What improvements would you like to see?

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/#!bugs
Liallan
Posts: 1077
Joined: 26 May 2014, 07:01

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby Liallan » 18 May 2018, 05:08

RicardoRix wrote:
Cenobi wrote:
RicardoRix wrote:Could there be an option of 'pass' if you don't want to use 1 or both dice?

More decision choices = more strategy.


That would change the game considerably. I'd say that it would be detrimental, as it would slow the game and encourage people to have pawns lying in wait. It would also decrease the risk management aspect if you can ignore dice.


What kind of risk management? You have 2 dice to choose, there is not much in the way of choice. It plays as a slightly more advanced version of ludo.

I'm going to take a crack at this. I can't necessarily know what Cenobi was meaning so these are just my thoughts. (And I don't know Ludo and can't make a comparison.)

Two dice, four pawns. There's 12 combinations of moves you can make with that, just with the basic single pawns. In those moves you may have decisions about doubling up, hitting on a bridge so you can move down, moving one that's already on a bridge, getting closer to a bridge, capturing another pawn, getting closer to another player to try to capture them, having to pass by a bridge... so it's 12 combinations that involve different consequences. You could have a double pawn or two, which reduces the combinations, but you still have all those types of moves, plus possibly splitting the double back out. I don't see this as just "having 2 dice to choose," and you aren't choosing these moves independently - you're looking at the overall set of 2 moves. If you don't allow doubles to cross bridges, that creates yet another type of situation. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as not having much in the way of choice.

As to risk management, I'm not sure I know exactly what Cenobi was thinking there, but some things occur to me. For instance, someone is coming up on your tail and you want to move them, but you have another pawn that can be put on a bridge, or already on one than can move down. You really want to move down that level but you risk a capture. Or you are deciding whether to use a big dice roll to get behind someone else in the hopes of capturing them, but risk losing the opportunity of getting on a bridge and moving down. "Lying in wait" might mean sitting on a pawn waiting for the perfect dice roll to come up, either to move to an inner circle or to get into the center or to capture someone in front of you. If you're forced to use both dice, you might have to bypass those opportunities, or be forced to jump over another player's pawn and put yourself in harm's way.

While not using a dice gives more choices, I think it makes it a bit easier and therefore overall less strategic, or I guess less tactical.

User avatar
RicardoRix
Posts: 281
Joined: 29 April 2012, 23:43

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby RicardoRix » 18 May 2018, 09:42

So I am in the final last stage of the game. A VERY exciting prospect one might think.

I have 1 pawn remaining, and what choices do I have to make with the 1 and 3 dice rolls. Move the pawn 1 and then 3 places, OR should I move it 3 then 1 places. Choices, choices, oh yeah - it doesn't matter.

A-dam
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 September 2013, 18:15

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby A-dam » 18 May 2018, 20:38

Thank you all for your ideas and comments. I know I cannot satisfy everyone, but I hope that majority of you will like the improvements.

So far we have decided as follows:
  • Game variant "No double pawn bridge crossing" will be the first selection. "Double pawn can cross" will be second, so no deletion
  • Automatic game end when scores cannot be changed will be added
  • New game variant based on this
    postmans wrote:Maybe a variant where the points in the center are connected to the lines going in, so when you arrive at a line to a 1 point you might want to move on a bit to get to a better point, but risk waiting on others to enter to the middle.
    will be also added
  • No skipping dice/pass
  • No return pawn home
  • No scoring changes

I have already released new update with those changes:
  • New pop-up menu for double-pawn/single pawn selection. Menu is around selected pawn, so selection should be quicker and easier (old system can be used)
  • Clicking on selected pawn will deselect it
  • Game variant "No double pawn bridge crossing" is primary selected. Note BGA remembers your choice when starting new table from old setup

Next will be automatic game end, it just needs more testing. And Im not decided yet if it will be strict end or end on majority consensus

User avatar
DrKarotte
Posts: 148
Joined: 22 September 2015, 23:42

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby DrKarotte » 19 May 2018, 14:59

The changes concerning selecting and de-selecting pawns are great :D

User avatar
Pedros
Posts: 41
Joined: 07 January 2015, 17:03

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby Pedros » 27 May 2018, 16:32

chrislinn wrote:Now I have played some games where a double pawn can't cross a bridge.
Since "everyone" has been saying I expected a better game.
But so far it's been the other way around!
It's been more like Ludo and I maintain it's better to let double pawns cross bridges because so many special and subtle plays can happen then.
That's my experience so far anyway.

I disagree entirely with this - and so, I think, do many other regular players. I have played probably 15-20 games in the last few days, and in all that time haven't found a single game set up with doubles can cross.

I don't know whether crislinn has been playing in some extremely subtle "can cross" games, or whether his experience of "can't cross" has been with players who aren't particularly used to that option, but the games I am playing, mostly with players of ELO > 100 and some strong players, are characterised by more of the game revolving around captures and avoiding them. This can lead to some very complicated positions. Quite often more points are scored through capture than gaining the centre!

These games are played with not less than 3 players, and 4+ players are even better.

User avatar
Pedros
Posts: 41
Joined: 07 January 2015, 17:03

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby Pedros » 27 May 2018, 16:36

Another thought, this time concerning the proposed option of different values for differing end-points. Unless one of the points is connected to two different entry points (possible the #1) it would mean redesigning the board since there are 5 targets and 6 entry points. I would certainly not want to see the board redesigned.

Personally I don't feel this would improve the game, but no problem with providing the option.

And finally (separate point so I'd have written a separate post, but it doesn't want to let me!) re the idea of ending the game "when the score can't change". The important point is not "can the score change" but does anybody believe that they can improve their finishing position in the player order in the Game Results page. It should be possible for surviving players to agree that the game is dead - it can sometimes take a long time for the game to end even though there is no way the result can change.

Liallan
Posts: 1077
Joined: 26 May 2014, 07:01

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby Liallan » 02 June 2018, 06:36

A-dam wrote:
  • Game variant "No double pawn bridge crossing" is primary selected. Note BGA remembers your choice when starting new table from old setup


I just realized this needs reflected in the rules. When I have time, if you have not changed it yet, then I will try to get it done.

A-dam
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 September 2013, 18:15

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby A-dam » 02 June 2018, 20:27

Liallan wrote:
A-dam wrote:
  • Game variant "No double pawn bridge crossing" is primary selected. Note BGA remembers your choice when starting new table from old setup


I just realized this needs reflected in the rules. When I have time, if you have not changed it yet, then I will try to get it done.



Oh, you are right!

User avatar
Drizlin
Posts: 1
Joined: 28 February 2018, 21:09

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby Drizlin » 13 June 2018, 09:06

I would like to see an order of play that reflects starting positions.

In 2 & 3 player games the default spacing is even and cw or ccw play order is ok.
In 4 player games you essentially have 2 'cats' and 2 'mice' due to spacing.
I would like to see the play order for 4p games become mouse 1, mouse 2, cat 1, cat 2
There is a problem when the 'cats' go before the mice because they close the gap on their 1st turn and their 2nd turn starts with a chance to cap
the 1st pawn the mouse moved.

Lotus Blossom
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 November 2017, 01:45

Re: What improvements would you like to see?

Postby Lotus Blossom » 13 June 2018, 14:37

Drizlin wrote:I would like to see an order of play that reflects starting positions.

In 2 & 3 player games the default spacing is even and cw or ccw play order is ok.
In 4 player games you essentially have 2 'cats' and 2 'mice' due to spacing.
I would like to see the play order for 4p games become mouse 1, mouse 2, cat 1, cat 2
There is a problem when the 'cats' go before the mice because they close the gap on their 1st turn and their 2nd turn starts with a chance to cap
the 1st pawn the mouse moved.


Agreed, some configurations are unfair.


Return to “Hypnosia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest