Recommend
16 
 Thumb up
 Hide
41 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BattleCON: War of Indines» Forums » General

Subject: For those that played both...Yomi or BattleCON? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Iradian
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I know I will probably start a flame war asking this, but considering I am interested in a fighting-type of game (after selling my MadCatz TE stick for the Xbox 360, the irony), but I only have the cash for one of them.

Yomi looks interesting to me but the price scares me considering my past purchases at most were 60 bucks that offered a lot more than just a deck of cards (Cosmic Encounter comes into mind). Someone recommended me BattleCON and it looks nice, but the rules seem to focus too much on priority due to Stuns.

So...anyone who has played both, enlighten me. Strengths and weaknesses on both, and which one do you prefer?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Graham
United States
College Station
Texas
flag msg tools
I am Broccoli, most intelligent vegetable!
badge
I will destroy you all!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The big reasons that I prefer BattleCON over Yomi are 1) BattleCON takes into account distance to your opponent. If you've ever played an actual old school fighter, choosing when to use a fireball and when to use a quick attack is pretty integral to the experience, and I think BattleCON does this better. 2) There's no luck in BattleCON. Both games are supposed to be about reading your opponent and guessing what they will do. In Yomi, you are limited based on the cards you've drawn from your 54 card deck, so you can accurately predict your opponent's move, but not have the cards to deal with it, or accurately predict your opponent's best move, but they don't play that, because they don't have it in hand. With BattleCON, you always know exactly what the opponent has in hand (in fact, in teaching games, I show them my hand before select my attack pair), and it's just a matter of "reading" what they will play and selecting the appropriate counter.

For these reasons, I prefer BattleCON.

For purposes of full disclosure, I was an Assistant Designer via a Kickstarter reward, but I chose to do it after playing a demo copy (and after already owning Yomi). That's how much more I liked BattleCON.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Shaw
United States
Kennesaw
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Reasons I prefer BattleCon:

1. More Characters

2. More play modes/options (2v2, 3v3, Tag Teams, 2v1 & 3v1 Boss, upgraded characters, Arenas)

3. Play/replayability is enhanced by the above (otherwise this is a wash as I find the play for each intriguing in its own ways)

4. As mentioned by Broccoli, the lack of randomness in play

5. Price point (this is enhanced by level 99's decision to fold in shipping in the US and Canada)

That's all I can think of right now...

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate K
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd have to go with BattleCON. Not only is it a fun prediction game where you have to balance speed, distance, and power, but there are a wide variety of characters, all of whom play differently. There are also "upteen" different variants, as Randall mentioned. You could play the game every day for three months and never play quite the same game. There is a LOT to explore in that little box.

There are a lot of reviews for Battlecon, including mine. Check 'em out and see if this is the game for you. I think the overall consensus is that BattleCON does a better job of capturing the feeling of an old school 2D fighting game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Grand Rapids
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I own both games, and I like both games a lot, but BattleCon wins out for me because of the range/zoning aspect.

It's not always about priority because there are some characters that are very resistant to stun and for them positioning is key.

There are times when I play Yomi where it really feels like I just have to guess with my next play, but I don't get that feeling with BattleCon.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noah Bogart
United States
West Chester Township
OH
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been discussing this with the Yomi fans over at fantastystrike.com, but I don't think they're comparable enough to make judgements like this. It'd be the same as deciding whether I like Race For The Galaxy or Dominion more: superficially, Yomi and BattleCON are similar, but beyond the thematic similarities, they don't strategically play the same, nor do they share the same design goals, so choosing one over the other is fruitless, as I like each for their own pieces.

[Preface: I've only played BattleCon for four hours total, so I might not have teased out some of the deeper elements, mais c'est la vie.]

Yomi is almost singularly focused on the Rock-Paper-Scissors structure of the mechanics, with a secondary focus being the poker deck set-up. Those two elements narrow the gameplay down to (almost) pure mindgames and opponent-reading. The mechanics of the (opponents) cards come into play once the game is learned a bit, but the design goal of the game that Sirlin stressed in every part is MINDGAMES and outsmarting the opponent. The way speed works, and the way powering up works, and the way innate abilities work are all secondary to the mindgames focus of the RPS base mechanics.

BattleCon seems to be a lot more focused on the actual verisimilitude of playing a fighting game: it has stun, it has range and movement, it trades abstract attacks (Yomi) with generics+character specifics for attacks, and the raw mechanics in the game are quite a bit more complicated. It and Yomi are both double-blind games, but BC's cooldown mimics the endless nature of moves in fighting games whereas Yomi's permanent discard pile makes knowing which cards are in and out of play a lot more important. Like Magic: The Gathering, in BattleCon, one doesn't need to worry exactly about what's in the opponent's hand because the focus is on playing the most optimal Attack Pair this beat. The need for valuation is higher while the need for yomi is lower.

Also, Stun (and Stun Guard) makes priority a much bigger element of the game than Speed does in Yomi: Yomi focuses on playing the counter to the opponents move, which invalidates the move, whereas BattleCon focuses on out-prioritizing the opponent _regardless_ of what kind of move they play so you don't have to worry about Stun (and Stun Guard).

All of this said, I really really like BattleCon. It's really different, and a lot of fun. It seems to be full of cool tricks and I can't wait to see what the other characters can do. The design space is a lot more open than Yomi, which I think will lead to striking and unique characters and abilities.

Preferentially, I much prefer the simplicity of Yomi's set-up. With a deck and a cellphone each, my friend and I can play nearly anywhere, including the backseat of a car (which we've done before). No need for markers or a board, no chits, no two discard piles. I also much prefer the art in Yomi to BattleCon, but that's hardly worth mentioning.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Valadez
United States
Villa Park
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
"RAWR!" means "I love you" in kaiju.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I only just became aware of this game when someone brought it up on the Flash Duel page. I'll admit that I still haven't played BattleCON, but from watching the reviews and reading the rulebook, it seems like a meatier version of Flash Duel, which is both good and bad. It good because this game seems to have more depth and will jive more with my regular gamer friends. It's bad because it seems to have a deeper learning curve than Flash Duel, which makes it more challenging to teach and play with new and casual players. That being said, there's definitely room in my collection for both Flash Duel and BattleCON. Both these games are right up my alley.

My issue with Yomi is that it's strictly 1 vs 1 duels. That means if I'm trying to teach a new player, I need to hold back to ensure they have fun. If we have a "game night" with several friends then Yomi would sit. Multiplayer is why I prefer Flash Duel over Yomi, and why I will probably prefer BattleCON over Yomi.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate K
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sputang wrote:
I only just became aware of this game when someone brought it up on the Flash Duel page. I'll admit that I still haven't played BattleCON, but from watching the reviews and reading the rulebook, it seems like a meatier version of Flash Duel, which is both good and bad. It good because this game seems to have more depth and will jive more with my regular gamer friends. It's bad because it seems to have a deeper learning curve than Flash Duel, which makes it more challenging to teach and play with new and casual players. That being said, there's definitely room in my collection for both Flash Duel and BattleCON. Both these games are right up my alley.

My issue with Yomi is that it's strictly 1 vs 1 duels. That means if I'm trying to teach a new player, I need to hold back to ensure they have fun. If we have a "game night" with several friends then Yomi would sit. Multiplayer is why I prefer Flash Duel over Yomi, and why I will probably prefer BattleCON over Yomi.


I wouldn't worry too much about the learning curve. The basics of the game are very straightforward. But when the rulebook says that a character is a "moderate" or "advanced" character, believe it. You really do need to get some games under your belt before you move on from the "basic" characters.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Placerville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Apples and Oranges

Others have compared the rules, so I will target a different aspect.

BattleCon reminds me of all the Fantasy Strike games combined. Sirlin broke the key focuses up into 3 games for fast and furious battles.

Flash Duel is all about distancing (playing footsies). Plays in under 5 mins. This game is meant to be a fun and quick romp.

YOMI is about the zoning. (plays in under 20 mins)Meant to target the card gamers and mind game enthusiasts.

Puzzle Strike is all about setup. (Plays in under 45 mins)More of a typical board game than the others.

Each one not only shares equal simplicity and difficult mastering, but they also target different audience. BattleCon requires effort to learn how to play and even more to master, a turn off for many more gamers than I wish was the truth.

I can teach YOMI in under 30 secs to another player. YOMI is perfectly balanced because of its simple nature (no distancing), in fact I'll go so far as to say no game in the next 10 years, including mine, will be better balanced than YOMI.

YOMI's Fantasy Strike Universe sets up for character fandom. Each character has a unique playstyle and persona. This is awesome because the group I play YOMI with uses the same characters in Puzzle Strike and Flash Duel.

YOMI also screams production value. Two playmats, 10 characters with solid/durable cards and 10 character specific deck boxes for storage. This production value carries over into Sirlin's other products. Flash Duel Second Edition for example not only streamlines the rules and re-balances some characters, but it adds 10 new ones and multiple modes of play. He shows care in his products when he goes out and gets Genzoman, Team UDON and other amazing professional artist and pays out of pocket for most of the shiny parts.

Fantasy Strike games are all available online too. This was perhaps my main reason I stuck with the games. In a time where the anti-pirating war is about to hit the fan, Sirlin welcomes open testing of his products.

Hate to say it but I see BattleCon as the poor man's Fantasy Strike line. Perhaps BattleCon second edition will have cleaned up art and higher production.

Another comparison would be WoW TCG dungeon decks vs Sentinels of the Multiverse. The WoW dungeon rules are easy to pick up and the system works ina way were cards are constantly being cleared from the table. Not to mention the cards are playable with WoW TCG too.

I have learned one important thing from my peers in game design...SIMPLE IS ALWAYS BETTER. Simple ensures high production value, clean tested and balanced rules, and less time to make one version to another.

"And when making something Impossible and Amazing for the first time, DON'T TRY TO DO TOO MUCH. Because you will make something that sucks."
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Placerville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sputang wrote:
...

My issue with Yomi is that it's strictly 1 vs 1 duels. That means if I'm trying to teach a new player, I need to hold back to ensure they have fun. If we have a "game night" with several friends then Yomi would sit. Multiplayer is why I prefer Flash Duel over Yomi, and why I will probably prefer BattleCON over Yomi.


YOMI comes with 10 decks. I don't see how people sit it out. When I play Street Fighter the other players cheer on the player they want to win. Who ever loses passes up the controller. Being 1v1 has never stopped us from having fun. Many times we get tired and take a break to let others try the game out.

With 10 Characters you can EASILY have a mini tourney or King of the Hill. We have never tried this because each player tends to choose a unique character because they want to feel attached to THEIR character. So, we tend to have multiple games taking place at once.

I prefer Flash Duel more for a different reason. It's on the edge action/reaction. It feels like playing Super Smash Bros with 300% starting damage. One wrong move and it's game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jessey
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
I also purchased this and do not know what to do with it!
badge
I purchased this and do not know what to do with it!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is a distinct difference between a game's night in which everyone breaks off into pairs and plays different games and one in which everyone gets together and plays the same game. It's non trivial, and is one of the biggest reasons a good selection of games I own don't see the table as often as they should - because they just don't hit the sweet spot for player count and get glossed over because we've got too many people.

A game that supports 1v1 -> 3v3 plays 2-6 in various modes is far more likely to be played at my house on game's night than a super solid 1v1 game that everyone loves. There is a reason we play Smash Bros. more than Street Fighter at similar gatherings, in spite of the fact that most of us are pretty heavy into SF.

You can call BattleCon a Poor Man's Yomi all you like, the fact that it has a lower price point is a *huge* deal maker/breaker for many gamers.

Furthermore, I think the comparison between the two games is not only apt, but valid and totally reasonable. I don't want to rehash too much of what has already been said but the complete lack of variance in BattleCon is a *huge* draw.

There does end up being tons of mind games even at a mid level (we played a bunch last night, in one night almost more BattleCon than I've managed to play Yomi in the last *year*). When you read your opponent is doing say a Strike you play a Style with 'on Activation Move 1' and a Base like Burst (Start of Beat move 1). The effect is you step back out of range, their attack whiffs and you then step in and hit. Also, regarding always playing your best move - if your opponent works that out (and they can) they can arrange for a Clash, effectively negating your best move! And if you are still not convinced, play Seth - your opponent's best strategy becomes 'use a move he won't expect... because if he expects it I'm screwed' - very different game.

BC has matchups that actually *feel* and *play* distinctly. Yomi has matchups, and yes they are different, but like with all aspects of the game, until you get serious enough to be using evaluation skills and understanding your opponents option range it doesn't feel like anything other than glorified RPS. Yomi is constantly assaulted as being 'totally random' and while I agree it is not, it *feels* like it is for a non-trivial number of games until you 'get it'.

BC has characters and personalities you can become attached to as well, so that's a point for both - just because there exists Puzzle Strike and Flash Duel doesn't prohibit the possibility of other games in the battlecon universe utilizing the same cast.

I've never had a Yomi game *less than* 40 minutes, so the expected 20min timer I think is flawed. YMMV. Battlecon takes 5-15minutes per match, so either way it's faster 1v1 which means more games!

Quote:
I can teach YOMI in under 30 secs to another player. YOMI is perfectly balanced because of its simple nature (no distancing), in fact I'll go so far as to say no game in the next 10 years, including mine, will be better balanced than YOMI.


I want to target this specifically. It begs the question that Battle Con is *not* perfectly balanced, which remains to be seen. Also, perfection in balance would be absence of anything but 5-5's and even Yomi (the apparent gold star of balance) fails that criterion. Even laxing that up there are arguably 7-3's, and no comparing the game to typically accepting fighting games is not valid on this metric because it's a board game and if you want a good comparison see Luna, where variable and distinct start up creates an asymmetrical opening yet everyone has equal opportunity to win (5-5).

ALSO, I can teach someone RPS in 30 seconds, Yomi takes 45minutes and a couple quick games. BattleCon I taught last night in 5 minutes.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noah Bogart
United States
West Chester Township
OH
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Candi, I mostly agree, but some points about time.

You said, "I've never had a Yomi game *less than* 40 minutes, so the expected 20min timer I think is flawed. YMMV. Battlecon takes 5-15minutes per match, so either way it's faster 1v1 which means more games!"

My buddy and I can play through a Yomi best of 3 in 30 minutes, but we have yet to get a single duel, let alone a full match, of BattleCon in under 45 minutes. Anecdotal evidence about length of play doesn't say much. It really comes down to: how long one takes to make a decision, and how familiar one is with the fiddly-bits of a games mechanics. I personally find Yomi to be both easier to play and easier to teach than BattleCon, but that doesn't make it true for everyone.

You said, "ALSO, I can teach someone RPS in 30 seconds, Yomi takes 45minutes and a couple quick games. BattleCon I taught last night in 5 minutes."

It all depends, doesn't it? I taught my younger brother (who admittedly is pretty gameful) Yomi in one game, which took about 15 minutes. I ran him through what kind of cards there are, how they interact, etc. Every time we reached an end to his knowledge, I filled it in, so by the end of the game, he'd hit me for a True Power of Storms for the win. Next game, he had zero questions.

But my friend Steve, who taught me Yomi (and is far my superior at the game) had to take nearly 5 minutes per beat just to make sure he knew all the possible interactions of the cards and effects. My first game with him took nearly an hour, just because of all the backtracking and double-checking we both had to do.

Hopefully I've not said your experiences are wrong, because they're not. I just hope to point out that they're not everyone's experiences, and the games are wildly different in nearly every aspect except for the double-blind reveal. I still maintain that they shouldn't really be compared, because of their differences. Ostensibly, they're like games, but in play, they're almost nothing alike.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jessey
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
I also purchased this and do not know what to do with it!
badge
I purchased this and do not know what to do with it!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NoahTheDuke wrote:

Hopefully I've not said your experiences are wrong, because they're not. I just hope to point out that they're not everyone's experiences, and the games are wildly different in nearly every aspect except for the double-blind reveal. I still maintain that they shouldn't really be compared, because of their differences. Ostensibly, they're like games, but in play, they're almost nothing alike.


I completely agree, it's all contextual and relative (the time-related comparisons especially). I have the opposite experience of you (both on teaching and playing).

My main point by bringing my anecdotal evidence to the table was that the listed play times and anecdotal claims about learning curve are at best relative. Which was your point in bringing your experiences to bear against mine. Conclusion: I am at fault for not being clear about my points and we are in agreement!

Regarding the comparison problem, I think in a perfect world you are right it's Apples and Oranges (or at least Apples to Apple-Shaped Oranges). But this is a world in which people have to decide between apples an oranges - be it because you can't afford both or because time constraints make an investment in both an inefficient use of your funds.

However, I think they are more alike than you give them credit for. While they are both different metaphorical representations of fighting games, they are both a measure of reading, evaluation and have a diverse cast of distinct personalities. While the weight each puts on the relevant skills differs, I don't think that's enough to make a firm (as opposed to fuzzy) distinction. As far as boardgaming niche's go, they, I think, fill the same one (as far as most boardgamers are concerned). Anecdotal support for this is that I was told by some of my friends last night that BC was something they would invest in instead of Yomi because of many reasons listed here (lack of variance, faster play time, variety of modes of play that stretched to up to 6 players).

Take that for what you will.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noah Bogart
United States
West Chester Township
OH
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Candi wrote:
Conclusion: I am at fault for not being clear about my points and we are in agreement!


You're cool, I'm cool, we're all cool! :-)

And I think you're right, that I make them too distinct in my head. Analogously, it's like comparing Puzzle Strike and Dominion. I could whine all day about how the mechanics are different, etc, but really, they're pretty close. Like the differences between Guilty Gear and Street Fighter, the differences are only really apparent when one is super deep into either game, and to try to put that one people who haven't played either is silly of me.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Ripberger
msg tools
I am the Steve mentioned earlier, and I feel I have a bit to contribute. I'm happy to see that this discussion is a lot more constructive that it might otherwise be.

As Noah pointed out, BattleCON constantly perplexes me. I will continue to play it and do my best to learn it, but at this time it feels very frustrating and uncontrolled. Even when I land damage, I'm at a loss as to how or why it worked. This may sound strange, but my feeling is that without Yomi's drawing and discarding, this game is actually more random. I know this goes against your conventional wisdom, but allow me to explain...

Strong play in Yomi must acknowledge hand development and the options remaining in each player's deck. Early on, both you and your opponent have undeveloped hands. They may have damage potential if you're lucky, but the strongest combos rarely take less than 3 or 4 cards. Small hands are a trap you may never escape from, especially when your opponent can see some of your strongest cards in your discard.

As the game moves forward, players become much more able to affect each other-- escalation that's really more akin to a strategy game than a fighting game, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. One player may be in a better position than the other based on how the early game went, and critically that's not always the player with the most health.

A Grave player who powers away cards to get his aces, then burns three to hit you for 45 damage might seem like he's winning, but looks are deceiving. You are now 45 health down, sure, but you also know explicitly where 3 of the Grave's aces are for the rest of the game. You no longer have to worry about the three-ace attack until Grave powers away more cards right in front of your face to get them back. In fact, for the next turn you don't have to worry too much about attacks at all, as the Grave only has 2 or 3 cards left. Unless he manages to top-deck nothing but queens for 4 turns and finish you off that way, he's going to have to start blocking to regain cards. This leaves him very vulnerable to throws, which do damage and kill off his block cards. Against a good player with a strong hand he will probably never recover.

Thus, offensive options don't truly open up until the midgame. However, in the midgame there is a good amount of established information that you can use to read your opponent. You probably know where to find some of his fastest throws and a few blocks you might have picked off-- dead in his discard. You might have spooked him into using a joker. He may have used a couple abilities that are now dead in his discard and no longer an issue for you.

This development is what allows Yomi to move beyond rock-paper-scissors and into true reading. It comes as a direct result of the traditional "deck, hand, discard" design, and utilization of the poker model to foster familiarity.

BattleCON lacks these dynamics, much to its disservice in my opinion. I find my usual thought processes confounded by it. It's Yomi, if both players jumped straight into the midgame with no record of the early game. You can memorize ranges and priorities and movement tricks all day, but because cards resurrect so quickly and your hand size never varies, it's very difficult to gauge what your opponent is going to do.

Like I said, though, I will continue to play it and maybe I'll find that secret decision-making process that eludes me. :\
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moosey
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say these play differently. So you should try them both.

So why does no one compare these to Jab: Real Time Boxing? I'm guessing two reasons. 1) While the theme is still fighting, it's boxing instead of video game fighting. 2) It's speed based, but I've heard from people who don't like speed based games that they like this.

Point being, if you can see how Jab is way different than Yomi and BattleCON, then maybe you can see how Yomi and BattleCON can be different (though yes, Jab is more different, both in theme and game play). Other point being, Jab is fun, check it out. I own Jab, Yomi, and BattleCON. The only one I want to sell is Yomi.

RECCOMENDATIONS (coolstuffinc prices)

YOMI
$17 (for 2 characters)
Buy this if you want a more luck driven game. If you can't try before you buy, only buy a 2-pack, not all 10 for ~$75-100. I really thought I'd love this game, and was tempted to buy the full package, but I'm glad I didn't. This game feels a bit overpriced no matter if you get a 2 or 10 pack. But if you play the **** out of this game, then the enjoyment pays for itself. I could do with more plays of this game to fairly review it. But don't have the desire.

BattleCON
$27 (for 18 characters)
Characters feel more unique than Yomi. Meatier, thinkier fighting game. That could be a good or bad thing depending on your taste (and any over-analytically friends). With this many characters, you are getting most bang for your buck here. Shipping problems have kept this game away from me, but I'm optimistic (I was also optimistic of Yomi and Jab, and only one of those panned out for me).

Jab: Real Time Boxing
$13 (character variety n/a, since both are the same)
I mean, for this price, why not get it just as a filler? Easily worth twice this much. No, it doesn't scratch the same itch. But well, at least watch a video before you dismiss it. With such a cheap price and no need for characters, this is an exceptionally good deal. This one I've played enough to assure it's great.

All of these are done by pretty independent designers. Sirlin (Yomi) is certainly established, but it's still mostly his efforts. Each of these games are loved by many. For sure at least one of them will be loved by you. Yes, I didn't like Yomi. But I respect it for what it is, and many people do like it. It probably has most fans of any of the three.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Ripberger
msg tools
In the interest of keeping things civil I will tell you that I mean no personal offense by any of this. Rather, consider it heartfelt advice.

MooseyFate wrote:
Buy this if you want a more luck driven game.


I'd recommend you avoid making sweeping statements about games you don't understand, by your own admission. When I was criticizing BattleCON, I made sure to note that this was my own personal first impression-- an impression that may change with future plays and possibly some strategy discussion. Your disclaimer comes at the end of your paragraph, disconnected from this statement both logically and literally. It also states that you will not put in further time or effort to learn the game which is, to be honest, insulting.

Quote:
That could be a good or bad thing depending on your taste (and any over-analytically friends).


This doesn't help weaken that insulting tone, either. It seems like you intend to portray me or anybody else who has a problem with BattleCON as "overly-analytical." Anybody who wants to put real effort into understanding a game may not like it, but meh, who cares about them, right? They think too much. You didn't put a lot of effort into learning Yomi, why should anybody do the same for BattleCON?

Well... I will be doing the same for BattleCON. I still very much enjoy the ideas behind the game. My purpose was not to call BattleCON a bad game, or a "luck driven" game, but rather to explain that the traditional deck-hand-discard model is not necessarily a bad thing. In Yomi, it gives you information that you can use to mitigate a different kind of luck. That is, the double-blind luck of rock-paper-scissors.

I don't know how BattleCON might mitigate this luck in the absence of hand sizes and true discard piles, but again, I intend to play it until I find out.
5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
One Armed Bandit
Canada
Surrey
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is no luck in BattleCON. No randomness. Absolutely zero.

There are NO random elements, nor can there even be a hint of them.
Every game is 100% deterministic based on player actions.

If both players make the same choices in the same matchup, the result will be identical. Every single time.

In Yomi, the result will NOT be identical, nor will it even be possible for them to make the same choices, because shuffling the deck creates randomness and they may (will) end up with different cards.

Yomi IS a more luck driven game. Period. He's not saying it's PREDOMINANTLY luck driven, just that it's more luck driven. Anything with any random element is more luck driven than BattleCON, the same way Yomi is more luck driven than Chess. More than once I've ended up with a hand full of attacks and blocks, and gone several turns without drawing any throws as my opponent would dodge-poke and block-draw me. And, you know, throw me when I just went to block stalling, waiting for a throw.

Just because BattleCON appears more random does not mean it actually is. It means you don't get the game yet. The only random factor is your opponent's choices... something you have to deal with in Yomi as well.

In fact, dealing with your opponent's choices is the entire POINT of Yomi. If anything, BattleCON does Yomi more than Yomi, as it is 100% about reading the opponent and predicting their moves, whereas Yomi is about both reading and hand management and bluffing.
12 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Ripberger
msg tools
I think there's been a sort of misunderstanding here. I said nothing of truly random elements, and "luck" is itself a poorly defined term ill-suited to such absolute statements.

In straight rock-paper-scissors, there is no randomness either, is there? It is 100% deterministic based on player actions, right? If both players make the same choices, the result will be identical every single time.

So why isn't it possible for someone to be dominant in RPS? Why does it seem that no matter how much experience a person has with this game, and no matter how inexperienced his opponents are, results will always be fickle and unpredictable?

The reason is that, in RPS, you do not have any information to work with. Every throw, you have to make your decision blindly, with no real reason to believe any one choice will be better than the other two. It may not come from a truly random source, but this unpredictability has the same drastic effect on the outcomes of the game. You may as well flip a coin, really.

Some people might not choose to call this "luck" but really... most do. Ask people whether they think RPS is "luck-based" and they'll tell you. I don't want to get into an argument of semantics, though. Whether you choose to call this element "luck" or "unpredictability" or "volatility" or "variance," it still has the same effect on the outcomes of double-blind games.

Again, just as I said before, Yomi overcomes this variance precisely because of the random elements that mold the situation and provide information as the game goes on. Without them, Yomi wouldn't be a good game at all. Might as well play straight RPS, and as we said with straight RPS above, we might as well flip a coin.

I'm not saying that BattleCON does not have its own ways of mitigating the RPS variance, but I can tell you for certain that Yomi's ways are very effective. It frustrates me to see these ways being chalked up as a flaw in the name of "less random = better."
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
One Armed Bandit
Canada
Surrey
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4thDimensional wrote:
So why isn't it possible for someone to be dominant in RPS? Why does it seem that no matter how much experience a person has with this game, and no matter how inexperienced his opponents are, results will always be fickle and unpredictable?

You can totally become dominant in RPS.
In computer terms: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results1.html
This consistently beat out a program that played perfectly randomly... by a lot.

With people, it's all psych and bluffing.
http://www.worldrps.com/how-to-beat-anyone-at-rock-paper-sci...

Given that there are REPEAT champions at RPS tournaments, that puts your claim to rest.

Quote:
Again, just as I said before, Yomi overcomes this variance precisely because of the random elements that mold the situation and provide information as the game goes on. Without them, Yomi wouldn't be a good game at all. Might as well play straight RPS, and as we said with straight RPS above, we might as well flip a coin.

I'm not saying that BattleCON does not have its own ways of mitigating the RPS variance, but I can tell you for certain that Yomi's ways are very effective. It frustrates me to see these ways being chalked up as a flaw in the name of "less random = better."


BattleCON gives you even MORE information at all stages in the game. At every single point in the game, you know every single possible move the opponent can make, and you know it with absolute certainty.
Without supers and tag teams, on any given turn your opponent (and you) have exactly 15 possible moves (less with certain characters in play).
Not only that, there's zero guesswork in whether or not they have, for instance, a Dash. If it's not in their discard, it's in their hand, guaranteed. With Yomi, even as the discard grows and the quantum states collapse, there is still an element of unpredictablility. BattleCON has zero. The only unpredictable element is the opponent, and people can be predictable (again, the very basis of Yomi)

I'm not saying one or the other is better.
However, the statement was "if you want a more luck driven game."
This statement is 100% provably true.
Compare the "luck" (unpredictable) elements between the games.
BC: The players
Yomi: The players plus the card draws

2>1

It's a simple statement of fact that you took as a personal attack. Yomi has more luck. This cannot be argued. You have argued that there are so many ways that you can mitigate and minimize that luck. GREAT. It's still there. Small luck is still more than no luck.

You say that BattleCon seems very random to you. This comes from not understanding the game and being inexperienced. I will tell you that my first dozen games of Yomi felt a hell of a lot more random than playing Monopoly.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Ripberger
msg tools
palmerkun wrote:
You can totally become dominant in RPS.
In computer terms: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results1.html
This consistently beat out a program that played perfectly randomly... by a lot.


This is a fascinating article, and I thank you for sharing it, but it does not help your point. The key is in the details. In this competition there was only one program that played perfectly randomly, and nobody beat it consistently, certainly not by a lot.

Each "match" in their tournament consisted of 1000 throws, and the tournament was conducted 25 times, with the results averaged. Using the 25 sets of results, they made an error calculation to account for pure randomness that even the enthusiasts who created this contest must acknowledge. Thus, any match that was not won above a margin of 10 throws is considered a draw.

The pure random bot was called "Meta-Meta-Random," and if you look at its results, you'll see that it didn't beat anybody, but also hardly lost to anybody, including the top-rated "Iocaine Powder" program. It drew on every single match it played but two. What this proves is the obvious. A purely random RPS algorithm will win about half the time, regardless of who or what it is up against.

These tournaments were conducted as round-robins, where a 50% win rate is mathematically neutral and will not affect the standings whatsoever. The higher-ranked programs were able to get their points by beating the lower ranked programs, without having to beat Meta-Meta-Random.

If the tournaments had been conducted in another format things might have looked more uncontrolled. In the first stage of this round-robin, Iocaine Powder actually lost by 4 throws to the random bot, but this was counted as a draw. In a less forgiving format-- say, a championship bracket where draws are impossible-- Iocaine Powder would have been eliminated without having a chance to beat up on the other programs.

Quote:
With people, it's all psych and bluffing.
http://www.worldrps.com/how-to-beat-anyone-at-rock-paper-sci...

Given that there are REPEAT champions at RPS tournaments, that puts your claim to rest.


The World RPS Society I've seen before. I find it fascinating, but even so, it does nothing to my claim. Both it and the above programming competition can be explained by a simple fact:

No true competitor is content with a 50% win rate.

Random play will not do any worse than 50%, but it also will never do better. People who are interested in competitive rock-paper-scissors want to do better, so they will not play randomly. To move away from random play, they have devised a sort of metagame consisting of unwritten rules and expectations that exist outside of the game itself.

In the case of the programming competition, the programmers were aware of "dummy" bots that would have traceable patterns. The metagame came from writing pattern recognition algorithms, and then writing algorithms to trace the patterns in the pattern recognition algorithms. In this way, some could reliably come out on top of the others, but none, not even the best, could reliably beat the program that refused to play the metagame, Meta-Meta-Random.

The World RPS Society also has a metagame-- that of gambits and profiling and labeling certain plays as "offensive" or "defensive" when, in truth, the core of the game includes none of these things. In addition, if you read the website, you'll see that it often suggests methods that might be considered cheating in some circles and certainly have no analogue in Yomi or Battlecon-- tricks like watching your opponent's hand and changing your throw at the last moment, or continuing to throw even when you've lost in hopes of fooling your opponent into playing a best of 5, or 7, or 9, and so on. Some recommend shouting a throw at your opponent and hoping it messes them up somehow.

My guess is that the people who go to these events dispatch the inexperienced who are unwise to their metagame using tricks like these, but what's to stop somebody from practicing enough to get past these tricks, then refusing to play the metagame?

Nothing whatsoever, really, except that they'll never win more than half the time. In a round robin, they'll have no effect whatsoever on the competition, and in a championship bracket they effectively have to win 5 or 6 coin-tosses in a row to have a chance of winning. Most people would rather play the metagame, especially if they cared enough to get through all the trickery in the first place.

If we were to eliminate the trickery by using face-down cards, and put each of these guys through a gauntlet of 5 newbies who know nothing of their metagame and don't really care whether they win or lose, I bet you not many would make it through. Maybe one out of every 32, I'd expect. :\

Quote:
BattleCON gives you even MORE information at all stages in the game. At every single point in the game, you know every single possible move the opponent can make, and you know it with absolute certainty.
Without supers and tag teams, on any given turn your opponent (and you) have exactly 15 possible moves (less with certain characters in play).
Not only that, there's zero guesswork in whether or not they have, for instance, a Dash. If it's not in their discard, it's in their hand, guaranteed.


Even knowing that, the hand is still an unpredictable hand, and this never changes. You might know your opponent's hand by heart, the same way everyone knows all the possible options in rock-paper-scissors by heart, but that doesn't mean you have any insight into what he's actually going to pick.

No matter how large a Yomi hand is, it still contains only 4 options for combat, and based on what's in the discard and how many cards each player is holding, some of these 4 options become objectively better than the others.

Yes, it is possible to wind up in situations where you have no idea what your opponent is going to do, but a big part of the strategy is to avoid such situations as much as possible. In BattleCON, to me, it seems that the starting conditions of the game are just such a situation, and it's very difficult to steer the game out of it. My instinct is to try to imagine each possible move my opponent might make, and then pick the option that beats the most of those. However, I have no way of knowing that he won't choose one of the outliers. In fact, if he's good, he'll choose one of the outliers specifically because he knows it's an outlier.

In Yomi, I know he won't choose the outlier because often times the outlier is objectively bad. Even if he wins a combat with it, it doesn't help him that much and may leave him in a worse position overall. For example, dodging when you have a small hand is objectively bad because it requires at least two cards to deal any damage at all. You only draw one card per turn, so dodging will necessarily shrink your hand and turn a bad situation into a worse situation. A Lum player can thus safely play a Queen against a player with a small hand because dodge is the only option that really beats it-- it beats throws, it's faster than most attacks, and it trades favorably with blocks through Lum's "Roll the Dice" ability. Yes, dodge shuts it down entirely, but as noted before, dodge is very bad for him even if he wins with it.

Quote:
With Yomi, even as the discard grows and the quantum states collapse, there is still an element of unpredictablility. BattleCON has zero. The only unpredictable element is the opponent, and people can be predictable (again, the very basis of Yomi)


The very basis of Yomi is that people can be predictable in the context of unequal payoffs and changing situations. Yomi does not operate on the premise that pure rock-paper-scissors (minus trickery and strange, emergent metagames) is actually a solid form of competition, or that people can be predicted given no information at all. We know this because the designer himself has said so. Sirlin has written extensively about his game development philosophies, and all of it is free to read on his site. This piece strikes me as fairly relevant:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/rock-paper-scissors-in-strate...

Quote:
I'm not saying one or the other is better.
However, the statement was "if you want a more luck driven game."
This statement is 100% provably true.
Compare the "luck" (unpredictable) elements between the games.
BC: The players
Yomi: The players plus the card draws

2>1

It's a simple statement of fact that you took as a personal attack. Yomi has more luck. This cannot be argued. You have argued that there are so many ways that you can mitigate and minimize that luck. GREAT. It's still there. Small luck is still more than no luck.


Again, as I said before, "luck" is a poorly-defined term ill-suited to absolutes. You could choose to define it only as purely random elements, and then you could say that BattleCON has zero luck. If you choose to account for the unpredictability of the players as well-- and the rest of this post hopefully has served as more than enough justification for why you should-- then you can't say BattleCON has "zero luck."

In light of this, you could choose to count each source of unpredictability as exactly "1" unit of luck, regardless of their relative effects each game, as you have done. From this definition comes this "2>1" argument. However, you could also realize the possibility that one of these two elements might be more unpredictable in one game than in the other. Maybe in Yomi, the players are only worth half a unit of luck, while in BattleCON they're worth two.

Isn't 2 > 1.5?

I should note, I do not actually believe this analysis is valid. I only hope to call attention to the silliness of your own. :\

Quote:
You say that BattleCon seems very random to you. This comes from not understanding the game and being inexperienced. I will tell you that my first dozen games of Yomi felt a hell of a lot more random than playing Monopoly.


I am willing to concede on that, and I have done so repeatedly. I have faith that my understanding of this game will grow and hopefully my first impression will be proven wrong. I will not, however, accept that Yomi is necessarily "more luck based" based on some silly mathematical notion with arbitrary units of luck. I would have people realize the merit of Yomi's random elements, rather than simply chalking them up as a flaw without looking closely at what they do for the game.

I know I probably won't change your mind, but that's ok. This conversation has been enlightening to me in a lot of ways, and I feel visitors to this thread will come away with a plenty insight from both sides when deciding which of these games to purchase.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
One Armed Bandit
Canada
Surrey
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4thDimensional wrote:
Quote:
BattleCON gives you even MORE information at all stages in the game. At every single point in the game, you know every single possible move the opponent can make, and you know it with absolute certainty.
Without supers and tag teams, on any given turn your opponent (and you) have exactly 15 possible moves (less with certain characters in play).
Not only that, there's zero guesswork in whether or not they have, for instance, a Dash. If it's not in their discard, it's in their hand, guaranteed.


Even knowing that, the hand is still an unpredictable hand, and this never changes. You might know your opponent's hand by heart, the same way everyone knows all the possible options in rock-paper-scissors by heart, but that doesn't mean you have any insight into what he's actually going to pick.


You assert that you cannot have insight into what an opponent might choose in a perfect-information game, yet will claim and defend that you CAN have insight into what an opponent might choose in a game with imperfect information.

That makes absolutely no logical sense.

Quote:
No matter how large a Yomi hand is, it still contains only 4 options for combat, and based on what's in the discard and how many cards each player is holding, some of these 4 options become objectively better than the others.

BattleCON has, at it's core, a very similar RPS circle (more of a RPS-Lizard-Spock circle) for options. I can't find it now, but Brad the creator had a wheel diagram showing how certain attacks were favorable against others, and weak against more. For instance, Drive is favorable against both Shot and Burst. Not only does it have higher priority, it's forward movement helps counteract the range that a shot/burst user would have established as a setup for the attack. Drive is weak against Strike because you move into range, won't overcome the stun guard, and leave yourself open for a powerful counter-attack. And so on and so forth. Maybe I should poke Brad and see if he has the link handy.

Knowing what's in my opponent's discard absolutely makes some options better. If he's used his Shot, then I have absolute certainty that he cannot use it this beat. Whereas if Grave has all but two of his throws in his discard, I know he's running very low... but he might still have one.
In BC, it's a confident decision. In Yomi, it is never better than an educated guess.

Quote:
Yes, it is possible to wind up in situations where you have no idea what your opponent is going to do, but a big part of the strategy is to avoid such situations as much as possible. In BattleCON, to me, it seems that the starting conditions of the game are just such a situation, and it's very difficult to steer the game out of it.


You have just as much information for the opening in BC as you do the entire game. They have 15 moves, and are at Range 5. Check other forums threads, and you'll find people with questions like "This character always uses this starting move, and I can't overcome it", and you'll see plenty of replies with multiple ways of overcoming the issue.

Yomi is worse in this regard because you have almost ZERO information to work with. There's no discard to analyze, hand size is equal and full, and there's no telling what he's drawn. For your first move, you truly are at RPS randomness.

Quote:
My instinct is to try to imagine each possible move my opponent might make, and then pick the option that beats the most of those. However, I have no way of knowing that he won't choose one of the outliers.


Please tell me how this is objectively different from gameplay in Yomi.

Quote:
In Yomi, I know he won't choose the outlier because often times the outlier is objectively bad. Even if he wins a combat with it, it doesn't help him that much and may leave him in a worse position overall.


There are objectively bad moves in BattleCon as well. I still don't see a difference.

Quote:
With Yomi, even as the discard grows and the quantum states collapse, there is still an element of unpredictablility. BattleCON has zero. The only unpredictable element is the opponent, and people can be predictable (again, the very basis of Yomi)


Quote:
The very basis of Yomi is that people can be predictable in the context of unequal payoffs and changing situations.


Again, I fail to see the difference. Every action in BattleCon has unequal playoffs and is dependent on the changing situation of the game. A tactic that is absolutely dominant in one position can end up being absolutely dominated if the position of players is changed by just one space. Everything is situational.

Quote:
Again, as I said before, "luck" is a poorly-defined term ill-suited to absolutes. You could choose to define it only as purely random elements, and then you could say that BattleCON has zero luck.

This is true. Player choice is never a matter of luck. It is 100% cause-and-effect. A choice is made, and the same outcome happens.
This is in comparison to a shuffled deck. "Luck of the draw" is a cliche for a reason.

Quote:
If you choose to account for the unpredictability of the players as well-- and the rest of this post hopefully has served as more than enough justification for why you should-- then you can't say BattleCON has "zero luck."

If players are "luck" in BC, then they are luck in Yomi. That's a wash.

Quote:
However, you could also realize the possibility that one of these two elements might be more unpredictable in one game than in the other. Maybe in Yomi, the players are only worth half a unit of luck, while in BattleCON they're worth two.


I explicitly listed "sources of unpredictability" and did not compare any relative value. 3 coin flips are more predictable than 1d20, but the 1d20 is still only one source of unpredictability, while the three coins are three sources.
However, for the purposes of my comparison, two of the unpredictable elements were the same (people), and thus negate each other in comparison. What's left is what is really measured.
1d20+1 coin is objectively more unpredictable than 1d20 alone, even though it's actual unpredictability is extremely small.

Quote:
I would have people realize the merit of Yomi's random elements, rather than simply chalking them up as a flaw without looking closely at what they do for the game.

I never asserted it as a flaw. There was some subtext possibly implying it was a flaw, made by another person, but it's not my position. Frankly, I absolutely love luck in my games, I'm an Ameritrasher through and through. Luck isn't bad, but it must be acknowledged.

Quote:
This conversation has been enlightening to me in a lot of ways, and I feel visitors to this thread will come away with a plenty insight from both sides when deciding which of these games to purchase.


I for one am enjoying the hell out of this discussion
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Ripberger
msg tools
palmerkun wrote:
You assert that you cannot have insight into what an opponent might choose in a perfect-information game, yet will claim and defend that you CAN have insight into what an opponent might choose in a game with imperfect information.

That makes absolutely no logical sense.


It does if the "perfect information" still leaves your opponent with many distinct and equally useful options. In Yomi, it's possible to look at your opponent's hand using certain characters. Depending on the timing of this it can either be a game-changer, or entirely useless.

If I use this to look at a hand with four blocks-- two even, two odd-- at least one very fast throw, at least one very fast attack, some half-decent combo potential, a joker, and a couple dodges, I have no idea what to play as my combat card. My opponent could do anything.

In BattleCON, players have hands like this every turn. There are many distinct and potentially powerful options, so my opponent may not have any real reason to suspect one over the others, even if he knows every last card in my hand. The extreme example is, again, RPS. You have perfect knowledge of all three of your opponent's options, but that doesn't mean you have any insight into which one he is going to pick.

Does that not make logical sense?

Quote:
BattleCON has, at it's core, a very similar RPS circle (more of a RPS-Lizard-Spock circle) for options. I can't find it now, but Brad the creator had a wheel diagram showing how certain attacks were favorable against others, and weak against more. For instance, Drive is favorable against both Shot and Burst. Not only does it have higher priority, it's forward movement helps counteract the range that a shot/burst user would have established as a setup for the attack. Drive is weak against Strike because you move into range, won't overcome the stun guard, and leave yourself open for a powerful counter-attack. And so on and so forth. Maybe I should poke Brad and see if he has the link handy.


I would love to read that. Maybe it will help dispel my confusion with this game.

Quote:
Knowing what's in my opponent's discard absolutely makes some options better. If he's used his Shot, then I have absolute certainty that he cannot use it this beat. Whereas if Grave has all but two of his throws in his discard, I know he's running very low... but he might still have one.
In BC, it's a confident decision. In Yomi, it is never better than an educated guess.


My opponent may not have the shot card, but depending on his character he might have styles that turn the other bases into similar attacks anyway-- still able to affect me from a range. He might still have the option of dashing past me, which seems almost impossible to prevent, or he might reveal a style-base pair that allows him to move in such a way as to render my attack useless anyway. Of course, this all would be very match-up dependent. The question that remains is whether or not, in a given matchup, two dead bases, two dead styles, and positions on the board are enough information to really make confident decisions. So far I haven't felt that it is in the match-ups I've played.

Yomi, contrary to what you say, has plenty of situations where you can play with 100% confidence. Often they come down to character abilities and knowledge of speeds, but they are there. Take DeGray, for example. If he knocks you down and plays troublesome rhetoric on blocks, he can play his King or a Gold Burst joker with 100% confidence that it will land, or he will gain 12 life. Either way, he comes out ahead.

Or Lum, as I said before. With knockdown, or against a small hand, he can play his Queen or his Jack with impunity. If he's holding 4 Aces and a 10, he can play the dodge Ace knowing that, whether or not it works, he can drop the 10 for Poker Flourish and get some damage anyway.

Jaina can rule out dodges by putting her 10's in her discard and hammer away with chip damage, dropping a 7 to flip her combat card to a dodge in the event you ever outspeed her. Given enough time to get her hand together, she can be nearly unbeatable.

Geiger can throw you if you block his Jack, Queen, or 2A attack. Some characters have few if any attacks that can outspeed the 2A. If Geiger knocks you down when he's had enough time to build a big hand and bank a couple Temporal Distortions, he will kill you the following turn. This is 100% certain, barring a Gold Burst joker. These, however, can also be traced as there's only two in each deck and nobody has the power to resurrect them.

Argagarg trades favorably with blocks no matter what. Every round you block against him, you're a little bit closer to losing, regardless of what he does. If he manages to get a Bubble Shield up, this problem is compounded. When your opponent has a large hand and you have a Bubble Shield up, you should know with 100% certainty that he will not block. Doing so would be incredibly stupid because it guarantees 4 damage to himself and nets him nothing useful. :\

All sorts of this stuff exists, and it exists because in Yomi there are long term goals beyond simply damaging your opponent. These are:

-Developing your hand.
-Preventing the development of your opponent's hand.
-Dealing with your opponent's jokers.
-Dealing with your opponent's other important cards (Geiger's Temporal Distortion, Setsuki's Queens, anybody's Aces, and so on).

All these are only possible because of the model that Yomi uses. BattleCON, by necessity, has given up these things because it uses a vastly different model. It has no long-term developments beyond damage and whether or not you still have your super card. Everything else recycles. Cards come back after two beats, and positions on the board can change drastically from beat to beat.

In place of Yomi's long-term development games, it must have something else to offset the unpredictability of RPS. Whatever this thing is, I've yet to find it, but the search certainly has made me appreciate Yomi's model a lot more.

Quote:
For your first move, you truly are at RPS randomness.


This is absolutely not true. One of the first steps to being good at Yomi is discarding this notion. The first move, barring a few specific matchups, should always be a block or a throw. Attacking and dodging will never be worth the cards they will burn this early on, even if they hit. Throwing only works because it has the potential of killing your opponent's block cards, and may force him into an awkward situation where he has none left.

Quote:
However, for the purposes of my comparison, two of the unpredictable elements were the same (people), and thus negate each other in comparison.


That is not necessarily true. I don't think it can even possibly be true. In each game, people are playing in vastly different environments with vastly different strategies available to them. Inevitably, people will be more or less predictable in one game or the other, just like people are more predictable in both of these games than they are in straight RPS.

Quote:
I never asserted it as a flaw. There was some subtext possibly implying it was a flaw, made by another person, but it's not my position. Frankly, I absolutely love luck in my games, I'm an Ameritrasher through and through. Luck isn't bad, but it must be acknowledged.


I'll gladly acknowledge it. I will not make the claim that there is no luck in Yomi, but I will not support the claim that there is no luck in BattleCON. Neither will I support the claim that Yomi is a "more luck-based" game, for reasons I've repeated several times now. It's possible that further experience with BattleCON will change my mind.

I hope that it does, actually, because if the game manages to produce readable situations at least as gratifying as Yomi's, it is an amazing game indeed, luck or no luck.

Quote:
I for one am enjoying the hell out of this discussion


Same here. Unfortunately, I'm not having a lot of free time to continue it. I might have to make this my last post in here, both to make sure I get some sleep tonight and also to avoid repeating myself endlessly. I feel my points have been made pretty much as well as I'm going to make them. Hopefully someone finds all of this helpful somehow.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4thDimensional wrote:

In BattleCON, players have hands like this every turn. There are many distinct and potentially powerful options, so my opponent may not have any real reason to suspect one over the others, even if he knows every last card in my hand. The extreme example is, again, RPS. You have perfect knowledge of all three of your opponent's options, but that doesn't mean you have any insight into which one he is going to pick.


This is pretty much where I am with BattleCON right now. I really want the tactical gameplay to "open up" to me, but so far it's just been "play a powerful beat from your hand, see what happens"

In theory the idea of being able to duck and weave and dodge the opponent's attacks and counter with your own are what drew me to the game, but so far I haven't been able to connect with the strategy in a way where I can control this happening consistently or get into "mind-games" with my opponent... haven't really been able to find out how to predict my opponent or out-maneuver them move after move. Instead, I've just been focusing on macro-strategies like "stall and avoid damage with Magdelina until you're leveled up"

This game appears to be a real labor of love though and seems to be well tested, so I've been giving it the benefit of the doubt and going off the assumption that I'm just inexperienced and don't get it yet because I don't fully understand each character's options. I know Yomi is hard for a lot of people to connect with for a very similar reason

From the recycling-hands to the character variety BattleCON is just so damn cool and I desperately want to "get it" -- wish I could just play 10 games in a row with the same characters and see how the strategy develops, but so far it's been hard for me to keep my less-enthusiastic and less patient opponents interested when they're also playing mostly blind
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
One Armed Bandit
Canada
Surrey
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, I found the RPS wheel. Last place I'd think to look - in the instructions! (The Teaching Comic, to be exact)
http://www.battleconnection.com/index.php?option=com_content...
It's in Part 5, so jump to the bottom and then scroll up a bit.

Now, this explicitly covers "no styles, range 1" which can't exist, but it's a great example to start, and to use against a very similar character.

4thDimensional wrote:
It does if the "perfect information" still leaves your opponent with many distinct and equally useful options. In Yomi, it's possible to look at your opponent's hand using certain characters. Depending on the timing of this it can either be a game-changer, or entirely useless.

In BattleCON, players have hands like this every turn. There are many distinct and potentially powerful options, so my opponent may not have any real reason to suspect one over the others, even if he knows every last card in my hand.

Does that not make logical sense?


It makes sense, but also doesn't. BattleCON has one thing Yomi doesn't, which is the spatial element. Board position is one of the biggest tactical considerations in the game. In theory, I have 15 choices on my turn, and so do you. In practice, half of those are obviously bad moves for various reasons. If we're at long range, then only Shot is really useful, maybe Burst. If we're adjacent, then cards with minimum ranges, like Kallistar's Spellbolt or most of Rukyuk's styles are useless.

I need to consider range, priority and movement potential, especially because there are three distinct phases movement can happen in (only one of which can be cancelled by stun). Start of Beat movement can put me in position to attack or defend before my opponent gets to attack. Before Activation (the only stun-cancellable one) allows me to have a preferred position to avoid my opponent, and then move into striking range. End of Beat lets me establish a position that leads in to my next attack.

On top of that, attack preferences are influenced by characters as well. Demitras is very fast. Once he has enough tokens, he will lean towards the slower but weaker bases like Strike and Shot to help bump his damage, confident that his bonus priority will still outweigh yours even with slower attacks.

Cadenza strongly favors whatever gets him closer, and is happy to take hits as long as he can land them (his Press base being designed for that). The right move for Cadenza is frequently the absolute wrong move for EVERYONE else.

Some characters are more predictable for specific moves. After using 3-4 tokens, Rukyuk is going to reload. Every 3rd beat, Magdelina will use Spiritual. Kehrolyn has half her plan in plain view at all time. If Kallistar is in elemental form, she's going to be aggressive, not dashing.

While there are 15 options per player, after a while it becomes clear that there are only a few "good" plays for a situation.

Quote:
Quote:
Knowing what's in my opponent's discard absolutely makes some options better. If he's used his Shot, then I have absolute certainty that he cannot use it this beat. Whereas if Grave has all but two of his throws in his discard, I know he's running very low... but he might still have one.

In BC, it's a confident decision. In Yomi, it is never better than an educated guess.


My opponent may not have the shot card, but depending on his character he might have styles that turn the other bases into similar attacks anyway-- still able to affect me from a range.


The thing is, in every case, you KNOW THAT, 100%.

That's the difference I'm emphasizing here.

If Grave has used all but 2 of his throws, and still has over half his deck left, you are very confident that he's not holding another throw, so you block.

And then he throws you. Because you made a very safe, very correct assumption... that was wrong. You didn't have certainty.

With BC, I have that certainty. I always know when you have that Shot, and when you have that Dash. I never have to make a bet on "Does he have...?".

Quote:
The question that remains is whether or not, in a given matchup, two dead bases, two dead styles, and positions on the board are enough information to really make confident decisions. So far I haven't felt that it is in the match-ups I've played.


Perhaps I will have to make up a few scenarios and show how this works out.

Quote:
All sorts of this stuff exists, and it exists because in Yomi there are long term goals beyond simply damaging your opponent. These are:

-Developing your hand.
-Preventing the development of your opponent's hand.
-Dealing with your opponent's jokers.
-Dealing with your opponent's other important cards (Geiger's Temporal Distortion, Setsuki's Queens, anybody's Aces, and so on).

All these are only possible because of the model that Yomi uses. BattleCON, by necessity, has given up these things because it uses a vastly different model. It has no long-term developments beyond damage and whether or not you still have your super card. Everything else recycles. Cards come back after two beats, and positions on the board can change drastically from beat to beat.


Long term development is in part character specific, but is also positional. Some characters are growth based, like Demitras, Magdelina and Luc. They build into stronger positions over time. It's not the cards, it's the character.
Position is central for a lot of characters, and significant for everyone. Khadath and Tatsumi are very big examples, as their entire abilities are based on movement and position.

I think one major disconnect here is that Yomi is a mechanically consistent game. Character specifics aside, the same basic overall strategy applies universally because of the narrow set of options. Avoid damage, build hand, and set up for a big combo. With the exception of the niche tricks and face cards, everyone handles mostly the same.
BattleCon is not like that. The differences between characters are profound, and there is never a time when two different characters would make the same move whereas in Yomi, it's common. There are a lot of cases where playing a block is the right move, no matter who you are. This simply doesn't happen in BattleCON. The closest you can come is "a dash is a good idea", but even in a lot of those cases, you have another viable option. Between the variety of styles, and the completely unique character abilities, each character is almost a game unto themselves, and not a lot of strategy is transferrable between them.

Finally, there is the issue between the pace of the games. Yomi is a slow game. As you say, you develop your hand and build your position, and that takes place over 30+ turns.
A BattleCon game rarely goes past 10 turns, and can easily finish in as little as 5. I think this might be another point of disconnect for you, because the ability to grow and build your hand towards a long term position of strength and predictability seems to be a major thing for you, both in how you discuss it, and how you're bothered by BattleCon's rapid cycling of cards.

It may be better to look at Yomi as a strategic game, whereas BattleCon is a tactical game. There's not a lot of planning ahead in BattleCon beyond the next turn, whereas there is with Yomi. In this respect, I do think BattleCon better emulates the source theme of fighting games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.