Losing accomplished goals vs end of game?

[kajter]

If that was because I cancelled the turn in which I scored this goal - then obviously this is correct.
I check it in the current game to confirm.

[kajter]

I checked: indeed it works fine, manta stays on claimed 8-card goal after my hand is reduced to 7 cards.
Apparently I overlooked that I cancelled my turn in which I secured this goal, my mistake.

Thanks for quick reply anyways!

[FrankJones]

I should also add:

"starting goals" and "no king" are meant as beginner options for learning the rules. I recommend moving to "random goals" and "Kings" as soon as possible, for a much richer game experience.

I've mentored several players here, and I'm always willing to play friendly mode against someone looking to learn or improve. And I doubt you'll find a player on this site who plays this game better than I do.

If you're interested, message me.

[MasterMystery]

I should also add:

"starting goals" and "no king" are meant as beginner options for learning the rules. I recommend moving to "random goals" and "Kings" as soon as possible, for a much richer game experience.

thats a big flaw in my pov of the game designer/publisher/rulebook. the way as its written it sounds like this is the mode that usually is played while the other is advanced. it should rather be called as you say beginner and normal game or such rather than normal and advanced. This is probably due to the "feel good marketing", but if this game mode (starting goals) is just inherently
a) serverely unbalanced (starting player even bigger, as each goal simply leads to the other, while it is not always as drastic (maybe sometime a bit more though too) with variable goals
b) the game is just over so quick and very unsatisfying therefore this approach will even turn away players/owners -> dont like normal, why try advanced
c) it would make sense to have simplier goals in this mode (5locations, 3 scored) but also making them much quicker achieved, makes simply no sense and turns it in so different games. 5+3 while in advanced you have 11 total, at leas should have made it 5+5(6) or such.

p.s.: i dont get why games are designed with non equal turns, and than even no starting player compensation. This is even more servere the lower the amounts of turns are (basic agaiN) and whats the point even of creating this imblance if there is no inherent game mechanic that needs it (scythe for example game needs to be over as moving is so strong else, last player always a big advantage rather, could only work with equal turns but no move past endgame trigger...).

p.p.s.: I really don't get why designers seem to care or know so little about some core mechanics in gaming and also !balance!, like starting player, starting player shifting, equal turns, variable turn order, cost of starting player in f.ex worker placement, .. Does it need any, is there a reason for non-equal turns, is starting player shifting and clockwise turn order enough or do we need variable like variant TM, Feldgames order. Also have similar issues in deck builders, individual cards at random need a better balance than stack sytle dominion, even more if you cannot manipulate buy play timing (in arnak you could, in dune imperium not really), also about when reshuffled is triggered...

I will never get a game out as I am overly critical with all anyway, but i am astonished about the flaws of so many games (and i judge it harder on more expensive, longer, more complex or games with higher component quality; a 5€,10min card games can have more flaws)

[FrankJones]

I should also add:

"starting goals" and "no king" are meant as beginner options for learning the rules. I recommend moving to "random goals" and "Kings" as soon as possible, for a much richer game experience.

thats a big flaw in my pov of the game designer/publisher/rulebook. the way as its written it sounds like this is the mode that usually is played while the other is advanced. it should rather be called as you say beginner and normal game or such rather than normal and advanced. This is probably due to the "feel good marketing", but if this game mode (starting goals) is just inherently
a) serverely unbalanced (starting player even bigger, as each goal simply leads to the other, while it is not always as drastic (maybe sometime a bit more though too) with variable goals
b) the game is just over so quick and very unsatisfying therefore this approach will even turn away players/owners -> dont like normal, why try advanced
c) it would make sense to have simplier goals in this mode (5locations, 3 scored) but also making them much quicker achieved, makes simply no sense and turns it in so different games. 5+3 while in advanced you have 11 total, at leas should have made it 5+5(6) or such.

p.s.: i dont get why games are designed with non equal turns, and than even no starting player compensation. This is even more servere the lower the amounts of turns are (basic agaiN) and whats the point even of creating this imblance if there is no inherent game mechanic that needs it (scythe for example game needs to be over as moving is so strong else, last player always a big advantage rather, could only work with equal turns but no move past endgame trigger...).

p.p.s.: I really don't get why designers seem to care or know so little about some core mechanics in gaming and also !balance!, like starting player, starting player shifting, equal turns, variable turn order, cost of starting player in f.ex worker placement, .. Does it need any, is there a reason for non-equal turns, is starting player shifting and clockwise turn order enough or do we need variable like variant TM, Feldgames order. Also have similar issues in deck builders, individual cards at random need a better balance than stack sytle dominion, even more if you cannot manipulate buy play timing (in arnak you could, in dune imperium not really), also about when reshuffled is triggered...

I will never get a game out as I am overly critical with all anyway, but i am astonished about the flaws of so many games (and i judge it harder on more expensive, longer, more complex or games with higher component quality; a 5€,10min card games can have more flaws)

Just to add some context here, as someone who enjoys this game very much (but believes it greatly requires the Cold Waters expansion and equalization of turns), and has spoken frequently with the game designer, Ivan Tuzovsky:

1) English is not the first anyone involved in the making of the original base game, and there were some early translation issues in the rules and on the cards.

2) That being said, I have found Ivan's English to be excellent. And he's a super nice guy, and the only game designer who I've seen actively playing games with his fans here on BGA.

3) Page 6 of the rulebook does say, "For your first game we recommend that you play with the goals already printed on the board..." To me, that seems to strongly imply that the starting goals are for the first game only. Even then, it says "recommend", indicating that it's not even necessary for the first game. We certainly didn't use them. The next sentence is, "for further games, you can refer to the advanced mode at the end of the rulebook (page 26)". Again, it seems to be strongly suggesting that for the 2nd and subsequent games, to use the "advanced" mode. Yes, this might not have been the ideal phrasing, but this may have been an inexact translation. Maybe the original statement was "non-beginner" and translated to "advanced" instead of non-beginner". Who knows?

4) Either way - I don't understand how anyone could play this game more than once and still think that "starting goals" and "no kings" is a good way to play or makes for an even remotely interesting game.

5) Aquatica has a high percentage of players who try it here on BGA and then don't play it again. This is unfortunate, because I find it to be a game of great skill and depth if the random goals and kings are used, and (in home games) if turns are equalized and a couple other house rules are implemented.

6) Perhaps part of the reason for #5: New players tend to create open games with "start goals" and "no king", but then experienced players (including some in the top 5 Elo) join their game and demolish them, which is probably not a good experience. Both parties are at fault here, in my opinion. The new players for not using the Elo filter, and the strong players for crushing new players rather than just inviting them to a friendly mode game and helping them learn the game.

7) The unequal turns is supposed to be balanced by the drafting of kings. This does not work, since there are often two equally good kings. But at least in theory, there is some balancing for the player who does not go first. But without the kings? There isn't anything to even try to balance the game and make it fair.

8) Which it definitely is not. Without kings, both players have the same characters and access to the same cards on the main board. Player 1 should never lose. The player 1 advantage even with kings is nearly insurmountable. Without Kings, it is hopeless. So, I'll be skipping this first arena season, disappointed, because I've waited very patiently for this game to be moved out of Beta and into arena.

9) I have, as previously mentioned, spoken extensively to Ivan, the game designer. I have begged for equalization of turns, privately and publicly, and provided a mountain of evidence for its necessity. It would be a simple fix that would at least close the gap a bit. Because as it stands now, the player 1 advantage in a 2-player game is close to 20 points. TWENTY POINTS. My record as player 1 is something like 47-1. The one loss was by 3 points to a very good player, and in which I made a 6-point blunder and could have won. It might have bene a 9-point blunder, I forget. When I play against the other best player on the site (from my subjective vantage point), he and I take turns crushing each other as player 1, often by 30+ points. Etc. I've already written lengthy essays, which should be easy to find here in the forum since the forum has relatively few posts. So, no need to rehash it all.

10) The most recent expansion (Coral Reefs) does include equalization of turns in the rules. It's never too late to retroactively add this rule for the base game and first expansion (Cold Waters). This was done even though the expansions (with Tribes instead of goals) suffer much less from the player 1 imbalance. But the base game, in which each of 4 goals can be a 6-point swing for player 1 simply by going first, very much needs equalization (AND some other compensation, in my opinion).

11) If anyone has further questions about why I so strongly hold these opinions and analysis, just ask. I have a detailed spreadsheet of all my games played, and I can provide any statistics requested. But does anything more really need to be said other than "98% win rate and +20 point differential as player 1" ?

[MasterMystery]

1)2)3) For this wording I would strongly assume that its not the designer but rather the publisher who would go for these wordings. But this really fends people off.Friends told me that they had played it and wanted to get rid of it as it was over before much could even be happening. So noone wanted to play again. I then played a bit here, borrowed it from a friend and played with someone else with "advanced rules" it worked much better, told original owner, still wants to get rid as it was such a bad experience. As much as I like it, don't gonna take it off his shelves due to space constraints and its really not that special. I'd house rule equal turn any time.

4) its not but thats still what you are roughly told by the rulebook. or as you say, its not a good way to be played and than thats wrong. As said a simple fix from the designer side could still have solved that, make it just more 10 cards, 3+ mantas, 5 cards in raw, more scored cards.

5-6) see 1-3 regarding bad expierence on a game that ends far too early to gain anything out of it, on BGA it may be even worse due to experienced players, but for a game of this caliber and this rules complexity and depth you should accomplish something even against an slightly experienced player. but you are not all goals achieved when you have 0. The mode is just horrible apart from an introductory game (which is also called that) and even that one with what i write in 4). (and from my personal experience i used elo filters for 0-199 and still you get that crazy stomped)

7) It's supposed to balance thats what is the issue, kings as you present don't even balance the starting player advantage due to being first to achieve a goal/get selection of cards etc, as you pointed out in your data. That part of 1st player advantage a king card can solve (depending on setup ofc) but never the equal turn. But A) without kings there is nothing and B) kings are not enough with amount of turns (i have far less games than you so this is not yet statisticly sound on my side, but years of reviewing and playtesting give some feeling). But that all comes out during playtesting, this is not some unblanced combo like rusviet industrial which is 1/120 combination, in a more complex games, with meta shift.

8) points proved, but to make sure you should play to have a vote on the guru page? or do non arena games count to become guru

9) I don't at all mean ill towards Ivan, that he is here on the site, that he plays, that he communicates with you, thats amazing. Its just sad that so many games (like this) have potential but just mistakes like these make it not appeal to the target audience for it. also with so many games being published each year, its even more crucial that it fits that the components, art, mechanics, game design, accessibility are good and the degree of them fit to the target audience. And the target audience is not what you want your target audience to be, but what these types of games have, you can expand a bit past the core. But Unu/wizard players will never be target for gloomhaven f.ex.
I just hope he listens to you and the euqal turn there, the other question is still how much say the designer has if they are not publisher too. Publisher may not want to have difference between printed and online version

10) games should never require expansions to be good.

If Ivan reads this, the game has potential, even if it sounds harsh it a some stage with equal turns it be nice.

[FrankJones]

I think good games can still be improved by expansions. The Cold Waters is one of the best expansions I've ever played.

[MasterMystery]

yeah of course but base game should be a good game on its own. otherwise you never get the expansion.