Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All

Author Topic: In defense of Monopoly  (Read 20283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3345
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2012, 09:20:48 am »
0


Im not sure anyone is doubting that there is strategy in Monopoly (the amount people view it does seem to vary)

But im willing to bet that 95% of people here have played Monopoly and would rate it as pretty bad.

Even the guy who has posted the 'in defence of monopoly' thread to start with has pointed out in has massive valid critisicsms!

Does everybody hate it? Not at all
Do all games take ages? Not all of them
Is it a terrible design of a board game that is only a sucess due to the massive marketing and cut-throatedness that Parker Brothers/Waddingtons engaged in, and that is so badly designed that 90% of people who play it in thier homes have felt the need to make up thier own house rules (whether these actually help or not) and takes so long to play that even the manufacturers have had to release quicker versions now that people have wised up and learnt there is more to gaming that monopoly and Cluedo (Excellent game)? Thats the question!
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Morgrim7

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1701
  • Torturer chains? How primitive.
  • Respect: +742
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2012, 09:29:13 am »
+1

Yes
Logged
"Oh sweet merciful heavens.

I sit here, lost amongst the cloud, that which is the brain of the Morgrim Mod. Perhaps I will learn the inner workings of that storied mind. Perhaps I will simply go mad.

Mad, I tell you.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaad." -Voltgloss
Dominion Notation: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7265.msg206246#msg206246

paddyodoors

  • Guest
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2012, 11:28:49 am »
+1

No
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3345
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2012, 12:03:13 pm »
0

The only defence I have seen in this thread are:

A) Competitive play is a lot quicker
B) it is strategic
And
C) People play house rules
D) "I like monopoly though"

A) is irrelevant to the majority of people playing
B) No on is denying this
C) already answered above
D) that's nice, just because it's a terrible game doesn't mean you have to hate it

So sure people like it, I am a big fan of Ker-plunk myself, but the point of this thread seemed to be to try to defend the accusations against monopoly and I've yet to see anyone even get close
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2012, 01:39:39 pm »
+1

There are multiple paths to win in Monopoly - one of the major decisions is railroads vs streets, and these goals are accomplished [typically] only through trading.

I am fairly confident that a strategy building 3 houses in high traffic areas will, on average, beat a strategy getting 4 railroads.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
  • Respect: +600
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2012, 04:52:35 pm »
0

terrible game doesn't mean you have to hate it


That's where the arrogance comes in. Games don't have to be strategic to be great (or: not terrible). Mafia is really not that strategic but is widely loved. Cheap, few-use-games like We Didn't Playtest This At All are purposefully unstrategic yet still great to play.

Poker isn't highly "strategic" (see the apparent avoidance of considering trading in monopoly strategic). Scrabble isn't highly "strategic"; most of the game is memorizing the vast array of words (yes, yes I have read Word Freak). Catan isn't highly strategic. Ticket to ride nearly certainly isn't highly strategic (you play what cards are dealt to you...). Because we're removing "trading" from strategy apparently (which really is where 85% of the strategy comes in) one could argue that Risk isn't strategic, because it relies on player-to-player interactions.

All of those (except risk, actually) are still "great games" in my opinion.

Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
  • Respect: +600
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2012, 04:53:32 pm »
0

There are multiple paths to win in Monopoly - one of the major decisions is railroads vs streets, and these goals are accomplished [typically] only through trading.

I am fairly confident that a strategy building 3 houses in high traffic areas will, on average, beat a strategy getting 4 railroads.

You combine railroads with a lower-cost monopoly (read: Pinks or Light blues + railroads versus orange/red/yellow).
Logged

Rhombus

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2012, 01:03:30 am »
0

There are multiple paths to win in Monopoly - one of the major decisions is railroads vs streets, and these goals are accomplished [typically] only through trading.

I am fairly confident that a strategy building 3 houses in high traffic areas will, on average, beat a strategy getting 4 railroads.

4 railroads is generally the strongest combination - they are incredibly strong, especially with the increased probability of landing on them due to distributed location and chance cards.
Logged

Rhombus

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2012, 01:08:44 am »
0

terrible game doesn't mean you have to hate it

Poker isn't highly "strategic" (see the apparent avoidance of considering trading in monopoly strategic). Scrabble isn't highly "strategic"; most of the game is memorizing the vast array of words (yes, yes I have read Word Freak). Catan isn't highly strategic. Ticket to ride nearly certainly isn't highly strategic (you play what cards are dealt to you...). Because we're removing "trading" from strategy apparently (which really is where 85% of the strategy comes in) one could argue that Risk isn't strategic, because it relies on player-to-player interactions.

All of those (except risk, actually) are still "great games" in my opinion.

Funny - I actually love Risk, but that's another matter.

Again I disagree - poker is indeed highly strategic.  There are elements of luck, but these are typically mitigated over numerous hands and sets of games/multiple tournament play.  Poker strategy ranges from reading your opponents to understand probabilities and pot odds and knowing when to bluff.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2012, 03:42:11 am »
0

You combine railroads with a lower-cost monopoly (read: Pinks or Light blues + railroads versus orange/red/yellow).

Why can't you combine an orange/red/yellow monopoly with a pink/lightblue/purple monopoly?

4 railroads is generally the strongest combination - they are incredibly strong, especially with the increased probability of landing on them due to distributed location and chance cards.

I really disagree with your reasoning for the increased probability to land on railroad spaces; the expected number of times that a player will land on a railroad space per trip around the board is only 33% more than the expected number of times that a player will land on an orange/red/yellow space per trip around the board, and that's only because there are 4 railroad spaces to 3 of each colored space, not because they are more "evenly distributed." Furthermore, the convenient locations of the orange, red, and yellow properties relative to the Jail and Go to Jail spaces more than offset the added likelihood of landing on railroad spaces via Chance cards, not to mention that there are a couple of Chance cards that favor those spaces anyway (Go to Illinois Ave., Go Back 3 Spaces, and Go to Jail).
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3667
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2012, 08:44:38 am »
0

Quote
the expected number of times that a player will land on a railroad space per trip around the board is only 33% more than the expected number of times that a player will land on an orange/red/yellow space per trip around the board, and that's only because there are 4 railroad spaces to 3 of each colored space, not because they are more "evenly distributed."

I'd suspect that it's slightly more than 33% because of the railroad-friendly cards. But, the cards also favor the oranges, so I wouldn't know how much more than 33%. For all I know, the orange bias outweighs the railroad bias. I couldn't say.

I can see why the railroads are appealing, because they are evenly distributed. Unless you have a monopoly with the two-space properties, a person won't land on each and every one of your spaces, barring really unlucky draws of "Go Back 3 Spaces" cards. Even then, to hit all three spaces of a property requires rolling consistently low numbers. By contrast, the railroads are 10 spaces from each other. Once someone lands on your railroad, he has a 3/36 chance of hitting the next railroad on the next roll. Even if he falls short, the next roll has a chance of hitting that railroad.

The problem with railroads is that they cap out at $200. You can't go beyond that, while all other properties (except utilities) can hit your opponents harder. Even Mediterranean with a hotel is worth $250 and only costs $310 to build up, compared to the $800 required to build up the railroads. I don't have the actual numbers, but I picked up the idea somewhere that the slow-but-steady race of the railroads do not stack up well with the swingier color spaces, especially orange and red (which get help from the cards as well).

Although, if I can get the railroads for far less than $800, I wouldn't say no to that.
Logged
A man has no signature

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
  • Respect: +600
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2012, 12:57:22 pm »
0

You combine railroads with a lower-cost monopoly (read: Pinks or Light blues + railroads versus orange/red/yellow).

Why can't you combine an orange/red/yellow monopoly with a pink/lightblue/purple monopoly?

4 railroads is generally the strongest combination - they are incredibly strong, especially with the increased probability of landing on them due to distributed location and chance cards.
Orange costs a lot more than the railroads, so Railroads + Light Blue or something is often much more viable.

Also, the purple monopoly sucks.  ;D



Also, I'd like to state again that I LOVE mafia. But I haven't found a game IRL where there is that deep of a strategy, mostly because there are always trolls whenever I play. (Also crap like Jester..)
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2588
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3237
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2012, 01:08:31 pm »
0

Also, I'd like to state again that I LOVE mafia. But I haven't found a game IRL where there is that deep of a strategy, mostly because there are always trolls whenever I play. (Also crap like Jester..)

About twice a year I meet with a group of IRL people that take it seriously and we play some awesome, awesome games.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3667
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2012, 02:06:35 pm »
0

Also, the purple monopoly sucks.  ;D

I only mentioned the Purples/Browns as an example that the cheapest hotel still has a higher rent than having all four railroads. They're still terrible, but I was just illustrating that railroads will never get you more than $200 on a hit, while any single hotel will snag you more, even the pathetic Purples/Browns. Also, I misspoke. I omitted some details, which could lead a reader to assume that you can build up all the Purples/Browns $310. While it does cost $310 to build up Mediterranean, you need to build up Baltic, as well. Both of these would cost $760 to fully develop. Sorry about the confusion.

And you're right that those other properties cost more to develop fully than the railroads, but the rewards are far greater. For example, the light blues cost $1070 to fully build. A single hit gets you $550 or $600. Two hits will pay for the investment. For the railroads, you need four hits just to break even (unless you buy the railroads for cheap, which is certainly viable). The oranges start to pay off after 3 hits. What's more important than the number of hits to recoup your losses is how much more those hits will earn you. After that third time of an orange getting hit, each subsequent hit gives you about a grand. Each railroad hit? Still only $200.

Railroads aren't terrible, but they're slow. When money bounces back and forth between hotels, it'll be your own hotels' rent that protect you from someone else's rent. Railroads won't be able to keep up, not evenóI suspectówith the uniform distribution and more spots.

Although, I'll gladly buy one or two to use in bartering. If I can entice someone into giving me a color monopoly, I'll gladly give him a railroad monopoly and see if I can't squeeze a little something extra out of him. I won't badmouth the railroads during an actual game.
Logged
A man has no signature

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2012, 02:18:35 am »
0

Railroads and Hotel Light Blues bring in similar profit/turn, I believe. Railroads are much, much more likely to be landed on.

okay

why are you allowed to assume that the railroads player also has a lightblue monopoly

Cost aside, you need to somehow get both monopolies, and you'll probably need a very good deal or an exorbitant amount of luck to gain all 7 necessary components.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
  • Respect: +600
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2012, 02:23:54 am »
0

Railroads and Hotel Light Blues bring in similar profit/turn, I believe. Railroads are much, much more likely to be landed on.

okay

why are you allowed to assume that the railroads player also has a lightblue monopoly

Cost aside, you need to somehow get both monopolies, and you'll probably need a very good deal or an exorbitant amount of luck to gain all 7 necessary components.

About as much as gaining a Orange+ monopoly and developing it...
Logged

Rhombus

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2012, 11:00:03 pm »
0

I really disagree with your reasoning for the increased probability to land on railroad spaces; the expected number of times that a player will land on a railroad space per trip around the board is only 33% more than the expected number of times that a player will land on an orange/red/yellow space per trip around the board, and that's only because there are 4 railroad spaces to 3 of each colored space, not because they are more "evenly distributed." Furthermore, the convenient locations of the orange, red, and yellow properties relative to the Jail and Go to Jail spaces more than offset the added likelihood of landing on railroad spaces via Chance cards, not to mention that there are a couple of Chance cards that favor those spaces anyway (Go to Illinois Ave., Go Back 3 Spaces, and Go to Jail).

Fact: the most common spaces to end up on are Jail, Illinois Ave, Go, New York Ave, B&O Railroad, Reading Railroad, Tennessee Ave, and Pennsylvania Railroad, in that order.  The railroads are the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 25th most landed on spaces on the board. (1)

The reason that certain properties have different probabilities of getting landed on is because of chance cards and 3-double rolls ending you up in jail.  You'll notice that Boardwalk is the 18th most landed on property, while Park Place is the 33rd.

The reason railroads work is the fast pickup, quick return, and high ROI. (2)

Of course, in a game of Monopoly with professional players, what strategy you go for will typically depend on what properties you are able to purchase.  You luck into the orange monopoly in the first 5 passes?  Well you've probably won.  Think of the railroads as a rush strategy (where possible), and combinations of streets being the more commonplace ones.

(1) http://www.tkcs-collins.com/truman/monopoly/monopoly.shtml
(2) http://www.amnesta.net/other/monopoly/
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3667
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2012, 10:35:29 am »
0

http://www.amnesta.net/other/monopoly/

I have to admit that I haven't had billions of Monopoly simulations on which to base my opinions. In reading that second link, I can see how railroads are a good initial investment. While it's still a slow and steady race, that is actually a good thing early in the game, which is something I hadn't considered. I only looked at the final numbers, which only works if you have deep pockets. Early in the game, you will be struggling to build up a color group, while getting four railroads is easier on your pocketbook.

Then you can use the railroads' returns to get the high-yield monopolies.
Logged
A man has no signature

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3667
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2012, 11:58:26 am »
+1

(2) http://www.amnesta.net/other/monopoly/

Heh, the comments on that link are both amusing and sad. There is a vast gap between the informed and the ignorant. To be fair, someone who isn't seriously into games isn't likely to read the rules or even remember them if he did. Still, some of these comments add justification to the hatred of the game.

My favorite comment is:If you land on Free Parking DON'T GLOAT!

It's an older comment, so I won't bother to respond, but I did want to reply with something snarky like, "Why would I gloat over landing on a worthless space?" Besides, don't gloat needs to be a universal rule anyway. No one wants to play games with a jerk. If a player gloats over his Village/Torturer chain, I won't play with him again. In a game, you have a winner and losers. People generally don't like to lose, so don't make it worse for them.
Logged
A man has no signature

Axxle

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
  • Most Valuable Serial Killer
  • Respect: +1945
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2012, 05:22:28 pm »
0

Would Monopoly be a better or worse game if instead of having the option to buy a place when you land on it, it instead goes immediately to auction?  I always imagined it'd be better, but I've never tried it.
Logged
We might be from all over the world, but "we all talk this one language  : +1 card + 1 action +1 buy , gain , discard, trash... " - RTT

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5207
  • Respect: +2671
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2012, 06:33:12 pm »
0

Of course it'd be better.  But not better enough.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

DG

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3977
  • Respect: +2536
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2012, 06:43:07 pm »
0

Quote
Would Monopoly be a better or worse game if instead of having the option to buy a place when you land on it, it instead goes immediately to auction?  I always imagined it'd be better, but I've never tried it.

That's the official rule.

I'll play devil's advocate and ask whether anyone would recommend a friend to buy Monopoly instead of more recent games that seem to do the same thing better? Acquire is one example but there are faster/simpler games as well.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
  • Respect: +600
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2012, 06:52:36 pm »
0

Quote
Would Monopoly be a better or worse game if instead of having the option to buy a place when you land on it, it instead goes immediately to auction?  I always imagined it'd be better, but I've never tried it.

That's the official rule.

I'll play devil's advocate and ask whether anyone would recommend a friend to buy Monopoly instead of more recent games that seem to do the same thing better? Acquire is one example but there are faster/simpler games as well.


>More recent

I mean yes, 1962 is newer than 1934*, its still a bit of a misleading statement  :P


*date disputed
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2088
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2012, 06:56:00 pm »
0

Quote
Would Monopoly be a better or worse game if instead of having the option to buy a place when you land on it, it instead goes immediately to auction?  I always imagined it'd be better, but I've never tried it.
That's the official rule.
No. The official rule is that you have the option to buy at list price before it goes to auction. The question was whether removing this "luck" element of having rolled your way onto a property and instead giving them to the people who value them more highly (and/or have more liquid assets) improves the game.
Logged

DG

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3977
  • Respect: +2536
    • View Profile
Re: In defense of Monopoly
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2012, 07:40:04 pm »
0

Fair enough, misread that.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All
 

Page created in 0.135 seconds with 21 queries.