Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are we approving new game IDs for individual mini blister packs? REALLY?

"Boomers - Warlords and Pirates" blister pack - game 8018.

"Tanks - Warlords and Pirates" blister pack - game 8019.

Heck, MOST of the "Supremacy" items listed hardly seem worthy of their own games.

Or am I nuts?

It's definitely hard to find the line between an expansion that is large enough to warrant its own entry or not, but...some of these are really rather trivial...

Meh, maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon. Heck, I *like* SFB, and I think having 50 freaking entries for each module is a mistake. Maybe it's safe to just ignore me. shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Saint Joseph
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
I would do all the things I have ever dreamed of doing. I would love to become a professional whistler.I'm pretty amazing at it now, but I wanna get, like, even better. Make my living out of it.
badge
Bffffttt, Pffffttt, Buuuuurtt........
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Individual BLISTER PACKS deserve their own section on BG
Seems pretty weird. If the admins want to go this way, I think it would make sense to have a seperate entry for each expansion for CCGs. Those certainly could have discussion regarding a seperate game entry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mick Weitz
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
flag msg tools
No one in Iowa City plays wargames?
badge
Yes, I like helmets...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're right...seems kinda dumb.


Good Gaming~! Mick
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Jones
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Yeah it's here! Really it's right here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Individual BLISTER PACKS deserve their own section on BG
Yeah the SFB thing has bothered me a bit too!

But, I don't even like the 30 different Clues and Monopolies.

Guess we're just old
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Johansson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
I spent 200 GG and all I got was this lousy overtext!
badge
I spent 200 GG and all I got was this lousy overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Individual BLISTER PACKS deserve their own section on BG
Maybe the time has come to add every Warhammer blisterpack to the database?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Guantanamo wrote:
Yeah the SFB thing has bothered me a bit too!

But, I don't even like the 30 different Clues and Monopolies.

Guess we're just old


Well, the 30 different 'Clues' and 'Monopolies' you could at least make an argument of. Yes, they are highly - HIGHLY - derivative, but at least they are complete retail games you can buy a box of, open, and play.

Referring to SFB - 'Module R4' for instance (I will use as an example as it was the first SFB product I bought and so can speak to some authority on this next point)...you CAN'T play it. Not only is it not standalone, but there are no rules in it at all. IE., something like the 'Arkham Horror' expansions cannot be played on their own, true, but they bring everything a game usually has - new rules, and/or counters, maps, cards, etc. SFB 'Module R4' is...ships. Just ships. Sheets for them, and yes, counters. And that's it. So it's arguable, it does have more than one component. I wouldn't allow it, but whatever.

But MINIATURE BLISTER PACKS? Geez, that's just a COMPONENT of a game...certainly doesn't seem worth having its own entry for.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Cooper
United States
Lewisville
Texas
flag msg tools
Ask me how I got this badge early!
badge
Dexterity Games Guy for BGG.Con / GeekCoin # 318030
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Individual BLISTER PACKS deserve their own section on BG
The expansions for Heroscape have been this way for a while.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott A. Reed
United States
Lawrence
Kansas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Re: Individual BLISTER PACKS deserve their own section on BG
XanderF wrote:
Are we approving new game IDs for individual mini blister packs? REALLY?

You state this as though it is a new occurrence. The two items you cite were accepted into the database over four years ago -- 2003-10-13, and all of the other Supremacy blister materials were approved prior to that (mostly in the gameid 2000-4000 range.)

XanderF wrote:
It's definitely hard to find the line between an expansion that is large enough to warrant its own entry or not

Indeed... but since the database has no shortfall of storage space, and these are relevant expansions to the games themselves (and would be items sought by "completists") is there harm in including them?

spearjr wrote:
I think it would make sense to have a separate entry for each expansion for CCGs

Possibly. Even my own argument for why CCGs don't have expansions in the database is a little weak (That is, that with a collectible game, especially one with mixed rarity, almost never "own" the expansion, you own individual elements thereto; so that's why the entries are included with the base game. That, plus all the one-offs)

Guantanamo wrote:
But, I don't even like the 30 different Clues and Monopolies.

Yah, but the Monopolies are in the database by the Monopoly Fiat, which is something Scott Alden wanted. How are you going to deny the guy who coded the database?

wrote:
Maybe the time has come to add every Warhammer blisterpack to the database?

I thought that was the point of Warhammer and other miniatures games -- you buy the blisters to play the game. It would seem to me that the game entry is relevant for the rule set, but a database of miniatures is a little non-germane to the whole scope of BGG. Are you saying that there is a need to add all of the blisters to the BGG database for a genuine gaming reason, or out of spite?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Get up, get up, get up, get down, fall over.
United Kingdom
Bolton
Lancashire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thosw wrote:
The expansions for Heroscape have been this way for a while.
Nope, they are grouped together in waves (generally 4 blisters to a wave).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Stever
United States
Bainbridge Island
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
It's definitely hard to find the line between an expansion that is large enough to warrant its own entry or not, but...some of these are really rather trivial...


You're right, some board game expansions are trivial, however when they get their own listing it makes them MUCH easier to trade. When you need to look at each individual geek's collection to figure out what they have, it's a time consuming pain, for instance I have 221B Baker Street Expansion #4 for trade. The expansions for 221B Baker Street are not broken out into their own listings. Well to find who owns and is trading Expansion 4 from a lot of other data is no fun, and the automated matching tool won't help you find a match.

When someone is looking for Supremacy: Colonial Legions and Merchant Marine, which I also have for trade, it's very very easy to find because it has its own listing in the database.

Given the storage space costs near zero and the entries for expansion are done by volunteers for all of 2 , I think it's no problem that expansions are given their own listings.

I'd prefer that each release of collectible card and collectible miniature games got their own listing. I think getting interesting data collected around expansions for collectible games would be much more robust and trading would be easier if they were broken out.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a contrary opinion:

I think the details section of the trade field is plenty sufficient to give people enough information to match trade partners.

However, making a whole new entry for a game expansion that has nothing new in it (221B) requires a new game entry, new designer information, etc along with new pictures, reviews, ratings, etc.

That would be ridiculous for a 221B expansion. Each group of 20 cases is, give or take, just like all the others. The pictures would be a joke ("look - here's case #156 - The Case of the Needless Database Bloat").

My opinion is that trading is not an important enough reason to unnecessarily bloat the database.

I could coninue, but really - what's the point of more analysis?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Stever
United States
Bainbridge Island
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
reapersaurus wrote:
I think the details section of the trade field is plenty sufficient to give people enough information to match trade partners.


When you pile a bunch of expansions and the game into a single listing, you don't get a "Direct Match," you get "Might Be a Match." OR we could just have the computer do the work by allowing expansions to be listed. If the point is to merely have "plenty sufficient information to match trade partners," why even have "Direct Match" or "Custom Search?" Without them the data is still available to make trades happen, but simply replacing fast, cheap, and easy computer power with slow, grinding, boring personal time.

reapersaurus wrote:
However, making a whole new entry for a game expansion that has nothing new in it (221B) requires a new game entry, new designer information, etc along with new pictures, reviews, ratings, etc.


Yes, expansion 1 for 221B does have something new in it, 20 cases. For someone looking for the 20 cases, getting them would be a good thing.

As for the energy or work to create the new listing, so what? The cost of creating the listing and filling it out is near zero. If a user doesn't think it's worth the energy, they don't participate. It's not as though there's someone making value judgments on the next listing, "Hmmm, I'm not going to let 221B Expansion 1 get a listing until the Baseball Card Game's entry is complete."

Finally, I value BGG as a reference. I think the odds of getting good information about expansions goes WAY up if they get their own listing. Consider Magic: The Gathering Ice Age. Let's say that you'd like some info on it, like when it came out, who worked on it, how many cards were it, if anyone is trading a complete set. Well if you look at the Magic: The Gathering listing, there is zero information readily available about Ice Age...not even a checklist. While if MTG Ice Age had its own listing, I'm certain it would collect more interesting information, which ultimately makes BGG a better reference tool.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.