Game Improvements

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/#!bugs
User avatar
CraWleR
Posts: 51
Joined: 05 July 2015, 11:19

Re: Game Improvements

Post by CraWleR »

galehar wrote:For relocation my copy (french edition), says that the destination planet has to be equal or smaller. I don't really remember when it was changed, but I'm pretty sure that it is the correct (latest) version.
Send us a picture of both Relocation and Curious side by side. So far from what I know we have 2 copies of Quantum, that are both Revised Editions and both have Relocation without the destination planet being equal or smaller size.
galehar wrote:For the missing maps (Gordian Knot and Event horizon), pikiou told me that they were too big to fit. Basically, to fit them in the BGA constraints, he would have needed to reduce the graphics and he was not happy with that. He'd rather have an incomplete version than one with smaller graphics. Maybe BGA constraints have evolved since then? Or there is a way to reach a better compromise?
pikiou basically confirmed the same and didn't point out any other concerns, so I'm moving this up in priority.
galehar wrote:Regarding Scrappy, I'm the one whom filled the original bug, and I also contributed to the BGG discussion thread. I don't understand how this could be misinterpreted. Reconfigure guarantees a different result and rerolls don't. This was a bug, and apparently it hasn't been fixed. Having this as an option sounds like a terrible idea to me. It would be confusing, and it's really an edge case.
Like I said, even though I do agree with it, I'm not going to change it unless I have an unanimous agreement from the players to do so. At this point, after N number of years, I'd say it's a house rule already. Therefore, without an unanimous agreement, the only condition that I would change it is if there was an option on table creation screen to still use the current/"wrong" behaviour.
galehar wrote:Automatic rerolls sounds wonderful. In theory, it is possible that a defeat might be a desirable outcome, but I have never played a game where that was the case (in about 400 games). So I think it would be perfectly fine to automatically and always reroll defeats, it doesn't really have to be configurable.
This is similar to always having the End turn button. Since it is always an option while playing it in real life, it should always be an option here as well. We can tinker with defaults, e.g. enabling automatic rerolling by default, however the user should be able to disable it at any point during the game. Also, I can see the majority of the games you've played were with 2 players and I feel like these sort of situations are more likely to happen when there are 3 or 4 players. I've personally had that situation before while playing in real-life with 3 players. It was only once, but it can still happen.
galehar wrote:What I'd like to have for tables is a bit more flexibility for map choices. Choosing min and max number of dice would be really nice. Most good players play on 6 and 7 cube maps. Usually they choose random 6 or random 7 or they choose one map. For tournament especially, being able to set it to any 6 or 7 map would be cool.
I have the following bullet point in my list:
CraWleR wrote:Look into improving game options (table creation) rules to at least avoid some existing bugs
Overall, table creation screens in BGA are terrible. More so, the Quantum Map and cube count selection dropdown. I have ideas on how to improve it already and just need to sit down at some point to actually implement them. I'll keep your request in mind while working on it as well.
Jakee
Posts: 7
Joined: 27 February 2017, 02:49

Re: Game Improvements

Post by Jakee »

You don't get the opportunity to choose to end your turn after reorganization.
User avatar
galehar
Posts: 136
Joined: 29 March 2015, 00:12

Re: Game Improvements

Post by galehar »

CraWleR wrote:
galehar wrote:For relocation my copy (french edition), says that the destination planet has to be equal or smaller. I don't really remember when it was changed, but I'm pretty sure that it is the correct (latest) version.
Send us a picture of both Relocation and Curious side by side. So far from what I know we have 2 copies of Quantum, that are both Revised Editions and both have Relocation without the destination planet being equal or smaller size.
Here you go. Hope you can read some french :)
https://imgur.com/a/NUtpQV3
User avatar
CraWleR
Posts: 51
Joined: 05 July 2015, 11:19

Re: Game Improvements

Post by CraWleR »

galehar wrote:Here you go. Hope you can read some french :)
https://imgur.com/a/NUtpQV3
Interesting. Mismatches :D It'd be curious to know what the designer of the game thought about the differences :D
Jakee wrote:You don't get the opportunity to choose to end your turn after reorganization.
I'd create a bug with the table ID and move where you couldn't do it.
User avatar
vdude
Posts: 7
Joined: 19 February 2018, 15:32

Re: Game Improvements

Post by vdude »

Can we get the option to create games with 6 and 7 cubes, not either or?
User avatar
ALA-IN
Posts: 1
Joined: 16 March 2020, 02:36

Re: Game Improvements

Post by ALA-IN »

Hi friends, I just made a report about Quantum.
I'll paste it below:


Hi, in my opinion the big flaw of Quantum is the playing time of the single game.
The long playing time prevents many gamers from insisting and deepening this game, preferring shorter and simpler games instead.
In my opinion, this problem of time could be partially solved by speeding up the ship / dice movement animations (or even making them instantaneous).
Maybe the speeded animations (or snapshots) could be selected as a game variant for experts during the construction of the table.
By speeding up the animations, I think you can cut a good 30% of the game time (if not more).
In addition to speeding up, a "trail" could be added that could make everyone understand what the ship's starting point was before it arrived (quickly or instantly) at the destination.
Thanks in advance.



I hope this report is approved and that we can all vote for it to get activated. :)
User avatar
Idsky
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 April 2020, 16:49

Re: Game Improvements

Post by Idsky »

ALA-IN wrote: 11 May 2020, 14:32
Hi, in my opinion the big flaw of Quantum is the playing time of the single game.
The animations can definitely be sped up, I made it faster on the dev copy of Quantum I'm playing with.
I hope I can get the live version updated with better graphics I'm making -- I made new dice and want to upgrade all the other graphics (hoping someone has digital source files so I don't need to scan cards).
Image
User avatar
galehar
Posts: 136
Joined: 29 March 2015, 00:12

Re: Game Improvements

Post by galehar »

CraWleR wrote: 14 October 2018, 04:48
galehar wrote:Regarding Scrappy, I'm the one whom filled the original bug, and I also contributed to the BGG discussion thread. I don't understand how this could be misinterpreted. Reconfigure guarantees a different result and rerolls don't. This was a bug, and apparently it hasn't been fixed. Having this as an option sounds like a terrible idea to me. It would be confusing, and it's really an edge case.
Like I said, even though I do agree with it, I'm not going to change it unless I have an unanimous agreement from the players to do so. At this point, after N number of years, I'd say it's a house rule already. Therefore, without an unanimous agreement, the only condition that I would change it is if there was an option on table creation screen to still use the current/"wrong" behaviour.
I really appreciate what you're doing to improve this great game, but this is nonsense. You're not going to get an unanimous agreement for an issue which most players are not even aware of. A long standing bug is not a house rule. If it had a significant impact on gameplay or interface, the downside of fixing it would have to be taken into consideration. But that's not the case. There is no reason not to fix it and an option for such a minor and rare issue would be confusing and pointless.
Sorry if this is a bit harsh. Again, I thank you for your work on the game and I'm really looking forward for the improvements you're bringing, but I'm thoroughly disagreeing with you on this point.
User avatar
Idsky
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 April 2020, 16:49

Re: Game Improvements

Post by Idsky »

galehar wrote: 28 June 2020, 10:43 <Scrappy Bug>
I could take a look at this after my other improvements.
User avatar
Idsky
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 April 2020, 16:49

Re: Game Improvements

Post by Idsky »

Idsky wrote: 05 July 2020, 06:17
galehar wrote: 28 June 2020, 10:43 <Scrappy Bug>
I could take a look at this after my other improvements.
I have checked and the game is recording "shipFaceBeforeReroll" and avoiding that number on scrappy reconfigure reroll.
The randomness of the rolling didn't seem good though. I'm replacing the random function with a better one.
Post Reply

Return to “Quantum”