Recommend
50 
 Thumb up
 Hide
237 Posts
[1]  Prev «  6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10  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]
Josh Wood
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Colosseum is one of the most demanded reprints out there. Isn't this 8 page thread substantial evidence? To be fair, 2 pages are just arguments about trading mechanisms. But The Dice Tower likes it quite a bit so I image that when it comes back in print they'll shout out to their loyal fans.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gar Per
United States
Greenwood
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Dude. You can backtrack all day long if it makes you feel better. You outright claimed that people who play "to win" do not trade. Numerous people have shown you how this is untrue, and you want to rewrite history to say you were only saying it doesn't fit your group playstyle.

You essentially said trading was sub-optimal play, you were wrong, and you got called on it. Quit trying to re-write history and just move on.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nate_lockhart wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Dude. You can backtrack all day long if it makes you feel better. You outright claimed that people who play "to win" do not trade. Numerous people have shown you how this is untrue, and you want to rewrite history to say you were only saying it doesn't fit your group playstyle.

You essentially said trading was sub-optimal play, you were wrong, and you got called on it. Quit trying to re-write history and just move on.


In my example, I was right. I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy. Nothing I can do about it. I also feel the same way. Sounds like you have a God complex to me.

Edit:
The only assessment I would back away from was my statement about Mike Collins not having much experience with Catan, clearly he has, and obviously his groups have no issue trading on a regular basis. There are always exceptions, and in my case, they happen to be the opposite of his experience..it happens.
As for you Mr. Lockhart, I don't know what your deal is...maybe you just like to say "Gotcha" or something. I was trying to generate some constructive feedback about a reprint and was hoping for some updated mechanics. I guess that's not happening. I think it's time to move on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Wood
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Dude. You can backtrack all day long if it makes you feel better. You outright claimed that people who play "to win" do not trade. Numerous people have shown you how this is untrue, and you want to rewrite history to say you were only saying it doesn't fit your group playstyle.

You essentially said trading was sub-optimal play, you were wrong, and you got called on it. Quit trying to re-write history and just move on.


In my example, I was right. I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy. Nothing I can do about it. I also feel the same way. Sounds like you have a God complex to me.

Edit:
The only assessment I would back away from was my statement about Mike Collins not having much experience with Catan, clearly he has, and obviously his groups have no issue trading on a regular basis. There are always exceptions, and in my case, they happen to be the opposite of his experience..it happens.
As for you Mr. Lockhart, I don't know what your deal is...maybe you just like to say "Gotcha" or something. I was trying to generate some constructive feedback about a reprint and was hoping for some updated mechanics. I guess that's not happening. I think it's time to move on.


Well then I would tell your friends how good of a strategy trading is. That's something you could do.

Also why are you trying to get trading out of a trading game? Just play a non-trading game instead since you don't like it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pas L
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Nothing will come of nothing.
badge
Speak again.
Avatar
mb
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Dude. You can backtrack all day long if it makes you feel better. You outright claimed that people who play "to win" do not trade. Numerous people have shown you how this is untrue, and you want to rewrite history to say you were only saying it doesn't fit your group playstyle.

You essentially said trading was sub-optimal play, you were wrong, and you got called on it. Quit trying to re-write history and just move on.


In my example, I was right. I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy. Nothing I can do about it. I also feel the same way. Sounds like you have a God complex to me.

Edit:
The only assessment I would back away from was my statement about Mike Collins not having much experience with Catan, clearly he has, and obviously his groups have no issue trading on a regular basis. There are always exceptions, and in my case, they happen to be the opposite of his experience..it happens.
As for you Mr. Lockhart, I don't know what your deal is...maybe you just like to say "Gotcha" or something. I was trying to generate some constructive feedback about a reprint and was hoping for some updated mechanics. I guess that's not happening. I think it's time to move on.


Not trading is not the way to win most times. Anyone decent at Catan knows this.

Watch the world championships; good play isn't not trading.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lamaros wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Dude. You can backtrack all day long if it makes you feel better. You outright claimed that people who play "to win" do not trade. Numerous people have shown you how this is untrue, and you want to rewrite history to say you were only saying it doesn't fit your group playstyle.

You essentially said trading was sub-optimal play, you were wrong, and you got called on it. Quit trying to re-write history and just move on.


In my example, I was right. I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy. Nothing I can do about it. I also feel the same way. Sounds like you have a God complex to me.

Edit:
The only assessment I would back away from was my statement about Mike Collins not having much experience with Catan, clearly he has, and obviously his groups have no issue trading on a regular basis. There are always exceptions, and in my case, they happen to be the opposite of his experience..it happens.
As for you Mr. Lockhart, I don't know what your deal is...maybe you just like to say "Gotcha" or something. I was trying to generate some constructive feedback about a reprint and was hoping for some updated mechanics. I guess that's not happening. I think it's time to move on.


Not trading is not the way to win most times. Anyone decent at Catan knows this.

Watch the world championships; good play isn't not trading.


I love NOT logic!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOriginalJwoo wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
nate_lockhart wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
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.


Dude. You can backtrack all day long if it makes you feel better. You outright claimed that people who play "to win" do not trade. Numerous people have shown you how this is untrue, and you want to rewrite history to say you were only saying it doesn't fit your group playstyle.

You essentially said trading was sub-optimal play, you were wrong, and you got called on it. Quit trying to re-write history and just move on.


In my example, I was right. I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy. Nothing I can do about it. I also feel the same way. Sounds like you have a God complex to me.

Edit:
The only assessment I would back away from was my statement about Mike Collins not having much experience with Catan, clearly he has, and obviously his groups have no issue trading on a regular basis. There are always exceptions, and in my case, they happen to be the opposite of his experience..it happens.
As for you Mr. Lockhart, I don't know what your deal is...maybe you just like to say "Gotcha" or something. I was trying to generate some constructive feedback about a reprint and was hoping for some updated mechanics. I guess that's not happening. I think it's time to move on.


Well then I would tell your friends how good of a strategy trading is. That's something you could do.

Also why are you trying to get trading out of a trading game? Just play a non-trading game instead since you don't like it.


As I mentioned, we typically don't play games with "free trade" any more. That's why I was hoping for an updated mechanic. Since I already own Colosseum, there isn't much value in getting the deluxe version unless they changed a mechanic or the art/components blow me away. I don't think either will be the case here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pas L
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Nothing will come of nothing.
badge
Speak again.
Avatar
mb
MilkFromACow wrote:
As I mentioned, we typically don't play games with "free trade" any more. That's why I was hoping for an updated mechanic. Since I already own Colosseum, there isn't much value in getting the deluxe version unless they changed a mechanic or the art/components blow me away. I don't think either will be the case here.


So the long and the short of it is that you and your group don't like trading mechanics. As it is very unlikely that they will remove a fundamental element of the game from this reprint just to satisfy you, you can probably say goodbye to this one now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy.

I find this entire discussion pretty hilarious.

"I play [trading games] with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often"

I suppose if nobody trades in a trading game, one of those players will still win. Amusing to think of that as "playing to win."

Maybe people who feel like trading in a game about trading is suboptimal to their strategy really are playing to win - people can "play to win" without being successful, or even any good at it.

LOL!

This has gotten very far off topic, but in this case that's probably a good thing.

I generally don't care for open negotiation in games myself. I'm not involved in this one, and I've never actually played Colosseum - I look forward to giving it a try when I get the chance
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lamaros wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
As I mentioned, we typically don't play games with "free trade" any more. That's why I was hoping for an updated mechanic. Since I already own Colosseum, there isn't much value in getting the deluxe version unless they changed a mechanic or the art/components blow me away. I don't think either will be the case here.


So the long and the short of it is that you and your group don't like trading mechanics. As it is very unlikely that they will remove a fundamental element of the game from this reprint just to satisfy you, you can probably say goodbye to this one now.


We don't like "free trade" mechanics. I highlighted the game Mare Nostum as a game that I feel has a superior trading mechanic that we think we are going to enjoy. Trading can be made more engaging with more restrictive rules wrapped around them, or with new mechanics like possibly adding blind resource drafting, etc.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Preder
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sedjtroll wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy.

I find this entire discussion pretty hilarious.

"I play [trading games] with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often"

I suppose if nobody trades in a trading game, one of those players will still win. Amusing to think of that as "playing to win."

Maybe people who feel like trading in a game about trading is suboptimal to their strategy really are playing to win - people can "play to win" without being successful, or even any good at it.

LOL!

This has gotten very far off topic, but in this case that's probably a good thing.

I generally don't care for open negotiation in games myself. I'm not involved in this one, and I've never actually played Colosseum - I look forward to giving it a try when I get the chance


You should be a politician Seth. Way to twist the conversation. You can have a trading game with an interesting trade mechanic that is more engaging and has less downtime than a "free trade" mechanic.

Colosseum and Catan both have "free trade" mechanics, and I already stated we don't play them anymore, as they don't engage us much.

I also find it odd that you offer insight on a game you have never played. Incidentally, I brushed off the dust of Colosseum last month, and generally enjoyed the game, although, there wasn't much trading going on at all.
1 
 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:
lamaros wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
As I mentioned, we typically don't play games with "free trade" any more. That's why I was hoping for an updated mechanic. Since I already own Colosseum, there isn't much value in getting the deluxe version unless they changed a mechanic or the art/components blow me away. I don't think either will be the case here.


So the long and the short of it is that you and your group don't like trading mechanics. As it is very unlikely that they will remove a fundamental element of the game from this reprint just to satisfy you, you can probably say goodbye to this one now.


We don't like "free trade" mechanics. I highlighted the game Mare Nostum as a game that I feel has a superior trading mechanic that we think we are going to enjoy. Trading can be made more engaging with more restrictive rules wrapped around them, or with new mechanics like possibly adding blind resource drafting, etc.



And as I explained that isn't a trading mechanism, in a trade both parties have to get something they want. Even your nepotism example is more akin to trading than your throw everything in a pot. Drafting is also not a trading mechanism.
 
 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
It is okay to say you don't like trading, you prefer other mechanisms and that is just fine, I am sure there is still a game I could play with you and we both would enjoy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Wood
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
MilkFromACow wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy.

I find this entire discussion pretty hilarious.

"I play [trading games] with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often"

I suppose if nobody trades in a trading game, one of those players will still win. Amusing to think of that as "playing to win."

Maybe people who feel like trading in a game about trading is suboptimal to their strategy really are playing to win - people can "play to win" without being successful, or even any good at it.

LOL!

This has gotten very far off topic, but in this case that's probably a good thing.

I generally don't care for open negotiation in games myself. I'm not involved in this one, and I've never actually played Colosseum - I look forward to giving it a try when I get the chance


You should be a politician Seth. Way to twist the conversation. You can have a trading game with an interesting trade mechanic that is more engaging and has less downtime than a "free trade" mechanic.

Colosseum and Catan both have "free trade" mechanics, and I already stated we don't play them anymore, as they don't engage us much.

I also find it odd that you offer insight on a game you have never played. Incidentally, I brushed off the dust of Colosseum last month, and generally enjoyed the game, although, there wasn't much trading going on at all.


So as you've mentioned, you already play Colosseum with modified rules... you can still do that with the reprint.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brent Dickman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy.

I find this entire discussion pretty hilarious.

"I play [trading games] with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often"

I suppose if nobody trades in a trading game, one of those players will still win. Amusing to think of that as "playing to win."

Maybe people who feel like trading in a game about trading is suboptimal to their strategy really are playing to win - people can "play to win" without being successful, or even any good at it.

LOL!

This has gotten very far off topic, but in this case that's probably a good thing.

I generally don't care for open negotiation in games myself. I'm not involved in this one, and I've never actually played Colosseum - I look forward to giving it a try when I get the chance


You should be a politician Seth. Way to twist the conversation. You can have a trading game with an interesting trade mechanic that is more engaging and has less downtime than a "free trade" mechanic.

Colosseum and Catan both have "free trade" mechanics, and I already stated we don't play them anymore, as they don't engage us much.

I also find it odd that you offer insight on a game you have never played. Incidentally, I brushed off the dust of Colosseum last month, and generally enjoyed the game, although, there wasn't much trading going on at all.


My interest in Colosseum started precisely because it allowed for free trading, and Catan distinctly came to mind. While I realize that certain Catan players will vehemently hold to the idea that trading in such a game is suboptimal and/or not fun, I have found the opposite. The thing about free trading that isn't restricted by certain rules is that the trades can be as complex as you and your fellow players can imagine them to be. When we trade in Catan, it comes with promises about the circumstances regarding expansion on the board, about how the bandit will or will not be placed in the future, or from which player cards will be randomly stolen, to name but a few. I find that interesting, dynamic, and fun.

To each his or her own.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Terry
United States
carlsbad
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I'm curious how many of you have ever played Settlers 6 player where everyone is "trading to win"?

I did once. I considered it a win when I emerged from that mind-numbing boredom-fest with the majority of my sanity and consciousness intact.

It went something like this:

PLAYER 1's turn:

Player 1: "I'd like to trade a wood for a wheat."
Player 2: "I'll give you a sheep for the wood"
Player 1: "Wait I said I wanted a wheat"
Player 2: "Oh, I thought you meant you wanted a wood"
Player 1: "No, I've got a wood. I want some wheat."
Player 2: "Well I don't have any wheat."
Player 1: "Well. Okay. Does anyone?"
Player 6: "Hey I'll give you two sheep for your wood and your wheat"
Player 1: "NO, I WANT WHEAT"
Player 5: "I though you wanted wood."
Player 1: "Look, I want wheat. Has anyone got any wheat?"
*crickets*

PLAYER 2's turn:

Player 2: "Hey, I need 2 wheat. Who wants to give me some for 1 clay?"
Player 4: "You want 2 wheat for 1 clay?"
Player 2: "Yeah. Who's got all the wheat?"
Player 1: "Didn't we just go through this."
Player 2: "Fine, I'll take some wood instead. Who wants my clay for some wood?"
Player 3: "I'll do it for 2 clay or 2 wheat"
Player 2: "I don't have any wheat."
Player 3: "So....no ??"
Player 2: "Huh?"
Player 3: "Huh?"

PLAYER 3's turn:

Player 3: "I WANT TWO ORE AND ONE WHEAT, OR ONE BRICK OR ONE WOOD, FOR ONE SHEEP, OR ONE BRICK AND ONE WOOD FOR 2 ORE."
Player 4: "Can you say that again?"
Player 3: "I WANT TWO WHEAT AND ONE BRICK, OR ONE BRICK OR ONE ORE, FOR ONE SHEEP, OR ONE BRICK AND ONE WOOD FOR 2 ORE."
Player 2: "I think you just said something different."
Player 3: "WHAT?"

etc... etc... etc... etc....

In Settlers with large player counts, I think the winning strategy is best summed up by Joshua from "War Games" (1983):

"The only winning move is not to play."




4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 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
carlsbad wrote:
I'm curious how many of you have ever played Settlers 6 player where everyone is "trading to win"?

I did once. I considered it a win when I emerged from that mind-numbing boredom-fest with the majority of my sanity and consciousness intact.

It went something like this:

PLAYER 1's turn:

Player 1: "I'd like to trade a wood for a wheat."
Player 2: "I'll give you a sheep for the wood"
Player 1: "Wait I said I wanted a wheat"
Player 2: "Oh, I thought you meant you wanted a wood"
Player 1: "No, I've got a wood. I want some wheat."
Player 2: "Well I don't have any wheat."
Player 1: "Well. Okay. Does anyone?"
Player 6: "Hey I'll give you two sheep for your wood and your wheat"
Player 1: "NO, I WANT WHEAT"
Player 5: "I though you wanted wood."
Player 1: "Look, I want wheat. Has anyone got any wheat?"
*crickets*

PLAYER 2's turn:

Player 2: "Hey, I need 2 wheat. Who wants to give me some for 1 clay?"
Player 4: "You want 2 wheat for 1 clay?"
Player 2: "Yeah. Who's got all the wheat?"
Player 1: "Didn't we just go through this."
Player 2: "Fine, I'll take some wood instead. Who wants my clay for some wood?"
Player 3: "I'll do it for 2 clay or 2 wheat"
Player 2: "I don't have any wheat."
Player 3: "So....no ??"
Player 2: "Huh?"
Player 3: "Huh?"

PLAYER 3's turn:

Player 3: "I WANT TWO ORE AND ONE WHEAT, OR ONE BRICK OR ONE WOOD, FOR ONE SHEEP, OR ONE BRICK AND ONE WOOD FOR 2 ORE."
Player 4: "Can you say that again?"
Player 3: "I WANT TWO WHEAT AND ONE BRICK, OR ONE BRICK OR ONE ORE, FOR ONE SHEEP, OR ONE BRICK AND ONE WOOD FOR 2 ORE."
Player 2: "I think you just said something different."
Player 3: "WHAT?"

etc... etc... etc... etc....

In Settlers with large player counts, I think the winning strategy is best summed up by Joshua from "War Games" (1983):

"The only winning move is not to play."



Hmm I usually find trading in 5-6 player settlers helps speed the game along as people are more likely to trade when it isn't their turn in order to capitalize on the special building phase. I also only usually ask for what I want (Without stating what I am willing to trade), this way I can always just play the monopoly card and take it all!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MilkFromACow wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
MilkFromACow wrote:
I play with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often, if at all, because they feel it is suboptimal to their strategy.

I find this entire discussion pretty hilarious.

"I play [trading games] with people who play to win, and they also do not trade very often"

I suppose if nobody trades in a trading game, one of those players will still win. Amusing to think of that as "playing to win."

Maybe people who feel like trading in a game about trading is suboptimal to their strategy really are playing to win - people can "play to win" without being successful, or even any good at it.

LOL!

This has gotten very far off topic, but in this case that's probably a good thing.

I generally don't care for open negotiation in games myself. I'm not involved in this one, and I've never actually played Colosseum - I look forward to giving it a try when I get the chance


You should be a politician Seth. Way to twist the conversation. You can have a trading game with an interesting trade mechanic that is more engaging and has less downtime than a "free trade" mechanic.

Colosseum and Catan both have "free trade" mechanics, and I already stated we don't play them anymore, as they don't engage us much.

I also find it odd that you offer insight on a game you have never played. Incidentally, I brushed off the dust of Colosseum last month, and generally enjoyed the game, although, there wasn't much trading going on at all.

LOL! I offered no insight to Colosseum... I only replied to your comments on Settlers, a game which I am very familiar with, and open trading as a mechanism in games in general.

For what it's worth, I think I generally agree with your groups preference away from open negotiation in games. Unless they're he whole game (like Genoa), then I prefer not having open negotiation - and often times when I play a game that has open negotiation as a side mechanism, it doesn't get used often (maybe Compounded for example).

The difference between that and Settlers is that trading isn't some minor side not in Settlers, it's the main mechanism of the game. I don't know how prominent the trading in Colosseum is.

I also agree that there are other ways to portray trading in games, and I disagree with whoever said "it's not trading if it's forced" - something like you described (everyone must throw in a thing, and then you draft the things) may not be actually trading those things, but it is an abstraction of trading in the game - and that's probably fine with me (depending on the rest of the game, I suppose).

To the "it's not trading if it's forced" guy (sorry, I don't feel like scrolling back through the thread to see who that was): In Race for the Galaxy, it's called trading when you get rid of goods for money, and in Settlers it's called trading when you trade with the bank. In neither of those cases are two players trading with each other - let's not get into a semantic argument here!
1 
 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 was referring to trading as a mechanism not as part of the theme. Largely because we were discussing Mechanisms. An abstraction of trading by its very nature, means it isn't real trading, that is what an abstraction means.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dustin Schwartz
United States
Jackson
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
www.therulesforge.com
badge
Get your slimy, webbed phalanges off ma boots!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not just semantics, though. Trading is an actual mechanism.

As defined by the BGG entry: In games with a trading mechanic, the players can exchange game items between each other. For instance, players trade for different types of beans in Bohnanza, while they trade resources in Catan.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreedomGunfire wrote:
It's not just semantics, though. Trading is an actual mechanism.

As defined by the BGG entry: In games with a trading mechanic, the players can exchange game items between each other. For instance, players trade for different types of beans in Bohnanza, while they trade resources in Catan.

In the mechanism Jason described in which all players put in something, then draft those things, the things did in fact get exchanged between the players.

It may be a wacky version, a twist, or an abstraction of "traditional" trading, but it's still a way for players to exchange things between each other.
1 
 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
sedjtroll wrote:
FreedomGunfire wrote:
It's not just semantics, though. Trading is an actual mechanism.

As defined by the BGG entry: In games with a trading mechanic, the players can exchange game items between each other. For instance, players trade for different types of beans in Bohnanza, while they trade resources in Catan.

In the mechanism Jason described in which all players put in something, then draft those things, the things did in fact get exchanged between the players.

It may be a wacky version, a twist, or an abstraction of "traditional" trading, but it's still a way for players to exchange things between each other.


See that seems like a semantic argument, by that rationale shuffling can be trading. In your example it is also possible that everyone just drafts what they put in, in which case it wasn't trading?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pas L
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Nothing will come of nothing.
badge
Speak again.
Avatar
mb
SaintGiles wrote:
My interest in Colosseum started precisely because it allowed for free trading, and Catan distinctly came to mind. While I realize that certain Catan players will vehemently hold to the idea that trading in such a game is suboptimal and/or not fun, I have found the opposite. The thing about free trading that isn't restricted by certain rules is that the trades can be as complex as you and your fellow players can imagine them to be. When we trade in Catan, it comes with promises about the circumstances regarding expansion on the board, about how the bandit will or will not be placed in the future, or from which player cards will be randomly stolen, to name but a few. I find that interesting, dynamic, and fun.

To each his or her own.


Some of these things you suggest might not be allowed by the rules of Catan. (You can't trade for promises on their own, etc)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Owen Tansey
United States
Northwood
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Is this still the thread to complain about the box art?
17 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brent Dickman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lamaros wrote:
SaintGiles wrote:
My interest in Colosseum started precisely because it allowed for free trading, and Catan distinctly came to mind. While I realize that certain Catan players will vehemently hold to the idea that trading in such a game is suboptimal and/or not fun, I have found the opposite. The thing about free trading that isn't restricted by certain rules is that the trades can be as complex as you and your fellow players can imagine them to be. When we trade in Catan, it comes with promises about the circumstances regarding expansion on the board, about how the bandit will or will not be placed in the future, or from which player cards will be randomly stolen, to name but a few. I find that interesting, dynamic, and fun.

To each his or her own.


Some of these things you suggest might not be allowed by the rules of Catan. (You can't trade for promises on their own, etc)


laugh Could be. I haven't read the rules to Catan in over 15 years. Perhaps we have house rules, then. Either way, we're pleased with how the game has evolved within our group.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10  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.