experts and masters tell me about the games you mastered

[saixd]

i would like to hear about your experience. what is the meta, what are the noob traps, is your game luck heavy enough that you lose to 100-200 players, what keeps you hooked, just nerd iut if you want
i am pretty deep into terraforming mars so i am less interested in opinions about it

[Ceaseless]

i would like to hear about your experience. what is the meta, what are the noob traps, is your game luck heavy enough that you lose to 100-200 players, what keeps you hooked, just nerd iut if you want
i am pretty deep into terraforming mars so i am less interested in opinions about it

You have a 500s game you didn't comment on here that would have given us a baseline on what sort of post you were looking for. I'm 500+ in a few games here. At that point if the game is decently played I set rating filters so I don't get paired vs 100-200s, the game is going to be too one-sided for that to be very interesting. I think with noob traps too many players focus on the "trap" part and not enough on the "noob". I don't even think of traps vs them; they'll lose to moves before I've even really set up and I've won before I had the chance to really play.

[BarnardsStar]

i would like to hear about your experience. what is the meta, what are the noob traps, is your game luck heavy enough that you lose to 100-200 players, what keeps you hooked, just nerd iut if you want
i am pretty deep into terraforming mars so i am less interested in opinions about it

You have a 500s game you didn't comment on here that would have given us a baseline on what sort of post you were looking for.

Not only that but I don’t see why this post has to be a one-way street. It kinda rubs me the wrong way, this sort of demand for information without any willingness to reciprocate in kind.

[ahyangyi]

I was the "World ELO Leader" of High Season. The trick? ... You play a new game often enough

Anyways, I do like High Season and The White Castle, I feel while they are not necessarily the most interesting board games on an actual table, the combo-y nature of the very explosive turns really translates well for a turn-based, online experience.

From a game designer perspective, though, I hate to learn about the game meta. I see them as design flaws. It’s OK to learn to evaluate things, and it’s even better if the value of things fluctuates a lot depending on the setup and the play. And it’s fun to be defeated by an opponent because they evaluated things more accurately than I do, or see interactions/combos in ways I failed to see.

But for something to become a meta is usually indicative of an imbalance that could have been patched out.

[saixd]

i would like to hear about your experience. what is the meta, what are the noob traps, is your game luck heavy enough that you lose to 100-200 players, what keeps you hooked, just nerd iut if you want
i am pretty deep into terraforming mars so i am less interested in opinions about it

You have a 500s game you didn't comment on here that would have given us a baseline on what sort of post you were looking for.

Not only that but I don’t see why this post has to be a one-way street. It kinda rubs me the wrong way, this sort of demand for information without any willingness to reciprocate in kind.

you are making a good point and i apologize if i came out mean, in terraforming mars you quickly learn there are busted cards some are obvious some are less obvious i got good by playing a lot and, checking out card tier lists and watching YouTube, i feel the game is pretty luck heavy if both players have reached a certain skill level (200~) but i do have a weak win rate against top players so it might be just a feeling, i usually enjoy the ratio of luck and skill in the game and high rolling is really fun though it can be frustrating sometime to lose to someone making bad plays but they have such a good economy they can afford it, i find it super interesting that the game is both capable of providing an efficiency puzzle like the best engine builders and in my opinion the game has the most enjoyable engines to have rolling at least from what i have played only video game rougelikes and deckbuilders have such fun engines to have going.

[saixd]

I was the "World ELO Leader" of High Season. The trick? ... You play a new game often enough

Anyways, I do like High Season and The White Castle, I feel while they are not necessarily the most interesting board games on an actual table, the combo-y nature of the very explosive turns really translates well for a turn-based, online experience.

From a game designer perspective, though, I hate to learn about the game meta. I see them as design flaws. It’s OK to learn to evaluate things, and it’s even better if the value of things fluctuates a lot depending on the setup and the play. And it’s fun to be defeated by an opponent because they evaluated things more accurately than I do, or see interactions/combos in ways I failed to see.

But for something to become a meta is usually indicative of an imbalance that could have been patched out.

I also like white castle on bga but i haven't gone deep in it

but i am interested to know what's wrong with a meta? in any replayable strategic game, there are better and worse strategies that often change depending on circumstances and/or counterable to a degree, a meta is simply the players figuring out the best strategies for each circumstance and their counters the, in the board game space i think most games can have a meta and people either didn't figure it out yet or have figured it out and enjoy it

[Andrei3009]

This is an unusual question, but now there's a reason to brag freely . I am an expert few games, but so far I am a master in only one - kingdomino [ while playing 2p with all additional rules]. I can't say that this game has a well-known meta and I haven't seen any discussion of strategies anywhere, I can only say that it's important to know all the remaining tiles and keep track of which ones you or your opponent can't fit.

I don't want to go into too much detail, as this is a general forum and many people don't know the rules of this game. Beginners often take tiles with a large number of crowns or which give more points now, when most of the time the priority of choice is gives a lot more [however, a tile with a crown is often more profitable than a tile without a crown], but understanding when to take or not to take a crown can cause difficulties for people with up to 600 elo

Although the kingdomino looks random , there is enough random mitigation in 2p to almost never lose to weak players. Over the last 60 games, as I approached my current skill level, the minimum rating of the opponent I lost to was 437. As it is, I try to avoid games with players below 350 rating because those game usually boring and i get nothing for win, fortunately there are practically no such players in the elite league [only 1 out of ~50 games, with the average rating of the opponents more than 500 ]

It's been a while since I've enjoyed this game, as it's a new unexplored game, for me it's more a puzzle about how to maximize the percentage of wins and reduce the impact of randomness, and when I come up with a new idea, I return to the game, but since I hit the top 1, the motivation for innovation has dropped And I'll probably come back only to try to win the arena or reach 800 elo.

[h_illes]

OK, I will say a few words, although it's not that clear what OP is looking for.

In Century: Spice Road, I am a master and Arena champion of all 14 seasons so far, with 10000+ games played on this site (with several thousand more on other sites and many hundred OTB). The game itself is an abstract optimization game; it's an engine builder, with an initial draft phase (when you build your engine) and then a main phase where you have to run your engine (so it's also a racing game). The main phase is less interactive (although there is still some interaction), but the draft is heavy with interaction and long-term consequences to each decision. Most players learn to play the main phase first, that is, if given a hand of cards, most 400-500+ rated players can run it close to optimal. The draft is harder though, and that's what distinguishes strong players, experts and masters.

During the draft, beginners will usually prioritize production cards over trade cards, even though a strong combo of trade cards will beat any production card-based engine. 300+ rated players have a better idea about what the goal of the draft is (balancing building a strong hand while also controlling the opponent's hand at the same time), with a varying level of accuracy and consistency during execution. Against a master opponent, one mistake during the draft can be enough to lose, so consistently making good moves is important.

Apart from Century: Spice Road, I also like Azul and Splendor. I am a veteran in both games (I would guess 400-ish rating, although I haven't played enough games on BGA to get there yet), with some ideas about what should be done during the game, but I never got really deep into them. It would be nice to master those games as well, but never invested the time it takes to get there (so far).

[nik592]

It's interesting to hear from people who've mastered a particular game, and often the more I hear, the more convinced I am that I never will - as soon as someone starts to talk about the meta of a game, and it being solvable, my brain just loses interest completely. That's not to say that I think of becoming a master in a negative light - I respect the dedication that it takes to get there, but it's just not for me. A statement like this:

Against a master opponent, one mistake during the draft can be enough to lose...

makes me feel like if I was at that level, I'd begin to hate playing.

And what's more interesting is I do look at my ELO sometimes, and feel smaller levels of pride when I do achieve higher (for me) levels (we're talking 200-300 kind of range, not expert or master), and sometimes I wonder what it would take to go higher. And yet when I find out, I just don't want to anymore.

[Andrei3009]

It's interesting to hear from people who've mastered a particular game, and often the more I hear, the more convinced I am that I never will - as soon as someone starts to talk about the meta of a game, and it being solvable, my brain just loses interest completely. That's not to say that I think of becoming a master in a negative light - I respect the dedication that it takes to get there, but it's just not for me. A statement like this:

Against a master opponent, one mistake during the draft can be enough to lose...

makes me feel like if I was at that level, I'd begin to hate playing.

And what's more interesting is I do look at my ELO sometimes, and feel smaller levels of pride when I do achieve higher (for me) levels (we're talking 200-300 kind of range, not expert or master), and sometimes I wonder what it would take to go higher. And yet when I find out, I just don't want to anymore.

If there is a meta in the game, you don't have to follow it. You will be a much stronger player if you understand all the basic principles yourself without relying on a well-known opinion. Although it is easier to reach the average level of the game (relative to top players) based on meta, it is much more difficult to become an top\expert player this way.

I've had the most success in games where I don't rely on other people's strategies.