now i have to go try to find the game that made me come post this so i can send him one lol

edit: sorry should have edited my last post and put this post in w/ it... dont mean to be cluttering this area w/ bs

how about the ability for the game creater to be able to set the card values if he doesnt like the default instead of having to use whatever has been set by the map creator?

the regulator wrote:

how about the ability for the game creater to be able to set the card values if he doesnt like the default instead of having to use whatever has been set by the map creator?

I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I understand how players would want to do this, but it does begin to cross a line.  Here are a few considerations on the con side of the idea.

• At least in theory, designers (in exhaustive Dev play) have already tweaked the cards for best game play  ..to avoid things like standoffs/stale mates; or to speed up (or slow down) what they think might otherwise be too slow (or too fast) a game; etc.  They may even have been thinking about first player advantage or other aspects of game-play.
• Once game creators start to make alterations to game-play, then the stats may become skewed because the game becomes "different". (this is probably the weakest argument)
• Any designer can tell you the page for setting a custom card configuration involves 12+ fields, depending on how many are available to the game creator.  This could be a recipe for confusion at the very least and possibly disaster in some cases.  Players joining games would have to start looking at a list of tweaks before joining games just to make sure that the rules are reasonable.

Off hand, I can think of two compromise alternatives, neither of which I am particularly fond of:

• As it currently is with fog.  Designers can toggle a "creator override."
• Override is only allowed in private games.

Completely agree with M57.

Ozyman wrote:

Completely agree with M57.

Me too

Let me also mention that if you really do think a different card scale would work better, you can message the map maker.  It is an easy change, and I would be happy to setup a dev scenario so that players can try out a different card scale & if it is better, I'd gladly add or replace a scenario.

This is very minor and unimportant and I feel silly even bringing it up but it has been bugging me so I'm going to anyways.
Could we change the name of Private Messages to Inbox Messages or something like that.  I keep clicking on the email from my phone to read what I think is an Inbox Message but it's actually and In Game Private Comms and then I have to load the game and login and all that because once I start something I can't stop because I have issues.  It would just avoid a little bit of confusion and make more sense than having everything be called "Private".

Note:  I made NO sophomoric jokes about "Privates"

RiskyBack wrote:

...

Note:  I made NO sophomoric jokes about "Privates"

RiskyBack wrote:

...

Note:  I made NO sophomoric jokes about "Privates"

So you're NOT Private Joker then? Guess that makes you Pyle...

Now, you listen to me, Private Pyle. And you listen good...

I know that the idea of providing incentives to review game boards has been discussed elsewhere, but I don't know exactly where so I'm not checking to see if this has been suggested before now.

That said, it might work to offer additional vacation days for board reviews. Tom might add some requirement like a 200 character minimum review or at least 3 games completed on the board. Such a system would both help players not get booted and encourage productive feedback for both players and board designers.

Yes it has been discussed.  I would like to note that, with a few exceptions, when my boards get rated poor or worse, the commentary reads something like...

"Meh"

or 

"I hated it - so should you."

I consider that last example a long one..

Problem with a 200 character min is they could write something like..

I hated it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kjeld wrote:

...

That said, it might work to offer additional vacation days for board reviews. Tom might add some requirement like a 200 character minimum review or at least 3 games completed on the board. Such a system would both help players not get booted and encourage productive feedback for both players and board designers.

Good idea, it could work especially if standard players also get some days of vacation.

Maybe some way to how many cards are in the draw pile and how many are in the discard pile when from the "Cards" tab of the gameboard?  Also, can we get the trade-in values to auto-refersh after every trade w/out having to refresh the entire board?

I'd like to request an added line in the tooltip when hovering over territories in the designer that displays the "tid."  When editing a lot of territories in XML, it can be hard to identify which is which by name, and difficult to find.  

If this is distracting, you could add an "details" box, that you can check and have it display tid, # of continents it belongs to, and number of factories that output to the territory.

this probally is not the right thread, but can we get a way to have dev. games sorted separately?

Edward Nygma wrote:

I'd like to request an added line in the tooltip when hovering over territories in the designer that displays the "tid."  When editing a lot of territories in XML, it can be hard to identify which is which by name, and difficult to find.  

If this is distracting, you could add an "details" box, that you can check and have it display tid, # of continents it belongs to, and number of factories that output to the territory.

Yes, very much wanty.

Cramchakle wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

I'd like to request an added line in the tooltip when hovering over territories in the designer that displays the "tid."  When editing a lot of territories in XML, it can be hard to identify which is which by name, and difficult to find.  

If this is distracting, you could add an "details" box, that you can check and have it display tid, # of continents it belongs to, and number of factories that output to the territory.

Yes, very much wanty.

+1 As these things get more and more complex and cumbersome, every little bit helps a lot.

I also have an idea to trim down the number of continents in some of the systems I'm working on.  If I could group a number of territories into a class of sorts, and then (in the XML) be able to say

members = "specific territories, any single territory in a given class, all territories in the given class, n number of territories in the given class" 

Then I would be able to make one continent that says if I own P1 capital and Any territory in the class "play area" instead of one continent per territory in the play area.

So territory groups to reference in continents, Any, All, None, or specific number of territories in that class when referencing territories in continents.  None would be particularly helpful (a continent that checks to see what you DON'T have).  

It would also help to be able to set multiple factories that all get the same continent bonus.  So if I have This continent, put 1 unit in Factories A,B,C etc.  

This would very literally make my job a few thousand times easier, plus allow for some much more user-friendly controls in fun factory designs.

Edward Nygma wrote:

members = "..., n number of territories in the given class" 

This sounds like "Combinations", which is something I suggested a while back.