Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
73 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Gloomhaven» Forums » General

Subject: Is spawn minimization a "problem"? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Anon Y. Mous
msg tools
mbmb
To be precise, "spawn minimization" is the tactic of entering a new room early with monsters still on the board for the previous room so that not all of them spawn, pulling a potentially large number of monsters at once but reducing the total number of monsters you need to fight over the course of a scenario. Assume this tactic is used on a second attempt at a scenario, after knowing what's in the next room.

Poll: Is spawn minimization a problem?
Is spawn minimization a problem?
Yes, it should be fixed by an errata to the rules.
No, it's a valid strategy.
      99 answers
Poll created by Ethereality


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My view isn't represented by either of the poll answers you've allowed. You need a third answer that is something like, "Yes, that's an exploit, don't do that."
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anon Y. Mous
msg tools
mbmb
If it's an exploit, why should it not be patched?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Marema
United States
Ellisville
MO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How would you patch it, though? Maybe if you have to place a monster, but there are no more standees, all the regular monsters of that type increase one level and become elites? devil

If people want to be jerks and pull the entire dungeon, let them do it. It's their game and if they would rather exploit a rule then play it right, then go ahead. I'm never going to do it and I'm never going to let anyone I play with do it, so it's a non factor for me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Paterno
United States
Coatesville
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That would never fly with my group. We would sub other pieces in so there would not be a shortage of enemies. That in itself will deter us from popping doors early.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noel Szczepanski
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Who cares. Let people play the game how they want. The game isn't intended for people to use the tactic considering they shouldn't know what is in the next room. A "patch" isn't needed because everything is working as intended.

Also I answered "No" because it isn't a problem which is the most important part of that sentence in my opinion. It's not really a valid strategy either though so none of the options fit.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moose Detective
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
Than Sense
badge
Is it a moose that became a detective ? Or a detective who searches for moose?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm playing two-player, so for us its obviously not a problem... Is it really a problem with 4 player? How often are you willing to risk leaving 6 enemeies behind hoping there are more of the same ahead? If there's a different monster ahead... Aren't you now in severe trouble getting swarmed by 10+ enemies?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Bennett
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't plan on using this exploit as it's simply cheating myself out of the challenge of the game. If I ever run into the situation where this occurs because somebody's battle goal or poor use of hand management means we have to move through the scenario at that sort of pace I will simply denote the extra figures with an alternate standee until we kill enough to make it uniform.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
What about YES, AND USE OTHER STANDEES TO FIX THE ISSUE?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
billpa wrote:
That would never fly with my group. We would sub other pieces in so there would not be a shortage of enemies. That in itself will deter us from popping doors early.

not that firm with the rules myself, however from your statement I conclude there is some rule:
"if you don't have enough versions of standee X to place then don't"

so basically just referring to the hard limit of pieces?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Grunska

Austin
Texas
msg tools
Or just use other monster standees to represent those unable to be fulfilled; the game comes with many, many different monster standees for this purpose. For their initiative, just assume they start as higher value than the normal monsters and then go by the replacement number order for their initiative.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian M
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's obviously a valid strategy at the moment. Whether or not it SHOULD be a valid strategy is a different question.

Quote:
Player using an exploit like this are just trying to lie to themselves about cheating...

How can you classify following a rule exactly as cheating? It would have been very easy to design scenarios so they could never use more than the included number of standees, or to have some rule other than "don't place the monsters if you don't have standees for them". The game clearly allows the tactic. That doesn't mean it is a good rule (I haven't played enough to even have an opinion on that topic), but it is clearly a rule.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anon Y. Mous
msg tools
mbmb
Lakoda wrote:
No is my view. "Who cares, you choose to either game the system or play as intended". Player using an exploit like this are just trying to lie to themselves about cheating....but there's no money on the line so stop lying to yourself and just cheat. No one cares.


"Cheating" and "playing as intended" are defined by the rules of the game. The rules explicitly allow this. Is it cheating because it makes the game easier? If so, all strategy is cheating.


P0isson wrote:
The game isn't intended for people to use the tactic considering they shouldn't know what is in the next room.

Ethereality wrote:
Assume this tactic is used on a second attempt at a scenario, after knowing what's in the next room.


Is it intended that you intentionally forget information you know and play suboptimally? "You can try again, but don't even think about learning from your loss."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Soule
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I don't see this as an issue. If you want to create an advantage for you and your players, feel free. As long as you're having fun it doesn't matter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
is this even a common occurrence?
it generally sounds more like a fallback rule for corner cases.
Don't know if you usually have more of a type in a scenario than standees.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Gentzel
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not cheating, it's gaming the system. There's nothing wrong in my book about it 'just working out' so that you get lucky and don't get extra enemies. If you're purposefully go to exploit it, then it is gaming the system.

I would compare it to saying,

"So what initiative are you going on?"
"Hmm... I can't say the number, but let's just say I'm going extremely early."
"Like the most extreme?"
"No."
"So like a few steps below the most extreme?"
"Maybe like a dozen or so steps below the most extreme?"
"Okay. I'm going to hit this guy with an attack."
"Is it a normal attack?"
"Psh, it's not a normal attack. It's over twice as good as that!"
"Much over twice as good as a normal attack?"
"No, not by much."

Oh hey. So the one player is going on initiative ~13 and the other player is doing an attack 5. Cool. They communicated this without saying exact card values, but they ended up communicating the exact value regardless. Is this against the rules? Not really... Is it against the spirit of the game? Most definitely. I would argue that having someone scout open other rooms just to spawn fewer enemies is going against the spirit of the game even if it obeys the rules as written.

And maybe you feel the example I gave about communicating numbers was pushing it too far, but the point should still stand that you CAN communicate more information than you SHOULD if you dance around the technical rules, and that you SHOULDN'T try to dance around the rules like that if you intend to play the game in its spirit. If you are playing with a group who doesn't mind gaming the system at all, then there is nothing wrong with doing these strategies. If you don't want to game the system, then don't.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rav
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Suit Sage wrote:

Oh hey. So the one player is going on initiative ~13 and the other player is doing an attack 5. Cool. They communicated this without saying exact card values, but they ended up communicating the exact value regardless. Is this against the rules? Not really... Is it against the spirit of the game? Most definitely.


You can't say numbers. A dozen is a number. So yes, your example there is against the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ubergeek
United States
Washougal
Washington
flag msg tools
Be Happy in your Game!
badge
I spent 100 Geek Gold and all I got was this lousy overtext message!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No.
Blah blah blah.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ethereality wrote:
If it's an exploit, why should it not be patched?


I've told you already, and you didn't listen the first time, so I'm not going to try to explain it to you again. All that I'm going to say now is that the poll results are biased and unusable because you framed the poll choices to reflect your own personal views.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Brown
United States
Brandon
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ethereality wrote:
If it's an exploit, why should it not be patched?


If people view it as an exploit, then it should be patched.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Gentzel
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ravendas wrote:
Suit Sage wrote:

Oh hey. So the one player is going on initiative ~13 and the other player is doing an attack 5. Cool. They communicated this without saying exact card values, but they ended up communicating the exact value regardless. Is this against the rules? Not really... Is it against the spirit of the game? Most definitely.


You can't say numbers. A dozen is a number. So yes, your example there is against the rules.


That's why I added "And maybe you feel the example I gave about communicating numbers was pushing it too far, but the point should still stand that you CAN communicate more information than you SHOULD if you dance around the technical rules"

There are definitely ways to game around the "No giving specific information on the number" where you can give more information than intended if you're okay gaming the system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really don't care how others play their games. It's not a competitive game, so who cares?

I would imagine that the tactic could backfire as well, where the new room has different monsters. Of course, that player can also check ahead at all the rooms and find out what monsters are there. People can also play on an easier level too. People can choose to split loot at the end of the scenario. Etc. Etc.

I don't think there needs to be a patch. If people don't like that "potential" exploit, then they don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
d w
Sweden
flag msg tools
It's not a problem for me (hey, people can play how they want if everyone in the game agrees to it), but I don't see it as a valid strategy either. It's cheesy, very cheesy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eamon Burke
United States
Rockport
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
I'm saying no, and here's why:

You'll end up, once you get out of the earlier scenarios, waking up 5-8 different enemies, and turning every round into a massive slog. If you think you're clever for pulling the max of 6 bandit guards and archers, just wait until the dungeons are more stuffed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan H
United States
California
flag msg tools
I think, depending on the enemy, it is a viable strategy, however it is less viable than you may think. Generally in Gloomhaven I think the more enemies you can get clumped up into one spot, the more efficient you can play. AOEs hit more, you have to move less letting you attack/disable/heal more, and the enemy AI causes them to get horrendously tangled up on each other and not be able to go anywhere or hit you - especially because 16 - 25% of many monster's cards don't even allow them to move.

Therefore, even disregarding this cheesy tactic being discussed it is often beneficial to open additional doors quickly. However, if you consider that you actually WANT more enemies to clog up the AI pathing and provide more money and chances for XP gain, then you realize that having enemies not spawn is actually only hurting yourself. The only time it would be beneficial is if you are trying to complete a scenario right on the edge of your capabilities and need that extra boost. And really, you shouldn't be playing right at the edge of your capabilities, it results in inefficient XP and gold gain. Go do a scenario you can actually finish.

If there are many attackers with range 3-4+ this is of course a bit different, and it's unwise to build up too many on the map. In that case trying to prevent them from spawning may be a useful (if kind of lame) tactic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
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.