Jump to content

KAGE13

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    449

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KAGE13

  2. Posted

    As I discussed in another thread Balance is a tricky thing in Descent.  So many factors. 

     

    Synergies between heroes is huge, as you found.  If I let my heroes take for ever and pick their heroes that have perfect synergies with each other, I don't stand a hope as the OL.

     

    What I find I have to do now is give each player a Random 3 and then they can pick from that.  Especially playing with an experienced group.   

    tekkamansoul reacted to this

  3. Posted · Edited by KAGE13

    @Kyarn, I wasn't trying to piss you off, and I Know I only picked large monsters I was just trying to keep it simple, and mostly because those were the only cards I remembered the limits. ;)  There are so many variables its really hard to have "balance" conversations about descent.

     

    Most quests have 1 or more Open groups, so maybe you are taking it easy on your heroes picking weaker monsters?  If I have an open group I will almost always take giants. 

    And that's part of the variable as well, all groups play differently, and maybe your group does find it more balanced.  But over many many campaigns what any2cards is saying is you are in the minority on this topic.  On average 3 heroes is balanced towards the players.  Maybe even during your campaign the heroes picked poor heroes.  Who knows.  

     

    I just opened to a random page in a quest book.  The groups are Barghests, Flesh molders, and 4 open groups with out restrictions.

     

    So assume all things equal (which in descent they never are) 

    3 players will face;

    3 Barghest

    3 flesh molders

    1 dragon

    1 giant

    2 medusa

    10 Kobolds

     

    You add 1 hero and I will add;

    1 barghest

    1 fleshmolder

    1 dragon

    1 giant

    1 medusa

    2 kobolds

     

    So for this to favor the heroes at 4, your 1 extra character would have to take care of all those extra monsters plus a little extra of the original group by himself.

     

    I'm not even saying it doesn't favor the heroes at 4.  In fact I tend to agree with you if my Heroes are really good at working together.  But look at it the other way. 

    If it favors the heroes at 4, and you take away all those monsters and only 1 hero how does that make the game more balanced at 3?  The OL is taking a lot off the table. 

     

    In my experience I won't even play with 3 heroes any more.  It is totally pointless.  If I only have 2 players I will have them each play 2 heroes, because 2 heroes is equally pointless.  It actually helps with downtime if players are playing 2 each.  

     

    Even take it as a compliment if you thought it was balanced at 3 heroes.  That means you played a very very good OL game.

  4. Posted · Edited by KAGE13

    Why do you think the 3 heroes game favor the hero exactly ? And why the 4 heroes would be more balanced ?

     

     

    3 definitely favors the heroes.  I've not had a hope against 3 heroes.

     

    With 4 heroes the OL is getting at minimum 1 extra figure per hero group. 

     

    Dragons is a perfect example.  At 2 heroes you get 1 minion dragon, at 3 heroes you get, 1 master dragon.  Still just 1 dragon, albeit an upgraded one.  But still only 1 attack.

    But now at 4 heroes the OL gets 2 dragons.  That is a big jump.  I'm doubling my attacks with just dragons.

     

    How can that possibly go from being balanced at 3 to being favored towards the heroes at 4?

     

    Lets just say for simplicity I as the OL can take 3 open groups and I pick Dragons, Giants, and Golems. 

     

    Adding 1 hero adds;

    1 dragon

    1 giant

    1 golem

     

    You are telling me that your heroes would find it pretty evenly matched with 3, but then dominate with 4?  That math doesn't even add up.

    especially with the bigger monsters the OL is doubling his actions.  Even if 3 players were balanced, then they would get destroyed with 4.  At least if I were the OL  :P

     

    I know this is a bit simplistic and baring any special rules with these same groups

     

    2 heroes = 4 attacks

    Monsters = 3 attacks

     

    3 Heroes = 6 attacks

    Monsters = 3 attacks

     

    4 heroes = 8 attacks

    Monsters = 6 attacks

     

    Basically this is why 2 heroes is very difficult.  You are taking on about the same amount of monsters as 3 heroes and they usually roll the same attack and defense dice.

  5. Posted

    It is a tactical game.  And the OL is more forgiving on mistakes then for the Heroes.  But as an OL I find its almost impossible to win against heroes that work together really well. 

     

    There are so many variables.  The game is different with 2 or 3 or 4.  The synergies between the characters you pick.  Even the synergies between the heroes and the OL decks. 

    One time I picked decks (I have everything keep in mind) that were lots of traps and the heroes and classes they choose essentially rendered my OL cards useless.  It was a total fluke but it happens.  

     

    I will not allow heroes to choose their characters any more.  They get 3 random and pick 1.  If they know exactly what they are looking for and how to benefit from each others synergies do not let them pick. 

     

    I also find that First campaign not very good compared to other 2. 

     

    Take it as a challenge.  

     

    You'll read from one post to another that there are huge swings.  OL always wins, Heroes always win.  And people will wine that its "unbalanced".  There are way to many variables to even know if its actually unbalanced. 

     

    And I know when my heroes are loosing all their quests, its usually from tactical mistakes. 

     

    For me this is why I like Descent so much.  There are so many options.  I just recently calculated that there are 222 combinations of heroes.  Thats something over 2 Billion combinations of 4 heroes.  And then with all the combinations of OL decks.  How can you even begin to try and figure out if this game is balanced? 

  6. Posted

     

    If its because of these silly strikes on the West Coast then they probably don't know any more then we do.

    Honestly the harbors are moving but they are behind. The dock management should have an idea as to where the ship stands in the line of waiting ships. (I worked for Airborne Express in the 90's and we could tell you exactly where a package was.) So the Strike is no longer the unknown factor here. Heck I remembered when UPS went on strike in either 95 or 96 we were so overwhelmed with packages everything got hacked up, but when a costumer called we could still tell them where their package was and the estimated time frame they were looking at. That was 20 years ago, so strike or not they know what is happening at the docks.

     

     

    I thought the truckers were on strike now?

    Soltis and Conundrum Eternal reacted to this

  9. Posted

    I get the feeling you are looking for some level of exploration in Descent. The base game is more about tactics. You can search for treasure, and find many different random things. But as for the base game, that's about it.

     

    However there are Co-OP packs that you can buy that adds on to the game. They are played without an Overlord player and the heroes have to explore their way to the end. The element of surprise comes with which room you draw into next. 

     

    I think FF covered the bases when it comes to playing this game. 

     

    Ya forgot to mention those.  I'm loving the Coop packs right now. 

  11. Posted

    Actually thinking about the rotating turns, I don't think descent could do this very well. 

     

    In Descent the OL doesn't' usually get as many Monster Groups as the Imperial Player in IA.

    I've had 6-8 groups in some quests in IA.  Don't think I've had more then 3 or 4 in descent.  This would be a distinct advantage for the Heroes. 

  12. Posted · Edited by KAGE13

    Ya I see what you are saying.  Descent is not like that.  All the monsters start on the board.  And can reappear.  And the heroes always know where they can reappear, so then can plan accordingly. 

    In descent Door A will just have a different challenge then Door B.  Not harder or easier because the knowledge is hidden and the heroes just made a bad choice.  

     

    IA quest balance is based on the heroes not knowing where Enemies can show up.  but after playing a quest a few times they will know exactly where they can show up and be able to plan for it.  But with hidden info that's the point, heroes shouldn't be able to plan for it. 

     

    I also do like the back and forth between the players and OL, but that doesn't mean its better.  Its just a different kind of strategy.

     

    IA for sure has some rule "fixes" Descent can benefit from.  I'd be disappointed if it didn't.  After all IA is based on Descent.. 

     

    I really like Large figure movement, and LOS rules in IA better then Descent.

     

    EDIT: I have not tried incorporating any of these IA rules into Descent.  You never know how much of this will mess with balance.   

  13. Posted · Edited by KAGE13

    Secondly, I have fully understood what Kage13 told me about the quest managment, but the fact that everything is known in Descent from the very beginning and that everything just get known by everybody just by playing through the game doesn't bring to the same situation eventually ?

     

     

    If I understand what you are saying here, the answer is No.  

     

    In IA the hidden information is worked into "balance" of the quest.  In IA quest certain events occur when the heroes do things.  Some of those events might be easier for the heroes. 

    For example (a simple one mind you).  The heroes open door A then 3 stormtroopers appear.  If they open door B then an AT-ST appears.  Well guess what happens the 2nd time the heroes play that quest?  Do you think they will ever open door B again?

     

    The heroes also choose 66% of the quests.  4 for each hero they pick, and 4 (grey?) ones.  4 others are chosen randomly.  If I've already played Quest A and B and B was impossible. Guess which one i'm going to choose? 

    Its not the same as the heroes choosing the next quest in Descent based on if they won or lost the last one.  In IA the heroes pick 8 of the 12 quests before the campaign begins. 

     

    In descent there is no balance issue because of hidden information.  And don't get me wrong I absolutely love hidden information.  Descent 1E had it.  But you can only play quests once.  I'm looking long term. 

     

    If I own the game of IA, I can also NEVER be a hero because I own all the "inside" information.  Especially if I run a group, but in another group someone else wants to be the Imperial player. 

     

    In descent, you can study the quest book all you want.  and it makes no difference who plays the OL or Heroes.

    In descent I can play the same campaign with 222+ combinations of heroes, with everyone switching out as OL and heroes. 

    Gridash reacted to this

  16. Posted · Edited by KAGE13

    I've already sold my IA and I will tell you why.  I'm sticking with Descent.  Pretty sure I've posted this before but I can't remember. 

     

    #1 - No clases.  I like choice.  Descent has 40 characters right now if you don't include any upgrade kit ones.  There are for sure a whole bunch more coming.  IA has 6.  But for sake of argument  lets say IA has the same amount of expansions and they have 40 characters as well.  Descent has 222 combinations of characters. IA will have 40.  You will only be able to play the Commander in IA one way ever.  I think someone else already pointed out it will take a lifetime to go through all the options Descent has. 

     

    #2 - Characters choose most of the quests.  This is super lame.  People in my group will pick quests they can win with out a doubt.  So you will most likely play the same boring easy (for the heroes quests) every time.  Which will also limit which characters the players will pick as well.  No one will pick the jedi if getting the lightsabre quest is impossible.

     

    #3 - Hidden quests sucks.  I know lots of people like this, but this is descents strength.  In IA once you have played a quest twice the information isn't hidden any longer.  Players can now take advantage of the fact they know where and when events will happen.  Especially if your heroes keep picking the same "easy to win" quests.  Because the information is open, anyone can play Overlord and anyone can play heroes.  You can play the same quest as a challenge because knowing the information doesn't change the outcome of the quest.

     

    Ya descent could use some rule changes that IA has, but I think you are going to see Descent with more staying power in the long run unless IA drastically changes in the future.

     

    I am a big Star Stars Fan too so it wasn't that I didn't like that Theme.  I really wanted to like it. 

    Elrad reacted to this

  20. Posted

    Even the actual rule on While gives me reason to doubt and definitely needs an FAQ 

     

    A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified event and cannot occur again during that instance of the event.

     

    Here the while pertains to the command icon rule

     

    Effects with a command icon as a header, such as “M:,” can be resolved once while the ship is resolving the matching command.

    So if we go absolutely raw the specified event is "resolving the matching command." 

     

    But agreeing with DWRR's interpretation the specified event should be "After you Execute a maneuver"

    DWRR reacted to this

  23. Posted · Edited by KAGE13

    OK so, if this is the rule 

     

    Effects with a command icon as a header, such as “M:,” can be resolved once while the ship is resolving the matching command.

     

    And we have established that the card DOES have a command icon as a header...

    And you say this is ok;

     

    Scenario 1

    1.) Shoot once(or not)

    2.) Maneuver

    3.) (Demolisher) shoot once

    4.) (engine techs) Speed 1 maneuver

     

    Show me how Engine techs is happening WHILE you are resolving a maneuver command?  You cannot execute a maneuver command AFTER you have already moved

     

    If the Demolisher has the same command icon then yes It would work that way.  With scenario 1 you are completely ignoring the command icon on the engine techs card. 

×
×
  • Create New...