Recommend
50 
 Thumb up
 Hide
237 Posts
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  Next »  [10] | 

Colosseum» Forums » General

Subject: Colosseum's coming back (as a Collector's Edition) - TMG obtained publishing rights rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Terry
United States
carlsbad
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
drakecoldwinter wrote:

On the other hand, I can agree with people stating it doesn't look like a deluxe edition. I think people were expecting a black (or deep stone gray) box with just the embossed logo, something classy.

That's pretty much it. Simple and clean looks deluxe. Cartoony looks cheap.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tolin
United States
Beaumont
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yatescory wrote:
I'm intrigued. I definitely want to see more, but my first impression was iffy. I mean, the original art is so incredible. I do wish TMG would stop going with so much cartoony artwork ALL..THE...TIME!


Cartoony? TMG?

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Susie_Cat
United Kingdom
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
nate_lockhart wrote:
Susie_Cat wrote:

MilkFromACow wrote:

2. Trading assets. I always found trading in competitive games pretty problematic. It seems very rare that someone is going to give you something you need, especially when so many of the assets are pretty tight to begin with. In most cases, this comes down to nepotism in trading or just ignoring it all together. Both can cause frustration. I've seen one game recently that handled trading in an interesting way. Mara Nostrom has an initiated trade action, and everyone is forced to put assets into a combined pool, then the assets are taken in a round robin format. This was really interesting, and I think more games could benefit from this forced trade mechanism, where you have to work for first place in the pick order, rather than working to convince someone to part with their assets through futile negotiation.


This is the "Settlers" problem: You should only want to trade if it is going to improve your position, but if everyone obeys that rule, then nobody will trade unless it is equally mutually beneficial. Added to which, if you are the leader nobody wants to trade with you anyhow and you can afford not to trade with them so long as you are significantly in front. So nobody trades and the game stagnates. Of course settlers gets round this with the Robber, but I quite like the sound of this Mare Nostrum enforced trading as possible variant.

Susie_Cat.


Huh. I have never looked at Settlers this way, and I never will. I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant. Even a trade with the leader is fine up to the point they rest "on the verge". Then people stop trading with them, but trading doesn't stop. And mutually beneficial trades are often easy to find due to the placement of resources on varying tiles and varying number payouts; as well as the different purchasing goals of the players involved.


To be honest, I don't really play Settlers this way either, I just try to do the best that *I* can, rather than try to despoil the others' games. I can see the logic of the analysis though: the bottom line is that all trading games are susceptible to group-think where nobody will trade unless they think they are doing better out of the trade than anyone/everyone else. So, with the wrong group, trading can stall.

Susie_Cat.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nate_lockhart wrote:
Susie_Cat wrote:

MilkFromACow wrote:

2. Trading assets. I always found trading in competitive games pretty problematic. It seems very rare that someone is going to give you something you need, especially when so many of the assets are pretty tight to begin with. In most cases, this comes down to nepotism in trading or just ignoring it all together. Both can cause frustration. I've seen one game recently that handled trading in an interesting way. Mara Nostrom has an initiated trade action, and everyone is forced to put assets into a combined pool, then the assets are taken in a round robin format. This was really interesting, and I think more games could benefit from this forced trade mechanism, where you have to work for first place in the pick order, rather than working to convince someone to part with their assets through futile negotiation.


This is the "Settlers" problem: You should only want to trade if it is going to improve your position, but if everyone obeys that rule, then nobody will trade unless it is equally mutually beneficial. Added to which, if you are the leader nobody wants to trade with you anyhow and you can afford not to trade with them so long as you are significantly in front. So nobody trades and the game stagnates. Of course settlers gets round this with the Robber, but I quite like the sound of this Mare Nostrum enforced trading as possible variant.

Susie_Cat.


Huh. I have never looked at Settlers this way, and I never will. I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant. Even a trade with the leader is fine up to the point they rest "on the verge". Then people stop trading with them, but trading doesn't stop. And mutually beneficial trades are often easy to find due to the placement of resources on varying tiles and varying number payouts; as well as the different purchasing goals of the players involved.


It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.
The Mare Nostrum game I mentioned doesn't cut anyone out of a trade. The leader (controlled by another game mechanic) makes a choice about how many resources are going to be traded. Everyone has to throw in that many resources, and then all those resources are passed back out in a round robin fashion with the leader going last I believe. This involves everyone in trading, every time it is invoked, which I thought was pretty ingenious. From a game point of view, it keeps everything even and it makes trading integral and inclusive. It prevents potential hording and create interesting strategies revolving around your position to choose goods in a specific order, rather than just hording the goods you need and stalling the game.
To be honest, I have never played Mare Nostrum, as I'm waiting for the KS, but it is one of the interesting mechanics that influenced me to buy that game.
Games like Colosseum or any Catan game almost always stall for us, so they make the game drag, and I kind of wonder why they bothered to include it at all, since it's almost always driven by nepotism anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
Susie_Cat wrote:

MilkFromACow wrote:

2. Trading assets. I always found trading in competitive games pretty problematic. It seems very rare that someone is going to give you something you need, especially when so many of the assets are pretty tight to begin with. In most cases, this comes down to nepotism in trading or just ignoring it all together. Both can cause frustration. I've seen one game recently that handled trading in an interesting way. Mara Nostrom has an initiated trade action, and everyone is forced to put assets into a combined pool, then the assets are taken in a round robin format. This was really interesting, and I think more games could benefit from this forced trade mechanism, where you have to work for first place in the pick order, rather than working to convince someone to part with their assets through futile negotiation.


This is the "Settlers" problem: You should only want to trade if it is going to improve your position, but if everyone obeys that rule, then nobody will trade unless it is equally mutually beneficial. Added to which, if you are the leader nobody wants to trade with you anyhow and you can afford not to trade with them so long as you are significantly in front. So nobody trades and the game stagnates. Of course settlers gets round this with the Robber, but I quite like the sound of this Mare Nostrum enforced trading as possible variant.

Susie_Cat.


Huh. I have never looked at Settlers this way, and I never will. I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant. Even a trade with the leader is fine up to the point they rest "on the verge". Then people stop trading with them, but trading doesn't stop. And mutually beneficial trades are often easy to find due to the placement of resources on varying tiles and varying number payouts; as well as the different purchasing goals of the players involved.


It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.

I guess groupthink is groupthink, but I think you'd find you're in the minority thinking that not trading is a road to victory. Try playing a game like Settlers and never trading, while all other players trade with each other, and see how close you come to winning...

The key to trading is to make a mutually beneficial deal. In a 3+ player game, if you and I make a deal that's equally good for both of us, then neither of us gain vs the other, but we both gain against all the other players.

Heck, even if I lose out 2vp vs you and gain 4vp on the other 3 players in our 5 player game, I might take that deal (especially if I don't perceive you as the leader)!

I can never find it, but someone (I am 90% certain it was Shannon Appelcline) wrote an article in which he used a hypothetical game called Gem Trader to illustrate this dynamic. If anyone knows at I'm talking about, please link me to that article - I always want to reference it!

Anyway, it's a good thing that world powers don't subscribe to your assertion, or we'd all be back in the stone age or something, never willing to trade with other nations
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank M.
United States
upstate New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Take this discussion to the Catan forum please?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hans Moleman
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
I was saying boo-urns
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
skifreak737 wrote:
Take this discussion to the Catan forum please?


The discussion is simply regarding 'open' trading -- a large component of Colosseum [Catan has similar open trading mechanic to Colosseum]. So something that applies to Catan can be applied to Colosseum (for the most part).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sedjtroll wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
Susie_Cat wrote:

MilkFromACow wrote:

2. Trading assets. I always found trading in competitive games pretty problematic. It seems very rare that someone is going to give you something you need, especially when so many of the assets are pretty tight to begin with. In most cases, this comes down to nepotism in trading or just ignoring it all together. Both can cause frustration. I've seen one game recently that handled trading in an interesting way. Mara Nostrom has an initiated trade action, and everyone is forced to put assets into a combined pool, then the assets are taken in a round robin format. This was really interesting, and I think more games could benefit from this forced trade mechanism, where you have to work for first place in the pick order, rather than working to convince someone to part with their assets through futile negotiation.


This is the "Settlers" problem: You should only want to trade if it is going to improve your position, but if everyone obeys that rule, then nobody will trade unless it is equally mutually beneficial. Added to which, if you are the leader nobody wants to trade with you anyhow and you can afford not to trade with them so long as you are significantly in front. So nobody trades and the game stagnates. Of course settlers gets round this with the Robber, but I quite like the sound of this Mare Nostrum enforced trading as possible variant.

Susie_Cat.


Huh. I have never looked at Settlers this way, and I never will. I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant. Even a trade with the leader is fine up to the point they rest "on the verge". Then people stop trading with them, but trading doesn't stop. And mutually beneficial trades are often easy to find due to the placement of resources on varying tiles and varying number payouts; as well as the different purchasing goals of the players involved.


It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.

I guess groupthink is groupthink, but I think you'd find you're in the minority thinking that not trading is a road to victory. Try playing a game like Settlers and never trading, while all other players trade with each other, and see how close you come to winning...

The key to trading is to make a mutually beneficial deal. In a 3+ player game, if you and I make a deal that's equally good for both of us, then neither of us gain vs the other, but we both gain against all the other players.

Heck, even if I lose out 2vp vs you and gain 4vp on the other 3 players in our 5 player game, I might take that deal (especially if I don't perceive you as the leader)!

I can never find it, but someone (I am 90% certain it was Shannon Appelcline) wrote an article in which he used a hypothetical game called Gem Trader to illustrate this dynamic. If anyone knows at I'm talking about, please link me to that article - I always want to reference it!

Anyway, it's a good thing that world powers don't subscribe to your assertion, or we'd all be back in the stone age or something, never willing to trade with other nations


IDK Seth,
I totally understand where you are coming from, and quite frankly, I haven't played Catan in many years due to just this problem.
The last 4 times I played Colosseum we also had this problem though. Yes, there was trading, but it was almost always involving some sort of nepotism. For example, there is no way I'm going to win, so I'll just trade it to my wife.
I suppose if your a pretty casual player, trading will be fine, because most casual players aren't strategic enough past their current turn to realize that giving up one resource for another may actually harm them in the long game, but those are not the types of people I typically play with.
Colosseum doesn't have a terrible trading mechanism if you are going to have one, but it would be nice to see something more compelling like I mentioned.
I'd be curious to see this article, because I'd like to know the metrics used.

Edit:
I'd also like to mention that it's even less likely to see trades in Colosseum, because there are fewer turns to score your points. Most players have already invested in a particular show, and it's hard to get a trade, because the other players can't give up that 1 tile you need. In Addition, the leader has to give a tile to the player in last place if I remember correctly. Like I said, the mechanic isn't terrible, but it could be a lot more mechanically interesting than just saying.."Hey, now you can spend 2-3 minutes trying to force a trade." which seems to always result in.."Sorry, I need that Lion for my next show."
The only time this doesn't really happen for us, is if people band together to catch up to the leader, but I fell it's a poor mechanic to have to band together to most likely end up in 2nd place too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Susie_Cat
United Kingdom
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:

I can never find it, but someone (I am 90% certain it was Shannon Appelcline) wrote an article in which he used a hypothetical game called Gem Trader to illustrate this dynamic. If anyone knows at I'm talking about, please link me to that article - I always want to reference it!


I'd be curious to see this article, because I'd like to know the metrics used.


Is this it?

The original is down, but the cached version is OK...

Susie_Cat.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Susie_Cat wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:

I can never find it, but someone (I am 90% certain it was Shannon Appelcline) wrote an article in which he used a hypothetical game called Gem Trader to illustrate this dynamic. If anyone knows at I'm talking about, please link me to that article - I always want to reference it!


I'd be curious to see this article, because I'd like to know the metrics used.


Is this it?

The original is down, but the cached version is OK...

Susie_Cat.



That is an interesting article, but it's probably not the one he is referring to.
I actually think that article supports more of what I am saying anyhow.
I want more interesting rules and mechanics involved in a player trade that reduces down time or involves all players at once. We typically play with 5 people and no less than 4, so if there is a bunch of "Free Trade" going on on each persons turn, it can make for a draggy game and inevitably everyone ends up on their cell phones off turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Waleke
United States
Portland
OR
flag msg tools
or zombies or ...
badge
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Douglas Adams
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know if I could play with a gaming group where trades were decided by nepotism. gulp I find in Colosseum there always seemed to be one token you one in the auction that you weren't planning on using, and the advantage of filling in one more slot on your show made the trade well worth it. Even when you have exactly what you need unless that it is going to win you the game, trading down to improve your next show still makes sense. The scoring in the game is what makes the trading so interesting. If everyone was forced to put in a set number that is not trading, it might be a mechanism for changing what everyone has but if you are forced to put in it is just a form of passing/drafting. A trade at gunpoint is not a trade. shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
madmanw wrote:
I don't know if I could play with a gaming group where trades were decided by nepotism. gulp I find in Colosseum there always seemed to be one token you one in the auction that you weren't planning on using, and the advantage of filling in one more slot on your show made the trade well worth it. Even when you have exactly what you need unless that it is going to win you the game, trading down to improve your next show still makes sense. The scoring in the game is what makes the trading so interesting. If everyone was forced to put in a set number that is not trading, it might be a mechanism for changing what everyone has but if you are forced to put in it is just a form of passing/drafting. A trade at gunpoint is not a trade. shake


The mechanism I suggested was just an example from another game that I think would work well. Comparing it to trade at gunpoint is a bit extreme, in fact, you are already doing a bidding mechanic for first pick on show items. This could probably be altered to say, for each X tiles you throw in the pot from your personal stash, you can contribute 1 random tile from the bag into the pot as well. Maybe this could be supplemented by gold. Also, you could bid on the first choice round robin selection from the pot of tiles.
At least here there is no "negotiating" down time, and everyone probably already knows what they are looking for. If no one else contributes to the pot, you just get back what you had, and possibly a new random tile from the bag.
Clearly, this is a rough idea, but it is a far cry from trading at gun point.

Also, as for not playing with a group that invokes nepotism, a lot of times you don't have a choice. Most the people we play games with are couples, and although they are competitive among themselves, believe me, if one is losing by a significant amount, they will throw the game to their significant other...otherwise no nooky for you!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Susie_Cat wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:

I can never find it, but someone (I am 90% certain it was Shannon Appelcline) wrote an article in which he used a hypothetical game called Gem Trader to illustrate this dynamic. If anyone knows at I'm talking about, please link me to that article - I always want to reference it!


I'd be curious to see this article, because I'd like to know the metrics used.


Is this it?

The original is down, but the cached version is OK...

Susie_Cat.


Nope, not that one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Waleke
United States
Portland
OR
flag msg tools
or zombies or ...
badge
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Douglas Adams
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
madmanw wrote:
I don't know if I could play with a gaming group where trades were decided by nepotism. gulp I find in Colosseum there always seemed to be one token you one in the auction that you weren't planning on using, and the advantage of filling in one more slot on your show made the trade well worth it. Even when you have exactly what you need unless that it is going to win you the game, trading down to improve your next show still makes sense. The scoring in the game is what makes the trading so interesting. If everyone was forced to put in a set number that is not trading, it might be a mechanism for changing what everyone has but if you are forced to put in it is just a form of passing/drafting. A trade at gunpoint is not a trade. shake


The mechanism I suggested was just an example from another game that I think would work well. Comparing it to trade at gunpoint is a bit extreme, in fact, you are already doing a bidding mechanic for first pick on show items. This could probably be altered to say, for each X tiles you throw in the pot from your personal stash, you can contribute 1 random tile from the bag into the pot as well. Maybe this could be supplemented by gold. Also, you could bid on the first choice round robin selection from the pot of tiles.
At least here there is no "negotiating" down time, and everyone probably already knows what they are looking for. If no one else contributes to the pot, you just get back what you had, and possibly a new random tile from the bag.
Clearly, this is a rough idea, but it is a far cry from trading at gun point.

Also, as for not playing with a group that invokes nepotism, a lot of times you don't have a choice. Most the people we play games with are couples, and although they are competitive among themselves, believe me, if one is losing by a significant amount, they will throw the game to their significant other...otherwise no nooky for you!


I was saying that in no way could that be considered trading, because you are forced to do it. I actually found the trading phase in Colosseum to be pretty brisk, maybe 1-3 minutes total, with probably 2 to 3 trades taking place. And if someone is throwing a game for their significant other than you should point that out and mock them mercilessly. (And if the "nooky" is dependent on game winning it probably isn't worth having whistle)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
madmanw wrote:
(And if the "nooky" is dependent on game winning it probably isn't worth having whistle)


Clearly, you put too much priority on the wrong games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Waleke
United States
Portland
OR
flag msg tools
or zombies or ...
badge
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Douglas Adams
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I told my wife that the mechanics are too ill contrived for it to be considered a game, a fun activity sure, just not a game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gar Per
United States
Greenwood
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
Susie_Cat wrote:

MilkFromACow wrote:

2. Trading assets. I always found trading in competitive games pretty problematic. It seems very rare that someone is going to give you something you need, especially when so many of the assets are pretty tight to begin with. In most cases, this comes down to nepotism in trading or just ignoring it all together. Both can cause frustration. I've seen one game recently that handled trading in an interesting way. Mara Nostrom has an initiated trade action, and everyone is forced to put assets into a combined pool, then the assets are taken in a round robin format. This was really interesting, and I think more games could benefit from this forced trade mechanism, where you have to work for first place in the pick order, rather than working to convince someone to part with their assets through futile negotiation.


This is the "Settlers" problem: You should only want to trade if it is going to improve your position, but if everyone obeys that rule, then nobody will trade unless it is equally mutually beneficial. Added to which, if you are the leader nobody wants to trade with you anyhow and you can afford not to trade with them so long as you are significantly in front. So nobody trades and the game stagnates. Of course settlers gets round this with the Robber, but I quite like the sound of this Mare Nostrum enforced trading as possible variant.

Susie_Cat.


Huh. I have never looked at Settlers this way, and I never will. I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant. Even a trade with the leader is fine up to the point they rest "on the verge". Then people stop trading with them, but trading doesn't stop. And mutually beneficial trades are often easy to find due to the placement of resources on varying tiles and varying number payouts; as well as the different purchasing goals of the players involved.


It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.



It sounds to me totally the opposite - as if you haven't played the game very much or perhaps very well. Numerous instances come up within the game for players to make mutually beneficial trades. I have 2 wood and you have 2 clay. We can both sit on them doing nothing, or the two of us can each get a road out of the deal. We both benefit and anyone not in the trade is one step behind us. Perhaps I've built heavily on ore/wheat and you on brick/wood - we each have a surplus of something and a need for something else. "Combining" our production allows us to build stuff while Johnny sits on his 7 clay not trading with anyone. Even instances where it is my turn and I am over the hand limit, a "bad" trade at 2 for 1 might be a good move if it lets me build now and not waste half my hand to the trash due to the robber later. Or six was just rolled 4 times in a row and now I have bunch of ore and you have a bunch of wheat. We can waste fully trade 4:1, or we can trade with each other to both our benefit and gain distance on everyone else. The very nature of the board and the resource generation mechanics creates an environment where everyone has too much of some things and too little of others, but the distribution is different for everyone. This creates an economy where maybe ore is extremely valuable to me, but to you it is abundant. The availability and value of each good is different for each player and thus we can each give up something that may be of little value to us, but gain something we need in return.

Rarely in Settlers are you able to independently get the perfect mix of settlements on all the resources required. Even if you can, the ideal dice rolls don't go with it at the right time. If you are playing in a group in which people are actively not seeing the advantages to trading, then I'm afraid it is you that is playing sub-optimally.

Normally I could care less, but I despise the BGG environment of "you are playing it wrong/sub-optimally/etc", and I hate it doubly so when I think most experienced players would agree that it isn't me who is "doing it wrong" as people say. In Settlers at least, trading IS playing to win.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nate_lockhart wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
Susie_Cat wrote:

MilkFromACow wrote:

2. Trading assets. I always found trading in competitive games pretty problematic. It seems very rare that someone is going to give you something you need, especially when so many of the assets are pretty tight to begin with. In most cases, this comes down to nepotism in trading or just ignoring it all together. Both can cause frustration. I've seen one game recently that handled trading in an interesting way. Mara Nostrom has an initiated trade action, and everyone is forced to put assets into a combined pool, then the assets are taken in a round robin format. This was really interesting, and I think more games could benefit from this forced trade mechanism, where you have to work for first place in the pick order, rather than working to convince someone to part with their assets through futile negotiation.


This is the "Settlers" problem: You should only want to trade if it is going to improve your position, but if everyone obeys that rule, then nobody will trade unless it is equally mutually beneficial. Added to which, if you are the leader nobody wants to trade with you anyhow and you can afford not to trade with them so long as you are significantly in front. So nobody trades and the game stagnates. Of course settlers gets round this with the Robber, but I quite like the sound of this Mare Nostrum enforced trading as possible variant.

Susie_Cat.


Huh. I have never looked at Settlers this way, and I never will. I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant. Even a trade with the leader is fine up to the point they rest "on the verge". Then people stop trading with them, but trading doesn't stop. And mutually beneficial trades are often easy to find due to the placement of resources on varying tiles and varying number payouts; as well as the different purchasing goals of the players involved.


It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.



It sounds to me totally the opposite - as if you haven't played the game very much or perhaps very well. Numerous instances come up within the game for players to make mutually beneficial trades. I have 2 wood and you have 2 clay. We can both sit on them doing nothing, or the two of us can each get a road out of the deal. We both benefit and anyone not in the trade is one step behind us. Perhaps I've built heavily on ore/wheat and you on brick/wood - we each have a surplus of something and a need for something else. "Combining" our production allows us to build stuff while Johnny sits on his 7 clay not trading with anyone. Even instances where it is my turn and I am over the hand limit, a "bad" trade at 2 for 1 might be a good move if it lets me build now and not waste half my hand to the trash due to the robber later. Or six was just rolled 4 times in a row and now I have bunch of ore and you have a bunch of wheat. We can waste fully trade 4:1, or we can trade with each other to both our benefit and gain distance on everyone else. The very nature of the board and the resource generation mechanics creates an environment where everyone has too much of some things and too little of others, but the distribution is different for everyone. This creates an economy where maybe ore is extremely valuable to me, but to you it is abundant. The availability and value of each good is different for each player and thus we can each give up something that may be of little value to us, but gain something we need in return.

Rarely in Settlers are you able to independently get the perfect mix of settlements on all the resources required. Even if you can, the ideal dice rolls don't go with it at the right time. If you are playing in a group in which people are actively not seeing the advantages to trading, then I'm afraid it is you that is playing sub-optimally.

Normally I could care less, but I despise the BGG environment of "you are playing it wrong/sub-optimally/etc", and I hate it doubly so when I think most experienced players would agree that it isn't me who is "doing it wrong" as people say. In Settlers at least, trading IS playing to win.


I never said you were playing it wrong or even suboptimally. Me and my group just find this type of trading extremely boring and mechanically uninteresting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gar Per
United States
Greenwood
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Huh. And here I would think you saying we were "trading randomly", had "not played Settlers that much", were trading "not to their own benefit", and claiming the opposite of how we play was how you play "to win" was a pretty strong message you thought we were doing it wrong. Don't know how I misread that one.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nate_lockhart wrote:
Huh. And here I would think you saying we were "trading randomly", had "not played Settlers that much", were trading "not to their own benefit", and claiming the opposite of how we play was how you play "to win" was a pretty strong message you thought we were doing it wrong. Don't know how I misread that one.


I stand by all the stuff I said. You can play either way and not play "wrong", it's just how your group plays. It's not unlike if your group is prone to AP (Analysis Paralysis), and there are certain games you may not play with some people.

Didn't mean for my comments to turn into some attack on Catan. Obviously, Catan a a very popular game, or at least was, but that's not to say it is for everyone. In this market, games and their mechanics evolve at a rapid rate. I'm just suggesting that instead of playing the same old mechanic, which me and my group find totally boring, it might be time to find something new or more compelling.
If negotiating 2 wood for an ore for 5 minutes every round floats your boat, by all means, keep playing Catan.

When you are over defending that game though, turn your thoughts back to Colosseum and realize it is a different beast. Colosseum has the same type of "free trade", but it is more problematic due to the shortened number of rounds and fixed number of available shows. Also, as I have said, it's not game breaking, and it's by far not the worst mechanic, it would have just been nice to see an update in some of the gameplay, instead of just an art update, which apparently most people here hate. (Not in that group either, btw)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel James
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well. What a load of old crap that was...shake
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Collins
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
madmanw wrote:
(And if the "nooky" is dependent on game winning then both your gaming and your relationship is utterly disfunctional whistle)


FTFY. HTH.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Collins
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:

It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.


I've played both Colosseum and Catan many times over the last 15 years, in varied groups, and even in tournaments, and both logic and experience tells me you're utterly wrong.

Consider it this way:

If I make a trade with player A, I have improved both my and A's positions over those of players B & C.

If I make a trade with player B, I have improved both my and B's positions over those of players A & C.

If I make a trade with player C, I have improved both my and C's positions over those of players A & B.

If I make all three of those trades, I have improved my position 3 times, and each other player's position once. Result: I have improved my position over all other players.

Nate put it most succinctly:

Quote:
I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant.


This is exactly correct. I've played plenty of games where everyone was nervous and defensive about trading with each other, and surprised by my willingness to trade, and I can tell you that those are the easiest games to win, because I'm getting benefits from freewheeling trading, and constantly improving my own position, even when I'm having to be a little but more generous with my trades than I'd normally be.

Meanwhile, it's the games where I get shut out of trading that are usually the ones where I can't make headway, and end up losing.

As long as:
- you're careful to balance out your trades between all your opponents, rather than constantly helping one other opponent to keep up with you
- you know when to stop trading with a specific opponent who is becoming too dangerous a rival

then being the player who can make the most (mutually) beneficial trades gives you the best chance of winning.

Oh, and it turns out that, as well as being the optimal way to play, it's also the most fun! It's almost as if the designers of the games knew what they were doing... whistle

EDIT:

MilkFromACow wrote:
Colosseum has the same type of "free trade", but it is more problematic due to the shortened number of rounds and fixed number of available shows.


Why is that "more problematic". With fewer rounds, it's even more important that everyone gets hold of the resources they need for their shows - which means people should be trading even more to get hold of them.

Also, since we're comparing this to Settlers:

There are more likely to be resources I have that are useless to me, so it's even more beneficial for me to get them out of my hand in return for something I can use - or even for something I know I can trade with another opponent for something I can use.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mikey Boy wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:

It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.


I've played both Colosseum and Catan many times over the last 15 years, in varied groups, and even in tournaments, and both logic and experience tells me you're utterly wrong.

Consider it this way:

If I make a trade with player A, I have improved both my and A's positions over those of players B & C.

If I make a trade with player B, I have improved both my and B's positions over those of players A & C.

If I make a trade with player C, I have improved both my and C's positions over those of players A & B.

If I make all three of those trades, I have improved my position 3 times, and each other player's position once. Result: I have improved my position over all other players.

Nate put it most succinctly:

Quote:
I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant.


This is exactly correct. I've played plenty of games where everyone was nervous and defensive about trading with each other, and surprised by my willingness to trade, and I can tell you that those are the easiest games to win, because I'm getting benefits from freewheeling trading, and constantly improving my own position, even when I'm having to be a little but more generous with my trades than I'd normally be.

Meanwhile, it's the games where I get shut out of trading that are usually the ones where I can't make headway, and end up losing.

As long as:
- you're careful to balance out your trades between all your opponents, rather than constantly helping one other opponent to keep up with you
- you know when to stop trading with a specific opponent who is becoming too dangerous a rival

then being the player who can make the most (mutually) beneficial trades gives you the best chance of winning.

Oh, and it turns out that, as well as being the optimal way to play, it's also the most fun! It's almost as if the designers of the games knew what they were doing... whistle

EDIT:

MilkFromACow wrote:
Colosseum has the same type of "free trade", but it is more problematic due to the shortened number of rounds and fixed number of available shows.


Why is that "more problematic". With fewer rounds, it's even more important that everyone gets hold of the resources they need for their shows - which means people should be trading even more to get hold of them.

Also, since we're comparing this to Settlers:

There are more likely to be resources I have that are useless to me, so it's even more beneficial for me to get them out of my hand in return for something I can use - or even for something I know I can trade with another opponent for something I can use.


I think you have disproved your whole point. All of your analysis assumes that everyone wants to or should be trading. You even stated yourself, that when there isn't a lot of trading, you tend to lose.
So, the problem is that there is a good segment of people who just don't want to trade, for whatever reason. (Don't like it, bad at negotiation, don't care for the game, are playing on their phone due to down time., etc.)
I'm not even saying that trading is bad in a game like Catan or Colosseum, I'm saying that for my group and my friends, we don't find it interesting or compelling, which is why we don't play those games much or at all.
Maybe your group dynamic is different, or maybe it's the number of players you play with, but in my experience with these types of games, trading is a detriment in almost all cases..mostly due to extensive downtime.
We resolved this issue by not playing these types of games. There are plenty of other games out there to suit our needs.
Since TMG has released the rules to Colosseum, this conversation is moot. No mechanics have changed, so it is basically an art update.
I already own a perfectly good copy of Colosseum, so chances of me KS the new one are slim to none. I suspect TMG will have trouble with the upcoming KS for some of the following reasons: Will probably be expensive, isn't a heavily acclaimed/adored reprint, no thoughtful refining of mechanics, divisive art change, mishandling of their last few KS.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mikey Boy wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:

It almost sounds like you haven't played Settlers that much, or your group just trades randomly, and not to their own benefit. This seems more and more unlikely if you have varied groups. Most people play to win, and that would mean NOT trading in most cases.


I've played both Colosseum and Catan many times over the last 15 years, in varied groups, and even in tournaments, and both logic and experience tells me you're utterly wrong.

Consider it this way:

If I make a trade with player A, I have improved both my and A's positions over those of players B & C.

If I make a trade with player B, I have improved both my and B's positions over those of players A & C.

If I make a trade with player C, I have improved both my and C's positions over those of players A & B.

If I make all three of those trades, I have improved my position 3 times, and each other player's position once. Result: I have improved my position over all other players.

Nate put it most succinctly:

Quote:
I don't like to see any trade go down I am not involved in - two people have both improved their position while I sat stagnant.


This is exactly correct. I've played plenty of games where everyone was nervous and defensive about trading with each other, and surprised by my willingness to trade, and I can tell you that those are the easiest games to win, because I'm getting benefits from freewheeling trading, and constantly improving my own position, even when I'm having to be a little but more generous with my trades than I'd normally be.

Meanwhile, it's the games where I get shut out of trading that are usually the ones where I can't make headway, and end up losing.

As long as:
- you're careful to balance out your trades between all your opponents, rather than constantly helping one other opponent to keep up with you
- you know when to stop trading with a specific opponent who is becoming too dangerous a rival

then being the player who can make the most (mutually) beneficial trades gives you the best chance of winning.

Oh, and it turns out that, as well as being the optimal way to play, it's also the most fun! It's almost as if the designers of the games knew what they were doing... whistle

EDIT:

MilkFromACow wrote:
Colosseum has the same type of "free trade", but it is more problematic due to the shortened number of rounds and fixed number of available shows.


Why is that "more problematic". With fewer rounds, it's even more important that everyone gets hold of the resources they need for their shows - which means people should be trading even more to get hold of them.

Also, since we're comparing this to Settlers:

There are more likely to be resources I have that are useless to me, so it's even more beneficial for me to get them out of my hand in return for something I can use - or even for something I know I can trade with another opponent for something I can use.


This is specifically for you Mikey,
I looked over some of your other posts, and I now understand where you are coming from. In particular, I looked at some of your posts on the Catan forums.

You responded that it is fun for you to screw over your family in a post that was talking about not having fun using the Robber and looking for variants, You also responded to another where you couldn't possibly understand why it would take a group 3-4 hours to play a game of Catan.
These two comments are responses to others that are coming EXACTLY from where I am. Nepotism happens, and downtime in trading games is very significant for some people. Just because you have many years of experience in a game, most others are probably more varied, and it will take them longer to plot/plan their actions. It's also pretty clear from your very involved examples that you are a very exprienced Catan player. I'll be honest, I don't even read half of what you posted, because I got bored just reading it.
You're going to have to understand or agree to disagree that their is a fairly significant amount of people who don't play like you do, and we would all prefer something different...because if we wanted to play Catan, or Colosseum in this case, we would just play the game we already have. Not much incentive to consider the new one, unless the art blows me away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  Next »  [10] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.