Over 700 games of this and I see no reason to continue

[LTP56]

A luckfest of whoever gets the most parrots usually can close the game out before the other player can respond. Not every game is won this way, but about half are. So, while it is cute and a nice little bingo-like puzzle, it's too luck dependent for my tastes. It just feels so deflating to know what to do, but based on the luck of the draw you are hand-tied. That's not fun in my opinion.

[DoctorFianchetto]

Captain Flip has a reasonable amount of skill. Decisions to make on every turn. There are aspects of planning, combos, reacting to the opponent's play, different strategies per map. I can generally outplay a weaker player, even if they are luckier.

Of course there's always the scenario where an opponent draws perfectly, leading to an easy victory with almost no difficult decisions to make. The same as any luck-based game.

However, given two players of roughly equal skill, luck decides all. Thus, matches at the top of the arena are essentially coin flips so you need a huge luck streak to reach the top.

Personally I like the game, it has nice artwork and just enough skill/variance to keep it fresh, but trying to be "the best" is futile and more stressful than it's worth.

As far as Parrots go, Map D is literally "most parrots wins" because of the strength of the 8 point column. Other maps, I'm not so sure. Having lots of parrots is an advantage but can be defeated. I've lost many times due to spamming parrots for the sake of it and finding myself in an awful position. Ending the game early isn't good if you have no points.

[dino_2000_22]

Captain Flip has a reasonable amount of skill. Decisions to make on every turn. There are aspects of planning, combos, reacting to the opponent's play, different strategies per map. I can generally outplay a weaker player, even if they are luckier.

Of course there's always the scenario where an opponent draws perfectly, leading to an easy victory with almost no difficult decisions to make. The same as any luck-based game.

However, given two players of roughly equal skill, luck decides all. Thus, matches at the top of the arena are essentially coin flips so you need a huge luck streak to reach the top.

Personally I like the game, it has nice artwork and just enough skill/variance to keep it fresh, but trying to be "the best" is futile and more stressful than it's worth.

As far as Parrots go, Map D is literally "most parrots wins" because of the strength of the 8 point column. Other maps, I'm not so sure. Having lots of parrots is an advantage but can be defeated. I've lost many times due to spamming parrots for the sake of it and finding myself in an awful position. Ending the game early isn't good if you have no points.

I absolutely agree with this assessment 100 percent. I have had people "parrot" me on cards A-C to only find out they ended up losing because of my end game scoring. So there is some strategy behind those cards. But on Card D, I always just flip until I get a parrot as it is a guaranteed victory with the 8 and 3 token row. It negates any negative points that parrots give.

[ChiefPointThief]

Board B is worse than board D in relation to parrots. At least with board d it doesn’t matter when you get the parrots on board b even if you get an equal amount of parrots if you get them too late it still doesn’t matter.

One user I played with suggested parrots should be -2 instead.

[Bracht]

Dude, you played it seven hundred times. It’s okay to stop. You had an enormous amount of entertainment, and there’s plenty of other games. No need to frame this as a shortcoming of the Captain Flip. If it was indeed so flawed, you wouldn’t have played it 700 times, now would you?

If you want to get into a game that will never stop being interesting, a game you can play not 700 but 70.000 times, a game that wouldn’t be unthinkable that you can teach your kid and your kid would eventually teach their kid; it’s probably not going to be a simple and light game with press your luck elements like Captain Flip.

(For that, I would point you to Cole Wehrle games as a great start. The man is building his entire career on making games that balance enough approachability with infinite depth. BGA has Pax Pamir. It’s an entirely different vibe, but it’s such an infinitely deep game. If you want to branch outside of what’s on BGA, look up his newest game, Arcs, and/or John Company 2nd Edition. Each with a different theme and level of complexity, but these are all games I would be happy playing to the end of my days, know they would never get old.)

[dino_2000_22]

Board B is worse than board D in relation to parrots. At least with board d it doesn’t matter when you get the parrots on board b even if you get an equal amount of parrots if you get them too late it still doesn’t matter.

One user I played with suggested parrots should be -2 instead.

I second this, and that was my original thought as well. The negative one score in my eyes is not enough to negate someone from playing it based on the potential rewards you get from using it. I think there is a few little tweaks I would make but all in all the game is a good starter game to get your mind flowing.

[DoctorFianchetto]

Board B is worse than board D in relation to parrots. At least with board d it doesn’t matter when you get the parrots on board b even if you get an equal amount of parrots if you get them too late it still doesn’t matter.

I disagree. Yes, board B is a tempo-based map, so early parrots are strong. But your opponent reaching the top of the 6 coin column first is not a decisive advantage. There are ways to fight in board B if you see your opponent is climbing the middle column quickly. In contrast, board D is a pure race to fill the four side columns. If one player reaches the top of the 8-point column and prevents the other from doing so, it's almost guaranteed victory.

In other words, while tempo is advantageous in board B, it's everything in board D.

One user I played with suggested parrots should be -2 instead.

I have thought about this myself. It would make players think twice about committing to so many parrots, and it would certainly make board D more interesting: parrots at -1 means there's only one good way to play the board, which is a shame because building the middle column is fun.

[AcosD]

I disagree. Yes, board B is a tempo-based map, so early parrots are strong. But your opponent reaching the top of the 6 coin column first is not a decisive advantage. There are ways to fight in board B if you see your opponent is climbing the middle column quickly.

Well, if you use the parrots just to rush the 6-column, you are clearly misplaying them and that is what a lot of people do. Instead you should use them to control all columns and take whichever bonus your opponent is going for. Games where you are second in each column are really painful.

[LTP56]

Well, I have played over 800 games of this and I see no reason to continue. I will tell you if anything changes after 900.

[Huuuze]

Board B is worse than board D in relation to parrots. At least with board d it doesn’t matter when you get the parrots on board b even if you get an equal amount of parrots if you get them too late it still doesn’t matter.

One user I played with suggested parrots should be -2 instead.

-2 points may prove to be too much of a disadvantage, with a consequence of every subsequent Parrot sinking you further down a hole.

One thought is to make Parrot scoring relative to the board. Board D (The Deserted Island) is far too difficult to win if your opponent gains two or three Parrot advantage, so I'd consider making their scoring more restrictive on that particular board.