Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Suggestions & ideas / Suggestions & idées
User avatar
N_Faker
Posts: 1064
Joined: 09 September 2016, 10:16

Re: Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Post by N_Faker »

Rules
http://www.matagot.com/docs/Takenoko_rules_EN.pdf
2011-10-05

http://www.studiobombyx.com/espacepro/P ... -%20US.pdf
2012-12-20

http://www.matagot.com/en/catalog/attachments/884
2014-11-03
-
FAQv1.5
http://www.matagot.com/IMG/pdf/takenoko_faq_eng-2.pdf
2012-02-12
-

"If a player picks an objective card already completed in the bamboo garden, he must discard it and picks a new objective card of the category of their choosing."
Has not changed at all between the rulebook versions.
Liallan
Posts: 1221
Joined: 26 May 2014, 07:01

Re: Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Post by Liallan »

How about we change Jest's comment to "as a general rule" they don't do unofficial variants. I might also point out that he never claimed that if someone posted a link to these as official variants that it would get implemented, only that if they weren't official, they would not. And it is true they probably would not.

As far as I can tell, the "official stance" of the site seems to be no unofficial variants (even if there's an exception), and I see nothing wrong with someone tossing that out there. It's not like Een and Sourisdudesert can respond to everything.
User avatar
veme
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 January 2015, 05:39

Re: Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Post by veme »

Well, as far as I can tell the official stance of the site seems to be 'defend the status quo regardless of whether it makes sense, to avoid doing more work'. They are running an unofficial variant of Puerto Rico too (https://en.boardgamearena.com/#!forum/v ... =3&t=10575) but refuse to acknowledge that it is their fault, or their responsibility to enforce the rules of the games. When someone wants them to look at deviating from the official rules for balance reasons the answer is 'we won't do that', and when someone asks them to enforce the official rules for balance reasons when other ones are already implemented the answer is 'we won't do that'.

And I agree that we could say that unofficial rules probably won't be adopted - because BGA wouldn't go to the developer and specifically ask like they did for the other game that they had a personal opinion about. Telling the players to go petition the designer to make alternate official rules is a 'no' dressed up like a 'maybe', because there is zero chance to get any consideration as a random player, while BGA as an organization can.
Liallan
Posts: 1221
Joined: 26 May 2014, 07:01

Re: Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Post by Liallan »

I read that whole thing with Puerto Rico. That is not an "unofficial variant." It's not a "variant" at all. The rules state those things are done simultaneously, which is how it was implemented. The rules also state that if the players feel they need to, they can basically request that it be done in order, and that is not enforced by the implementation. But there's no variant there!. I'm sorry, but I think it's silly to call it that, and I think you're trying too hard to drag up an example to prove your point.

The argument on Puerto Rico is not about implementing any variant. It was more about whether the turn order situation should be forced by the implementation. (Which to me sounds like a disaster when playing turn-based -- it's just going to add a gazillion more "in order" turns that run the game longer. I could see the point of making it an option, but I can also see the point of why it could cause some problems. i.e. I can see both sides. Did it occur to you that Een simply disagrees with you on that point?)

You can argue that the site does what it wants. Of course it does. But that's a lousy example to use when you're trying to argue about them doing unofficial variants, since it's not one. I have no way to interpret the issue with Takenoko, because not knowing the game, I don't have any idea what that discussion even means, but I do know it was stated they discussed it with the publisher.

Yes, I'm totally aware that they don't always say what they mean and are not always forthcoming about things, and sometimes they give some really strange excuses for things. I won't argue with that. (Though it's just as bad dragging Puerto Rico into it under the guise of a variant.) But in the end, they have an agreement with the publishers and I can see it being totally legit to not do unofficial variants.

Sounds like your real issue that they don't want to do more work. Would you want to? Messing with games that have already been implemented can be a real bear and can also be very time-consuming. So not wanting to add to the work load is totally legit. Trying to dig back into an old game can be rather time-consuming, not to mention always opening the door to new bugs, etc. Are you volunteering? I'd rather they take better care of the site overall than worry about variants. (Not that I think the site always runs great - just saying that would be my personal preference.)
User avatar
veme
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 January 2015, 05:39

Re: Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Post by veme »

Well, I can see your perspective here, but I disagree. I think we just have different ideas about what a 'variant' ruleset is.

If I can do something on BGA that is prohibited by the games rules (e.g. stall and time people out in Puerto Rico, instead of taking turns in order when requested), or if I can't do something allowed by them, as far as I am concerned I am playing a variant. What difference does it make whether it is a bug, done to speed up games, a rules misunderstanding on their part, or done intentionally with permission from the designer? From the perspective of the player these things are all equivalent.
Sounds like your real issue that they don't want to do more work. Would you want to? Messing with games that have already been implemented can be a real bear and can also be very time-consuming. So not wanting to add to the work load is totally legit. Trying to dig back into an old game can be rather time-consuming, not to mention always opening the door to new bugs, etc. Are you volunteering? I'd rather they take better care of the site overall than worry about variants.
My real issue is that BGA does not care about the rules of games, and has no understandable policy about them. And when people ask about the policy, BGA and the user base lies to them and then gives them the evasive and rude (IMO) reply "go ask the designer". I only posted in here because I saw misleading propaganda that needed to be corrected. :)

And even if I had the skills, why would I volunteer my time to develop a game that you yourself admit that they have no interest in maintaining or keeping faithful to the rules? They can pay me if they want help; I tried paying them already and felt like it got me less consideration. I, like you, would rather they take care of the site than worry about variants, but to me the first thing 'taking care of the site' means is making the damn games play correctly.
User avatar
sourisdudesert
Administrateur
Posts: 4630
Joined: 23 January 2010, 22:02

Re: Dragonheart / Cœur de Dragon Expert

Post by sourisdudesert »

This post has been locked, and user "veme" has been moderated for 30 days.

I admit this is a harsh decision/moderation, but according to a previous post from "veme", his goal was to provoke BGA administrators to reach his goals. So in a sense, he got what he was looking for ...

We (at BGA) are very open to discussion, and read the whole forum. There are plenty of posts here that are arguing against BGA features, against BGA choice of games, against BGA policies, ... and we do not do any moderation. The difference is: they are arguing, with arguments.

Here, in this discussion, player veme :
  • Hijacked the original object of the discussion to change it into a discussion on BGA policy about rules.
  • Wrote false statements on BGA admins (seriously, who can pretend we do not care of the rules ??), with no other intention than to provoke and be a forum troll.
There is no interest in doing this. None. It won't make BGA better, it won't help the player who posted this thread at the beginning, it has no other intention than taking time from BGA admins and make them angry. Congratulations, objective reached.

Conclusion on the subject itself: BGA policy is to implement official rules. Period. And yes, there are (very few) exceptions, for very good reasons (at least reasons we think good, often linked to digital specificities), and WE are the one who decide about this because well, that's what we do as admins. 1 million players have chosen to play on BGA because - apparently - most of the time we made the right choices. If you disagree with this policy, feel free to use another service. But please let the other players discuss on this forum without your provocative attitude.

Thank you everyone.
Locked

Return to “Suggestions”