much smaller amount of the tension.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sara Bear
United States
Centerville
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you take off the limitis onoutbreaks, couldn't this lead to running out of cubes sooner? Outbreaks use up cubes pretty darn quickly, esp. if left unchecked.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Austria
Graz
Styria
flag msg tools
This user is a professional crastinator
badge
This user is a professional crastinator
mb
sarebear62 wrote:
If you take off the limitis onoutbreaks, couldn't this lead to running out of cubes sooner? Outbreaks use up cubes pretty darn quickly, esp. if left unchecked.

I think that Pandemic is actually a very well balanced game.
Most of the time when we won, we did so very close to losing.

By simply increasing the amount of epidemics in the deck, depending on your experience and grade of cooperation, you can easily shift the balance point closer to the losing end, thus making for very climactic games.

Of course, there were also games with a lot of luck, which turned out to be a cakewalk.
Also, when playing with the virulent strain epidemics from the OTB expansion, you'll get a more chaotic situation, and certain card combinations at the wrong time can mess you up quickly.
Most notably Rate Effect, Slippery Slope and Hidden Pocket. :O

So, if you're losing often by running out of cards or cubes, or by reaching the 8th outbreak, you should consider trying to improve your coop play, if reducing epidemics doesn't help.
If you don't already do it, you could play with open hands, so that everyone can always have a look and loudly speak out their thoughts and musings.

After all, in these modern times, such specialists hopping the globe would always quickly communicate with each other by the means of mobile phones and email, for anything that doesn't involve sharing disease samples (cards).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Game Guy
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mb
Mobile phones and e-mail? What, are you some clown from the 20th century? Text messages and twitter my friend, text and twitter.
 
 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.