tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post1342056891815766724..comments2023-11-03T02:44:56.790-07:00Comments on Fortress: Ameritrash: WAR OF THE RING- To Hell With Balance!Matt Throwerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04426055092986158446noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-40343900816363513862017-04-22T23:04:57.223-07:002017-04-22T23:04:57.223-07:00I think 'Emily Adams' may be seeking gulli...I think 'Emily Adams' may be seeking gullible man person for overseas scam effort actually...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-57003126087383936572017-02-14T03:09:29.240-08:002017-02-14T03:09:29.240-08:00Wonderful post.This is nice post and gives in dept...Wonderful post.This is nice post and gives in depth information. I like to read this post because I met so many new facts about it actually.<br /><br /><a href="http://arkpresentation.com/product-category/finishing-equipment/" rel="nofollow">print finishing equipment</a>Ark Presentation & Supplies Ltdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739539720922659490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-76915275046131197362013-05-26T04:10:54.690-07:002013-05-26T04:10:54.690-07:00Shares of DDD experienced a three-month rally in w...Shares of DDD experienced a three-month rally in which the <a href="http://pixocool.com/stickers" rel="nofollow">sticker printing</a> can be improved either by pretreatment with chemicals <br />or by incorporating auxiliaries in stickers jdm paste to modify printability.<br />They can certainly coexist, as some foreign art paper finishing equipment and paper coating technology has come a long and difficult <br />road, polishing equipment replacement, technological innovation, <br />unlike pre-press, stickers jdm Equipment So fast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-9275752943949203372011-10-15T01:13:57.524-07:002011-10-15T01:13:57.524-07:00Hey, there's really much effective information...Hey, there's really much effective information above!www.mueblesennavarra.comhttp://www.mueblesennavarra.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-22715564461629923612010-08-19T22:07:14.282-07:002010-08-19T22:07:14.282-07:00You guys look like fools now 3 years later talking...You guys look like fools now 3 years later talking about this game having no balance and it is universally accepted that it does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-17215214073520054732007-05-07T20:11:00.000-07:002007-05-07T20:11:00.000-07:00No game is perfectly balanced. The problem I have ...No game is perfectly balanced. The problem I have with balance in WotR is how much imbalance there can be. Sometimes, you can get just over the halfway mark and realize the bloody Shadow player has really got it sewn up because they've gone blazes with early corruption. At about the 2/3 point you realize the Shadow has about a 98% chance of winning. Only the ultimate streak of lucky draws can give the Free Peoples a shot. Before the game is over, luck of the draw trumps any strategic variation. It's a lousy endgame. Skill gets trumped by the totter teetering too far in one direction, at which point you are just waiting for gravity to stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-920984878905774022007-04-10T01:02:00.000-07:002007-04-10T01:02:00.000-07:00MrSkeletor, it's great that you're suspicious of t...<I> MrSkeletor, it's great that you're suspicious of those dastardly math nerds, but I assure you that everyone I know came to the conclusion that the game was imbalanced by noticing that the Shadow was winning all the games. Usually the math is no more complicated than "one win in last ten games" => 10% or "last Free win was in 2005, which was (math happens here) over a year ago".{MrSkeletor, it's great that you're suspicious of those dastardly math nerds, but I assure you that everyone I know came to the conclusion that the game was imbalanced by noticing that the Shadow was winning all the games. Usually the math is no more complicated than "one win in last ten games" => 10% or "last Free win was in 2005, which was (math happens here) over a year ago"</I><BR/><BR/>If that is what is happening then fine.<BR/>Like I said from MY experience the game always seems very close. But then I haven't played it as much as others.Mr Skeletorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17641339798508135450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-13667785486034157512007-04-05T00:59:00.000-07:002007-04-05T00:59:00.000-07:00No not defining breaks as "solved" as such but the...No not defining breaks as "solved" as such but the idea, not mine btw, that if a game can be "solved" then it is broken. I think too many people throw the term broken out there for a game that they either suck at or cant "solve". Likewise I dislike the term "solved" as I don't play a game because I'm trying to solve anything. Maybe this is why I play so many AT games. There are people who write strategy articles for games to the degree I was talking about. Go here do this then this then you win. This is their idea of "solving" a game.First it is boring. Why would you want to play that way. Second it is not a fool proof way of winning everytime. I always compare these things to the video game strategy guide that the guy in the shop tries to get me to buy along with the game I just bought. You want me to buy a guide on how to complete the game I just spent £40 on. No! With these games it is a solvable thing. Generally there is only one way to solve the game, there may be a little room for play but not much. It's why I mentioned puzzles and jigsaws.Once you've cracked it, why bother playing again.Gaming, for me, is about the game. Is WotR harder to play as the free peoples when both players are of equal playing ability? Sure. That's the point of the game.Isn't it? It's not SUPPOSED to be perfectly balanced. It is supposed to be stacked against the free peoples, like the books/film. Is it impossible to win as the free people? No. Well at least not in my experience. That's the key here. And as far as "fixing" it, well do we really need another version of a game that, in my opinion, doesn't need fixing.Obviously some people do. Maybe they want a more straightforward game. But then they may say that the LotR theme is just pasted on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-87283695336985320202007-04-04T07:16:00.000-07:002007-04-04T07:16:00.000-07:00There are however strategies that favor the dark p...<I>There are however strategies that favor the dark player. <BR/>This is no different to Puerto Rico, where your chance of winning depends upon where you sit in the turn order (I think the 2nd player has the hardest time of winning from memory) oe E&T where the first person has a big advantage.</I><BR/><BR/>No strategy or seat position in PR or E&T gives you an 80% chance of winning.<BR/><BR/>I can't say the 1st position player has a big advantage in E&T. Certainly, if any player gets too far ahead, the other players can take him out.<BR/><BR/>PR, I do agree that seat position can play a factor, but mostly in 4 or 5 player games. 3 players is fine, 4 players is certainly playable but I think the game breaks down a bit with 5. 2 players works great too with the optional rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-28885671743711096262007-04-04T01:12:00.000-07:002007-04-04T01:12:00.000-07:00MrSkeletor, it's great that you're suspicious of t...MrSkeletor, it's great that you're suspicious of those dastardly math nerds, but I assure you that everyone I know came to the conclusion that the game was imbalanced by noticing that the Shadow was winning all the games. Usually the math is no more complicated than "one win in last ten games" => 10% or "last Free win was in 2005, which was (math happens here) over a year ago".Sean McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06122290908439875428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-22823448801654897952007-04-04T01:03:00.000-07:002007-04-04T01:03:00.000-07:00I'm not really sure what your point is, or even wh...I'm not really sure what your point is, or even whether you know what you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>War of the Ring is a great game. It's suspenseful and fun to play. <BR/><BR/>If you get very good at it, the Shadow wins almost every time. This removes a lot of the suspense. It's not as fun to play when the choices you make in-game have almost no effect on the game's outcome. The evolution of strategies and counter-strategies comes to a halt because there's no contest anymore.<BR/><BR/>How is that not a bad thing?<BR/><BR/>If you have a game system that still works after 100 long plays, what's wrong with trying to change the ONE scenario so that both sides have something to do again?<BR/><BR/>Have you even played the game against a Shadow player who knows what they're doing? It's nothing like the books. Minas Tirith is either the first place to fall, or Sauron just completely ignores it. The Fellowship sometimes stands outside Mordor for three turns, because they can't get in because of cheesy Shadow cards that don't do what they're supposed to do. All the companions die without doing anything else first. And Sauron almost always wins.<BR/><BR/>Why would you want to play that game when it's so easy to make it so much better?Sean McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06122290908439875428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-14203410222403374182007-04-03T18:36:00.000-07:002007-04-03T18:36:00.000-07:00The problem with your comment alan is that you are...The problem with your comment alan is that you are defining 'breaks' as 'solved'. I'm not, because after all WoTR has not been solved either, there is no strategy that will guarantee you the win. There are however strategies that favor the dark player. <BR/>This is no different to Puerto Rico, where your chance of winning depends upon where you sit in the turn order (I think the 2nd player has the hardest time of winning from memory) oe E&T where the first person has a big advantage.<BR/><BR/>My argument is are these bias' discovered during the normal course of play, or as I suspect because people go all math nerd on them? If the analysis on the online E&T games hadn't been done, pointing that the first players were winning some 40+% of the time (from what I can remember) then I would probably never have realized this fact, and I'd enjoy the game all the more for my ignorance.Mr Skeletorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17641339798508135450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-53503335965511445352007-04-03T15:41:00.000-07:002007-04-03T15:41:00.000-07:00When you break it down to statistics and probablit...<I>When you break it down to statistics and probablities you lose all the flavour of the games themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>Remember Sewer Urchin from the Tick cartoon? One of our local gamers could be his dad. He's got that same droning voice and questionable hygiene. This gamer leans heavily on the strategy articles at BGG to help him win his beloved EuroGames. <BR/><BR/>This same guy doesn't like AmeriTrash games, because the randomness makes it unlikely that his memorized strategies will give him the win. And he hates games where different players have dramatically different starting points. No, he enjoys reducing his favorite games to a set of equations that can be more or less solved together. Back when I still played games with this guy, my sole enjoyment was playing chaotically so as to disrupt his plans.Shellheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02023484901650550355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-84228647085708767422007-04-03T11:39:00.000-07:002007-04-03T11:39:00.000-07:00You know...I've told friends- who are pretty hardc...You know...I've told friends- who are pretty hardcore gamers- that aren't aware of this idiotic BGG "culture" about the sort of statistical ravings "analysis", and game dissections that go on and they almost always respond with "you're fucking joking".Michael Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01465993224831900150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-71281342086247384052007-04-03T07:45:00.000-07:002007-04-03T07:45:00.000-07:00sorry but I have to disagree. The way I see it the...sorry but I have to disagree. The way I see it the question here is one of purpose. What is the point of playing a game? To have fun right? It's a game not a jigsaw puzzle or a rubics cube. You're not trying to solve anything! I stay away from the same articles on strategy that Mr.Skeletor was talking about cause it saps the fun, and the point of playing the game. And its real hard to come up with a proven battle winning startegy that works every single time. I used to see this when I worked for GW. People trying to come up with the all conquering army. Beardy play is what they used to call it. And it sucks. It's not playing the game. It's playing the rules. You can over analyze a game to the point where you take the fun out of it surely. I read once a debate over whether to use the witch king or the lord of the nazgul which boiled down to a statistical analysis of which one was best in which....... jesus I'm putting myself to sleep just trying to remember it. Not very exciting though is it? I think the best thing about the games that have been mentioned in this whole discussion is that IF you do manage to pull of a win when you're heavily outnumbered, then how much cooler is that. I am STILL trying to win a game of Arkham Horror. I thik its a great game, is it imbalanced cause I havent won yet? No I just suck at it. But then you could always cherry pick the best investigators and equipment. But where's the fun in that. When you break it down to statistics and probablities you lose all the flavour of the games themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-5837040024747797132007-04-03T05:01:00.000-07:002007-04-03T05:01:00.000-07:00Any game breaks when you put too much scrutiny on ...<I>Any game breaks when you put too much scrutiny on it.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, to me this is just life on the internet. When you have people all over the world, going to web sites and discussing Game X, it is only a short matter of time before a possible solution is found, if one exists.<BR/><BR/>Plus I disagree that 'any game breaks under scrutiny'. I guess this is theorically true, but even with todays computers, we are not there yet. Checkers (last I heard) was not even solved yet, but getting close.<BR/><BR/>PR, Caylus,... to name a few Euros have had plenty of scrutiny and are not solved or broke. Oh, guidelines for how to play is around, but it is far from broke. <BR/><BR/>I have not heard anyone say (or write) that other AT games suffer the balance problems that WotR has once you know the line of play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-26810943076928783292007-04-03T04:05:00.000-07:002007-04-03T04:05:00.000-07:00The books are totally unbalanced. Those damned goo...The books are totally unbalanced. Those damned goodie two shoes win every time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-20984289411205434682007-04-02T20:54:00.000-07:002007-04-02T20:54:00.000-07:00Hah! That's a great quote, and by god he's one of...Hah! That's a great quote, and by god he's one of the people who designers SHOULD be listening to.<BR/><BR/>Frank's right too...a big part of the problem is this tendency folks in the hobby have to hyperanalyze EVERYTHING- look at all the meaningless statistics users cobble together from BGG that basically say absolutely nothing about anything and have little or no bearing on the hobby. You've got statistical analyses for all sorts of games, strategy articles for games where you only have 2 or 3 choices per turn anyway...whatever happened to just playing and enjoying games for what they are? I'm all for smart, insightful, and uncompromising criticism but when I hear terms like "concerned about the balance" in any sort of game writing I know I'm reading something entirely too serious for me.<BR/><BR/>Back when I was writing for Games International, one of my assignments was a two-part strategy guide for WAR OF THE RING. It was the hardest thing I've ever written of any description. It sucked, it wasn't very helpful, and it wasn't really very thorough. Reflecting on it now, it was hard because I just don't hyperanalyze games like that- I play for the experience, the fun, the atmosphere, the story, and the drama- not to tease out an infallable path to winning a certain percentage of the time.Michael Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01465993224831900150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-2877279979680001512007-04-02T20:35:00.000-07:002007-04-02T20:35:00.000-07:00"Balance is boring." -Peter Olotka, designer of Co..."Balance is boring." -Peter Olotka, designer of Cosmic EncounterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-75422629279164036512007-04-02T18:30:00.000-07:002007-04-02T18:30:00.000-07:00I think my problem with the original article was h...I think my problem with the original article was hit on the head here:<BR/><BR/><I>I will admit that the game imbalance tends to show up the more you know the game. During the designer/playtester debate over game balance, some guys wondered if it really is a problem if only the most fanatical WotR players noticed it. Many casual gamers who don't play the game that often might not even notice that there is a problem. </I><BR/><BR/>The problem with too many geeks on the internet is they over analise the game instead of simply playing it. I myself detect no 'imbalance' in the game, it seems quite tight each time I play it, but then I avoid all of the 'strategy' articles on it like the plague. Any game breaks when you put too much scrutiny on it. I'm certain Arkham horror is 'solvable', but I wouldn't know because I experience the game when playing it, I don't read every card and dissect it to come up with an unbeatable strategy on a lazy sunday afternoon when I have nothing to do.Mr Skeletorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11957969917206497082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-14331355044360710672007-04-02T14:43:00.000-07:002007-04-02T14:43:00.000-07:00Some gamers need to win a game in order to fully e...Some gamers need to win a game in order to fully enjoy it. I can see where they wouldn't even want to play a game if the odds were stacked against them.<BR/><BR/>I am perfectly willing to play a fun game even if I am likely to lose. I lose at least 90% of the time when I play Vampire: the Eternal Struggle and I win or come in second more than 95% of the time that I play Mall of Horror, but I am perfectly willing to play either one of those games any time. And when our group plays Arkham Horror with both of the expansions, we currently lose 2/3 of the games, but it's still one of my top two favorite games. And getting ousted in Nuclear War is still great fun if I can launch a really damaging retaliatory strike.<BR/><BR/>More on topic, even when the game is inherently unbalanced, I may enjoy playing the disadvantageous side if it's still fun. For example, the Boogeyman player is at a distinct disadvantage in Slasher Flick: The Revenge of the Boogeyman. But I love playing the doomed Boogeyman anyway, because it's fun for the first few turns, stalking victims and then killing them with a variety of weapons. By mid-game, the poor Boogeyman is usually getting his ass handed to him roughly every other turn by the alert and armed survivors, but it's still fun to look at the number of corpse counters he managed to leave sprawling around the map.Shellheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02023484901650550355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-19776446239006816792007-04-02T13:34:00.000-07:002007-04-02T13:34:00.000-07:00Is it really "imbalanced" or do the sides merely h...Is it really "imbalanced" or do the sides merely have different abilites, and therefore a different strategy for winning the game? "imbalanced" to me means that one side is so overpoweringly advantaged that you could get a two year old to move the pieces and you'd still lose. If both sides can win (assuming equal skill), then it's not imbalanced--Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-46334448330814259382007-04-02T13:14:00.000-07:002007-04-02T13:14:00.000-07:00"Only pure, no-luck abstracts are completely balan...<I>"Only pure, no-luck abstracts are completely balanced in the long run"</I><BR/><BR/>This is rather erroneous on your part. More often it's the pure, no-luck abstracts which have obvious imbalances (e.g. chess).Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02024607535592425199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-63346665802520664152007-04-02T11:14:00.000-07:002007-04-02T11:14:00.000-07:00I present this as definitive proof that imbalance ...I present this as definitive proof that imbalance is bad. I don't see how you can argue with this Barnes. The game is up, so to speak.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/Nd-Cliff.jpg" REL="nofollow">Imbalance = Pure Evil (Click here to learn more!)</A><BR/><BR/>On a side note does it suck or what that Blogger doesn't allow images in comments?robartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05294186755409903257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811769968708731746.post-55808542261599822402007-04-02T09:00:00.000-07:002007-04-02T09:00:00.000-07:00The situation in War of the Ring will seldom bog d...The situation in War of the Ring will seldom bog down because the game situation is made to be asymmetrical. The Shadow has limitless troops, but he has to blitz Middle Earth before the pesky hobbits reach the volcano. A good game of War of the Ring is essentially a race to see which side can achieve its victory conditions first. The particular way that each side can win should make for a balanced game--assuming that the cards don't skew the game toward one side or the other.<BR/><BR/>The problem that some of us have is that the Shadow can not only blitz Middle Earth, but it can drown the Fellowship with corruption in nearly every game. The Free Peoples special victory conditions aren't helping them much.<BR/><BR/>This not only makes it less fun to play the Free Peoples, it makes it less fun to play the Shadow. All good gamers want a challenge, and knowing that I have an 80% (or more) chance of winning if I play Sauron doesn't make playing the Shadow all that appealing.<BR/><BR/>I will admit that the game imbalance tends to show up the more you know the game. During the designer/playtester debate over game balance, some guys wondered if it really is a problem if only the most fanatical WotR players noticed it. Many casual gamers who don't play the game that often might not even notice that there is a problem.<BR/><BR/>I want a reasonably balanced game because I want to feel that I have a chance when playing the Free Peoples, and because I want a challenge when I play the Shadow. And I think it would be nice to have an official game-balancing element available. But if one doesn't become available, I'll still be able to use one of the clever variants listed on the Geek or I could invent my own.Kris Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06148348334050550026noreply@blogger.com