Jump to content

Canopus

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from Shadrack in Does it feel like X-Wing's become unimportant to FFG?   
    This is two different audiences.  There are many Euro-style solo games around which don't work that well if you want to attract your family.
    Quoting Josh:
    They know what they're doing.  To attract new players who might like to move miniatures and roll dice casually, you don't go Gloomhaven.  (Recall that the Gloomhaven author is also publishing a stripped-down version of his game this year...)  Let's see how the next AI iteration looks like, if they follow that route.
  2. Like
    Canopus reacted to Captain Warden in Does it feel like X-Wing's become unimportant to FFG?   
    My personal experience with Covid is that many companies are doing their absolute best to overcome production and supply issues, as well as managing internal and external communications when many employees are working from home and are often in uncertain/anxious environments. So it might seem from the outside that the company isn't doing much, but on the inside they are doing their best with a very poor situation, like we all are. I'm sure any perception that X-Wing is no longer a priority is an unintended consequence of the pandemic, rather than an intentional move by FFG. They love X-Wing! Ships go swoosh.
  3. Thanks
    Canopus reacted to Tomcattwo in X-Wing AI 2nd Edition - For Solo Play - HotAC+FGA AI Added!   
    New version 3.1.3 for HotAC+FGA AI, which adds Maneuver Tables for every ship to the "Stats" section of the Main Page and also on the Ships page. This helps a bit when you want to see what maneuvers an AI ship is capable of performing, without having to go to another app to look it up.
    To check it out, go here: x-wing-ai.com or download for offline use here.
    Many thanks to sirjorj of xhud.sirjorj.com for permission to use his Maneuver Tables for this project.
    R/
    TC2
  4. Like
    Canopus reacted to GuacCousteau in New squadrons packs ?   
    How do this many people not know what a collaborator is?
     
    Finn isn't a collaborator. Collaborators are traitors, but not all traitors are collaborators. Finn defected. He fully switched sides. 
    A collaborator is someone who provides support to an enemy against the wishes of their goverment, but while remaining outwardly a part of that nation or organisation. This is why collaborators are typically civilians, and the situation typically occurs in occupied countries. 
    The closest we get to collaborators in Star Wars would probably be the Alderaanians, who were nominally still part of the Empire but provided tacit support to the Rebels. 
     
    The Resistance aren't exactly fugitives either. The First Order isn't 'the law' and they don't see the Resistance as mere criminals. 
     
    I'm not going to say for definite that 'Fugitives and Collaborators' isn't the Resistance pack, because we know one is coming and it's possible that FFG just picked a really weird name. 
    But if I had to put money on it, I would say F&C can't be Resistance. They're both terms with seriously negative connotations. 
     
    FFG don't name their packs after what the bad guys would call them. They're not going to call a Rebel pack 'terrorists and provocateurs' or something because the Empire don't like them. FFG are well aware that they're dealing with a universe with pretty black and white morality. They know we all know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. They're not going to call a good guy faction like the Resistance 'collaborators'. The term is just wrong sounding. 
    It would pretty perfectly fit the tone for the Scum faction. Fugitive especially, given that Scum's whole thing is that they're on dubious legal grounds at best. The Mandalorian puppet government from Rebels would be a great example of a collaborator, given they were placed there by the Empire, to whom most of the regular Mandos seem opposed to (if we take Clan Wren as an example). Gar Saxon's governorship parallels pretty closely to Vichy France, from what we can tell. He's a classic collaborator.  
  5. Like
    Canopus reacted to Tomcattwo in X-Wing AI 2nd Edition - For Solo Play - HotAC+FGA AI Added!   
    The new HotAC+FGA AI is complete! Please see original post for details...Thanks to Hipsu and Wolfshead for playtesting!
    R/
    TC2
  6. Like
    Canopus reacted to Managarmr in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Another iteration, @pheaver' s mod.
    One of my children and I, but we deliberately took Sabine in the Attack Shuttle and Graz (downgraded to Ini 3, going before AI) together against TIE l/n and TIE Bombers. Easy win, even if it took to turn 17 to bring the last reinforcement down. It is still only one sample (and I might be biased), but corroborates a bit my suspicion I voiced some pages ago (were it was suggested to give the player Starvipers, Fangs, Silencers against bread and butter Solos). If the players has ships with too many repositions, high action ecenomy or strong attack values you have to ramp up the AI forces.
    Agreed, that is another advantage of your mod, rolling only 1 die makes the AI and tge overall game so much faster. 
  7. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from Managarmr in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Thanks, Paul, suddenly this has become playable!
    In a match with those revisions, I actually lost (generic TIE/x1 vs TIE/fo+TIE/sf alpha-scenario as above, about 75 vs. 170pt) with one solo ship left.  In another incomplete match the AI also was decent.  Disclaimer: I'm not a good player.  (But I guess the FFG Solo mode is targeted at casual gaming anyway.)  And this is a very small data set.
    The revised AI has a tendency to close in on player ships.  It avoids the board edge if left alone, the rule 'count edge as obstacle' makes a huge difference.  Sometimes it manages to form kill-boxes if the player is not careful.  It does like to hit obstacles, but I don't see this as a fundamental problem.  Some moves overshoot, but then the ship will try to turn around.    If unstressed, a solo ship can target-lock and shoot missiles, because it doesn't suddenly look elsewhere.
    There is still an issue with the attitude roll and action selection.  There are too many evades which just weaken AI attacks.  Maybe rolling a red die instead of a green die for choosing the attitude would be an improvement?
    Probably this won't win against HotAC AI, but it is quick and easy.  I can resolve most AI moves and actions within seconds without pre-measuring.
    About the stress rules:
    would it make sense to also try a blue bank of the same speed, if a white turn is chosen?  Some dials don't have blue turns, so stress will stick.  And if I apply this rule:
    some ships will never use their red 1-hard, is this intended?
    I hope that FFG can adopt some of this for a future campaign or whatever.  Comparing this vs. FFG AI, eyeballing two arcs instead of one is as easy and straightforward as rolling another die.
     
  8. Thanks
    Canopus got a reaction from pheaver in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Thanks, Paul, suddenly this has become playable!
    In a match with those revisions, I actually lost (generic TIE/x1 vs TIE/fo+TIE/sf alpha-scenario as above, about 75 vs. 170pt) with one solo ship left.  In another incomplete match the AI also was decent.  Disclaimer: I'm not a good player.  (But I guess the FFG Solo mode is targeted at casual gaming anyway.)  And this is a very small data set.
    The revised AI has a tendency to close in on player ships.  It avoids the board edge if left alone, the rule 'count edge as obstacle' makes a huge difference.  Sometimes it manages to form kill-boxes if the player is not careful.  It does like to hit obstacles, but I don't see this as a fundamental problem.  Some moves overshoot, but then the ship will try to turn around.    If unstressed, a solo ship can target-lock and shoot missiles, because it doesn't suddenly look elsewhere.
    There is still an issue with the attitude roll and action selection.  There are too many evades which just weaken AI attacks.  Maybe rolling a red die instead of a green die for choosing the attitude would be an improvement?
    Probably this won't win against HotAC AI, but it is quick and easy.  I can resolve most AI moves and actions within seconds without pre-measuring.
    About the stress rules:
    would it make sense to also try a blue bank of the same speed, if a white turn is chosen?  Some dials don't have blue turns, so stress will stick.  And if I apply this rule:
    some ships will never use their red 1-hard, is this intended?
    I hope that FFG can adopt some of this for a future campaign or whatever.  Comparing this vs. FFG AI, eyeballing two arcs instead of one is as easy and straightforward as rolling another die.
     
  9. Like
    Canopus reacted to CaptainJaguarShark in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Speaking of other games with AI, something like the cards that enemies have in Gloomhaven would be welcome in a card expansion but the system seems okay as is. I'd expect these to be somewhat small decks that reference the threat build cards (or maybe have new threat builds included for this purpose specifically). Certain decks would encourage things like taking locks (like a TIE bomber equipped with ion missiles) before taking focuses, and some that encourage flying in a way that bombs might work better (I've got no idea how, but that would be a goal). Of course, some ships would have simpler decks that really are just "move towards them, focus, attack if possible (such as an Academy Pilot).
    But the system they've presented does a decent job of letting you work without needing much else than what you already have. I think we all have some small modifications we'd do to prevent some of the sillier behaviours for the AI.
  10. Thanks
    Canopus reacted to pheaver in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Thanks for testing it out!
    Hmm, good point about the obstacle thing.  Would adding "for all nearest obstacle in front arc checks, the board edge counts as an obstacle" help?
    I can add "If stressed and instructed to perform an advanced maneuver, change the green die result to an evade."  The evade doesn't do advanced moves ever, so that'll help that.
    You have a good point about side-side.  There are 3 "turn away from the Tally" in my table.  Side-Bullseye, Side-Side, and Rear-Front.  I can change the side ones to slowest turn towards the Tally.  The rear one might need to be fastest turn away from the nearest front obstacle.
    Thanks for the suggestions.
  11. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from CaptainJaguarShark in Flying Solo V2 links   
    A few thoughts, after a couple of solo games - both the proposed escalation mode, and full squads.
    Yes, the AI is dumb.  The AI will self-stress and hit obstacles.  Most AI shots are unmodded.  Flight patterns are often chaotic. 
    Some time ago, I did play through the whole HotAC campaign.  That AI is much better and a greater challenge.  But:  I don't really want to play HotAC again solo.  Lookup tables for each ship, arcs, distance bands, directions, pre-measuring, measuring again, checking for reposition fitting, avoiding obstacles ...  The new FFG AI: roll dice, move/action, repeat.  Standard rules, simple tables.
    Playing solo in casual mode, I have no intention of spending 90% of the game time on executing the AI turn.
    In many recent boardgames, the solo (automa) game mode is similar.  They speed up the AI turn, partly by simplifying rules, while accepting silly decisions.  OTOH, computer-based AI (FlyCasual) can be programmed as smart as possible since the player doesn't have to work for the AI.
    That said, I guess there is some space for improvement without sacrificing the simplicity of the alpha.  The forward/bullseye approach is a weak spot.  The random attitude rarely fits the game state.  Low-ini patrol ships should not evade, just focus?  Secondary weapons don't work because of missing locks.
    If the AI ships have good dials (blues!) and move after the player, it starts to make sense.  The most decent game was against an AI composed of TIE/fo and TIE/sf.  (One sf even got a missile off once...)
     
     
  12. Thanks
    Canopus got a reaction from pheaver in Flying Solo V2 links   
    I did some further testing with @pheaver's version as written earlier in this thread.  Squads: 2 TIE/x1 (no upgrades) against 3 TIE/fo and 2 TIE/sf with concussions.  Before, I had tried the same match using the FFG AI.
    A few rules might need some tuning: what means "obstacle in front arc" if there is no obstacle in the front arc because the ship is near the board edge.  And what happens if the solo ship is stressed and has to choose an advanced maneuver?  This case is covered only in the FFG rules.  Otherwise, I like the approach to choose a different speed if stressed.
    The AI moves appear somewhat less erratic.  But: the new outcome was even more in the player's favor: zero damage, all enemy ships destroyed.  No missile shot by the TIE/sf.  The two matches lasted longer - up to 17 rounds.  Probably I was just too cautious, but the AI ships also had a tendency to run away.  Once a solo ship is on the opposite side of the board, struggling to turn around, it will likely find a side-side constellation of solo-tally, which can result in 'fastest turn away from tally'.   With the enemy force hiding in a corner, I could pick off the ships one by one ... of course, this is just two test matches.
    Solo AI vs HotAC AI - hilarious!  Without using any distance information, the solo AI is doomed.  But I still think pre-measuring AI moves should be avoided, to speed up the game.  The other issues are too many lost actions (stress/asteroids), and the random attitude not matching the board state - maybe this can be improved?
     
     
  13. Like
    Canopus reacted to spacemonkeymafia in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Nope, but thanks as I hadn't seen it.  It is not surprising regarding the results.  The current iteration of the alpha AI is epitomized by the actions of that blue bomber doing parking lot donuts. It suffers from too many randomized options without enough guidance/feedback from the board state.  The writer's suggested fixes are interesting in that they align with Paul's in the sense that they both want to account for additional information regarding the Tally's board state.  I like Paul's approach simplifying options based on the Tally's directional facing but can see proximity being taken into account as well. I feel like the other AI systems out there like HOTAC are too much "work" for me to really get into so bloating out the system with more conditions may backfire.
    We're coming upon 3 weeks since the initial Alpha release.  Hopefully they have had enough time to collect feedback and revise for a second wave of testing.  The next release (if any) will indicate which direction the design team wants to take this system.
  14. Like
    Canopus reacted to Odanan in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Did someone post this here already?
    Solo AI vs HotAC AI: https://www.goonhammer.com/x-wing-flying-solo-part-3-machine-vs-machine/
  15. Like
    Canopus reacted to pheaver in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Hmm, that's annoying.  I can download it, but if I log out, I see the same.  I assume it's some thing to stop people from linking virus-laden files or something.
    Oh, I can just paste it from the excel sheet:
        Bullseye Arc Approach If the solo ship's Tally is in its bullseye arc… And the Solo ship is in the Tally's: Bullseye Arc Evade Slowest Straight   Focus Average Straight   Blank Fastest Straight Front Arc Evade Slowest Straight   Focus Slowest Bank in the direction the Tally is flying   Blank Average Bank in the direction the Tally is flying Side Arc Evade Slowest Bank in the direction the Tally is flying   Focus Average Bank in the direction the Tally is flying   Blank Fastest Bank in the direction the Tally is flying Rear Arc Evade Average Straight   Focus Fastest Straight   Blank Fastest Straight           Front Arc Approach If the solo ship's Tally is in its front arc… And the Solo ship is in the Tally's: Bullseye Arc Evade Slowest Straight   Focus Slowest Bank towards the Tally   Blank Average Bank towards the Tally Front Arc Evade Slowest Bank towards the Tally   Focus Average Bank towards the Tally   Blank Fastest Bank towards the Tally Side Arc Evade Average Bank in the direction the Tally is flying   Focus Fastest Bank in the direction the Tally is flying   Blank Fastest Turn in the direction the Tally is flying Rear Arc Evade Average Bank towards the Tally   Focus Fastest Bank towards the Tally   Blank Fastest Straight           Side Arc Approach If the solo ship's Tally is in its side arc… And the Solo ship is in the Tally's: Bullseye Arc Evade Fastest Turn away from the Tally   Focus Slowest Turn towards the Tally   Blank Fastest Turn towards the Tally Front Arc Evade Slowest Turn towards the Tally   Focus Fastest Turn towards the Tally   Blank Fastest Sloop away from Tally, T-roll towards Tally, K-turn, or Turn towards Tally (in that order) Side Arc Evade Fastest Turn away from the Tally   Focus Average Turn towards Tally   Blank Fastest Sloop away from Tally, T-roll towards Tally, K-turn, or Turn towards Tally (in that order) Rear Arc Evade Slowest Turn towards the Tally   Focus Average Turn towards Tally   Blank Fastest Turn towards the Tally           Rear Arc Approach If the solo ship's Tally is in its rear arc… And the Solo ship is in the Tally's: Bullseye Arc Evade Fastest Straight   Focus Fastest Turn away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc   Blank Slowest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc Front Arc Evade Fastest Turn away from the Tally   Focus Fastest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc   Blank Slowest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc Side Arc Evade Fastest turn in the direction the Tally is flying   Focus Fastest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc   Blank Slowest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc Rear Arc Evade Slowest turn away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc   Focus Fastest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc   Blank Slowest advanced maneuver away from the nearest obstacle in your front arc I also added the following rules when choosing a move:
    If stressed, and the chosen move isn't blue, the Solo ship will check a speed one slower, and then one faster, for a blue move to choose.  If it doesn't find one, it does the original move.
    Unless performing an advanced maneuver, if told to perform a red move, the solo ship will check a speed one slower, and then one faster, for a non-red move to choose.  If it doesn't find one, it does the original move.
  16. Like
    Canopus reacted to pheaver in Flying Solo V2 links   
    Thanks for trying it out!  My goal with my table was to maintain the quickness and simplicity that, for example, Canopus calls out above as a merit of the FFG Solo system, and keeping some of the randomness, while removing some of the weird moves that the original table had.  It sounds like it is making good progress towards that goal.
    I think I'll make the changes that came up in earlier discussions in this thread and post it to Reddit or something to see if I can get more people to try it out.
  17. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from LUZ_TAK in Flying Solo V2 links   
    A few thoughts, after a couple of solo games - both the proposed escalation mode, and full squads.
    Yes, the AI is dumb.  The AI will self-stress and hit obstacles.  Most AI shots are unmodded.  Flight patterns are often chaotic. 
    Some time ago, I did play through the whole HotAC campaign.  That AI is much better and a greater challenge.  But:  I don't really want to play HotAC again solo.  Lookup tables for each ship, arcs, distance bands, directions, pre-measuring, measuring again, checking for reposition fitting, avoiding obstacles ...  The new FFG AI: roll dice, move/action, repeat.  Standard rules, simple tables.
    Playing solo in casual mode, I have no intention of spending 90% of the game time on executing the AI turn.
    In many recent boardgames, the solo (automa) game mode is similar.  They speed up the AI turn, partly by simplifying rules, while accepting silly decisions.  OTOH, computer-based AI (FlyCasual) can be programmed as smart as possible since the player doesn't have to work for the AI.
    That said, I guess there is some space for improvement without sacrificing the simplicity of the alpha.  The forward/bullseye approach is a weak spot.  The random attitude rarely fits the game state.  Low-ini patrol ships should not evade, just focus?  Secondary weapons don't work because of missing locks.
    If the AI ships have good dials (blues!) and move after the player, it starts to make sense.  The most decent game was against an AI composed of TIE/fo and TIE/sf.  (One sf even got a missile off once...)
     
     
  18. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from Amanal in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    Which says:
    That should be a most welcome addition, but the author misses the point.
    There are various starter boxes available.  Why does none of them provide a complete deck?   I got into the game with the two-player starter.  It allows for immediate play and gives a decent taste of game mechanics.  But even after adding some single-player starters and boosters, the game appeared too much arbitrary and luck-driven for my taste.
    Recently, I gave it another try and got a second copy of the two-player box.  The game now feels much more tactical and balanced.  Elites and doubling cards does make a difference.   But why would anybody who's not familiar with the game (or reading the FFG forum) buy two identical copies of a starter box?
    I don't play competitively - even if I wanted, there is not a single SWD player left at the FLGS.  This is now an occasional family game.  It has great theme, mechanics, and variety.   But: If FFG wants to sell SWD to casual players, they have to issue *complete* starter boxes with two elite characters and, say, 40 cards per player to choose 30 from (even if the price is higher).   It is the initial experience that gets us hooked.  For more variety and competitive play, boosters are available - and anybody who got hooked will buy them, anyway.
    (I don't think that the CCG/LCG distinction is relevant.  All of this comes after the starter box.)
    The KeyForge starter box is complete and guarantees variety (four decks!).  Then, endless (random) expansions.  That looks promising.
     
  19. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from Fromper in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    Which says:
    That should be a most welcome addition, but the author misses the point.
    There are various starter boxes available.  Why does none of them provide a complete deck?   I got into the game with the two-player starter.  It allows for immediate play and gives a decent taste of game mechanics.  But even after adding some single-player starters and boosters, the game appeared too much arbitrary and luck-driven for my taste.
    Recently, I gave it another try and got a second copy of the two-player box.  The game now feels much more tactical and balanced.  Elites and doubling cards does make a difference.   But why would anybody who's not familiar with the game (or reading the FFG forum) buy two identical copies of a starter box?
    I don't play competitively - even if I wanted, there is not a single SWD player left at the FLGS.  This is now an occasional family game.  It has great theme, mechanics, and variety.   But: If FFG wants to sell SWD to casual players, they have to issue *complete* starter boxes with two elite characters and, say, 40 cards per player to choose 30 from (even if the price is higher).   It is the initial experience that gets us hooked.  For more variety and competitive play, boosters are available - and anybody who got hooked will buy them, anyway.
    (I don't think that the CCG/LCG distinction is relevant.  All of this comes after the starter box.)
    The KeyForge starter box is complete and guarantees variety (four decks!).  Then, endless (random) expansions.  That looks promising.
     
  20. Thanks
    Canopus reacted to tunewalker in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    I can not like this post more than once... I am sorry it would have 100 upvotes from me if I could.
  21. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from tunewalker in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    Which says:
    That should be a most welcome addition, but the author misses the point.
    There are various starter boxes available.  Why does none of them provide a complete deck?   I got into the game with the two-player starter.  It allows for immediate play and gives a decent taste of game mechanics.  But even after adding some single-player starters and boosters, the game appeared too much arbitrary and luck-driven for my taste.
    Recently, I gave it another try and got a second copy of the two-player box.  The game now feels much more tactical and balanced.  Elites and doubling cards does make a difference.   But why would anybody who's not familiar with the game (or reading the FFG forum) buy two identical copies of a starter box?
    I don't play competitively - even if I wanted, there is not a single SWD player left at the FLGS.  This is now an occasional family game.  It has great theme, mechanics, and variety.   But: If FFG wants to sell SWD to casual players, they have to issue *complete* starter boxes with two elite characters and, say, 40 cards per player to choose 30 from (even if the price is higher).   It is the initial experience that gets us hooked.  For more variety and competitive play, boosters are available - and anybody who got hooked will buy them, anyway.
    (I don't think that the CCG/LCG distinction is relevant.  All of this comes after the starter box.)
    The KeyForge starter box is complete and guarantees variety (four decks!).  Then, endless (random) expansions.  That looks promising.
     
  22. Thanks
    Canopus reacted to BigKahuna in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    I firmly believe that Star Wars Destiny is one of the best card games ever made, that no one plays and I really blame the business model for this game.
    There are basically 2 core issues.
    1.  Misunderstanding of the Audience.   I'm sorry but Destiny should not be targeted as a competitive CCG and it should have never been marketed that way.  This is a fun, casual, light hearted dice game.  It has dice, it's pretty, it's Star Wars, it's quite literally a mass market game if you make the business model approachable.  It should have been directed towards a much wider audience then elite collectors looking for competitive play.   I know so many people who are not gamers who come to my house, want to play "one of my games", I put out Destiny and it's an instant hit.  Then they ask "where can I buy it" and I explain to them the concept of a CCG, show them the cost... and conversation over.  Just a swing and miss in the direction of this game, it should have never been a CCG.
    2. Cost vs. functional design.  Even as a fan of many collectable games, Destiny even with my shrimpy sized collection in which I have maybe 50% of the content, this is the single most expensive game I own by a very wide margin and that includes my Lord of the Rings LCG, X-Wing, Armada and Legion.  Now I'm not saying its expensive to buy individual boosters or packs, what I'm talking about is collecting to "functional status".  The design is such that you have to both collect cards and dice, but also "heroes & Villains" and its in the collection of these character cards and dice where much of the game falls apart.  I have a crap ton of cards, but a very small amount of heroes and out of a collection of over hundreds of cards I have 5 heroes for which I have two dice for and having 2 dice for a hero is typically the functional point (or use point) of a character.  With some exceptions, generally you need to have 2 copies of a character to use him in a deck in anything approaching a reasonably competitive deck.  Now I'm sure people will argue to the contrary and I recognize that there are exceptions but a deck built around 2 dice is not effective and combining 3 heroes to make a 3 dice deck trims the options dramatically.  What it boils down to is despite having spent 400 dollars the vast majority of my collection goes unused as I have 4 30 card decks that are what I would call "functional".
    This design model is very discouraging.  I have bought 4 super booster boxes and I still don't really have much of a collection to work with.
    These two issues are only now being felt as players realize that each time a new expansion comes out, you are going to have to spend a 2-3 hundred dollars to collect even half of what you need to make a workable deck from that set and as the release is made, one of your set is dubbed "obsolete" which just adds salt to the wound.  So you have a two prong problem.  On the competitive side, it's expensive and difficult to collect to functionality, while on the casual side the same cost and difficulty are road blocks to entry.
    The end result is you have to wonder, who is the audience here?  Who are they expecting will buy into Destiny today with already several sets out, the collection of each set requiring 2-3 hundred dollars each.  
     
  23. Like
    Canopus reacted to tunewalker in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    the new post brings hope to me that they may try to bring in more casual players.
  24. Like
    Canopus reacted to BigKahuna in I Have A Bad Feeling About This...As Usual (FFGs Lack of Support for Destiny)   
    EDH stands for Elder Dragon Highlander, it's basically a multiplayer variant that has some deck building rules that make it more for casual play.  It wasn't created by Wizards of the Coast, it was created by the community (it used to be called Commander), it was simply embraced by Wizards of the Coast and kind of made an official variant.
    There are many great card games and certainly Destiny falls into that category, being number 10 in a top 10 list is not exactly failing.  I would not expect however that at this point FFG changes its business model, my best guess would be that they will simply continue to develop the game as they have and simply reduce the production of the game to meet the expected demand, another words, sell to those that buy.  This is at least historically their strategy with all of their games. In a sense this is good for casual players like me because it means the discounting of products will continue, making the whole game a whole lot cheaper to buy.  Most stuff is already at 50% off in most places which I think may be sufficient to get more people to at least consider it.
  25. Like
    Canopus got a reaction from sabrjay in Missing the Point!   
    We have played many scenarios and editions of the D&D boardgame series, and as far as I can tell now (two scenarios), Discover is similar enough that it may be compared to those.
    Similarities include the overall setting (co-op without overlord player, up to 4-5 characters, survival, exploration&fight), scenario game time and difficulty, structure of the game flow (survive a number of turns, then some boss fight/scene), random tile layout, fight structure and rewards, random regular (negative) environment effects.
    The main difference is than in Discover, fights and overall randomness are toned down while planning (crafting, traveling on the map) plays a larger role.   OTOH, less randomness implies less variety on replay.
    The uniqueness of the game is an abstract category, so far.  I don't think that this is really important.  The perceived replay value of a single copy depends on whether a known script still allows for a new, different and challenging game each time.  Trading for a new copy makes sense only if the game scripts and basic mechanics really differ between games, and you don't miss the old one.  I'm not sure whether this is the case.
    I could imagine a different development, if the game succeeds: (fan-made) custom scenarios and campaigns that combine more than one copy/biome.  The basic mechanics appears to be solid and generic enough to support this.
×
×
  • Create New...