Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tdog]

http://catanworld.goko.com/prefinery/index.html

You can sign up here for the Catan beta, if anyone is interested.

[Captain_Frisk]

http://catanworld.goko.com/prefinery/index.html

You can sign up here for the Catan beta, if anyone is interested.

I was - and then I read this:

http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2012/08/16/html5-games-get-their-own-dominion-gokocom

Citadels, in particular, seems as though it will be an interesting showcase for how you can monetize a board game that has few or no expansions.  “If a game is really simple and has no expansions, we need to build a meta-game and other things around it that will allow it to be monetized well,” says Howell.  “We took a page from Gardens of Time … we created an isometric city-building game that sits on top, and as you unlock different buildings in the city you get those cards in the game.

Translation: get your wallet ready!

[Tdog]

The beta is most likely free...

[theory]

I've been a big fan of Goko and such, but this goes too far:

“It is not going to be a case of paying for more dice rolls,” said Goodale, adding that players could pay to get an option to increase the odds of receiving better development cards or additional resource production from cities or settlements. The cost of those add-on bonuses have not yet been set, but it will be in the typical micro-transaction range of 99 cents, he said.

To be fair he is not describing actual Catan, but rather some weird MMO Catan variant.  But still.

[Ozle]

Farmville comes to Catan?

[Ozle]

Also, we are all worried that GOKO dont play the games, however thier twitter has a picture of a Board Games Night at Goko of them playing Catan

So thats a relief....



Except.....hang on, someone there is reading the rulebook! What self respecting proper gamer DOESN'T know the rules to Settlers of Catan?!?!


*EDIT* Also, with nothing built yet, how has someone played Knight cards already. #staged

[jonts26]

better than when they played catan on big bang theory.

[WanderingWinder]

Also, we are all worried that GOKO dont play the games, however thier twitter has a picture of a Board Games Night at Goko of them playing Catan

So thats a relief....



Except.....hang on, someone there is reading the rulebook! What self respecting proper gamer DOESN'T know the rules to Settlers of Catan?!?!

I've never played Settlers of Catan. Or been in the same room with anyone who did. I know the gist of it, from hearing some people describe it, but I definitely don't know the rules.

[theory]

Uh, red's opening placements are 8/11 brick/ore and 3/9 sheep/wood?

ಠ_ಠ

[polonkus]

I've never played Settlers of Catan. Or been in the same room with anyone who did. I know the gist of it, from hearing some people describe it, but I definitely don't know the rules.

Burn the heretic!

[eHalcyon]

Uh, red's opening placements are 8/11 brick/ore and 3/9 sheep/wood?

ಠ_ಠ

Insanity wolf loves his beach front property.

[jsh357]

he's better off not knowing the rules tbh

[theory]

*EDIT* Also, with nothing built yet, how has someone played Knight cards already. #staged

This is not impossible or hard to imagine, especially if your second opening placement is on the ore/wheat/sheep.

[jonts26]

Except no one did...

[theory]

I mean, the photo is obviously staged / the game is incompetent for other reasons (opening placement-related), but it is not unrealistic to have played Knights before having built a settlement.  I admit 2 is a little bizarre, since no one else has built anything else, but that is certainly more common than someone starting on 8/11/9/3.

[Ozle]

*EDIT* Also, with nothing built yet, how has someone played Knight cards already. #staged

This is not impossible or hard to imagine, especially if your second opening placement is on the ore/wheat/sheep.

ok, so if at least 2 Knights have been played, why is the Robber still on the Desert?
Plus, 4 development cards bought and no roads at all seems a little strange to me.

(What I actually think is happening is they are just setting it up and showing the cards to the players)

[theory]

OK, I zoomed it up, and the opening placements are even worse.

Brown went on 5/9/10 and 2/8/10.  The 5/9/10 wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact they're all brick and he is nowhere near a Brick port, and he has no wheat either.

Blue started off beautifully with the 6/5/9, but then went on the 2/11/12 ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ

White put his first two settlements together, usually a no-no, and pointed their roads at each other, a definite no-no.  I can't see white's numbers but he has zero access to Ore or Brick with no port to compensate.

On this board the ideal start would have been on the 6/5/9, and then probably the 9 wood with a port rather than trying to stake out a 2, 11, or 12 ore.

[theory]

he's better off not knowing the rules tbh

I used to like Catan, then I hated it, and now I love it again.  The variance in the game is like an unlucky Turn 5 shuffle. 

[Kirian]

he's better off not knowing the rules tbh

I used to like Catan, then I hated it, and now I love it again.  The variance in the game is like an unlucky Turn 5 shuffle. 

Ack, I disagree.  The variance is much worse than a bad T5 shuffle, simply because the "shuffle" happens every damn turn.

[Ozle]

I like it, but my friends are rubbish at it so it rarely comes out. They just are bad at making deals.

I think my record is about 9 wins and 1 loss (and the loss because we had a girl playing and the other guys were...sure yeah ill trade you my coal and a wheat for a cow)

[jonts26]

I like it, but my friends are rubbish at it so it rarely comes out. They just are bad at making deals.

I think my record is about 9 wins and 1 loss (and the loss because we had a girl playing and the other guys were...sure yeah ill trade you my coal and a wheat for a cow)

Coal? Cows? What is this, I don't even...

[Kirian]

I like it, but my friends are rubbish at it so it rarely comes out. They just are bad at making deals.

I think my record is about 9 wins and 1 loss (and the loss because we had a girl playing and the other guys were...sure yeah ill trade you my coal and a wheat for a cow)

Coal? Cows? What is this, I don't even...

Presumably they were playing this version:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/67239/settlers-of-america-trails-to-rails

[theory]

he's better off not knowing the rules tbh

I used to like Catan, then I hated it, and now I love it again.  The variance in the game is like an unlucky Turn 5 shuffle. 

Ack, I disagree.  The variance is much worse than a bad T5 shuffle, simply because the "shuffle" happens every damn turn.

This is absolutely not the case.  By variance, I mean, 6's rolling instead of 8's, or the 10 being rolled a lot.  At the end of the game the bell curve is almost always intact.  What matters is localized pockets of variance, which isn't going to match expectation.  But for the most part, you control how much luck affects you.  If you start the game and put settlements on 8/5/10 and 8/10, well, you're going to 7 out and be subject to variance a lot more than someone who opens on 8/4/10 and 6/10, even though their numbers are slightly worse.

Hence my claim that overall, the luck in the game is definitely there, but it's not a luckfest any more than Dominion is a luckfest if you open Chapel/Silver and draw them on Turn 5.  In which case you are probably lost anyway no matter what.

[Ozle]

Coal = Ore
Cow = Sheep = Wool, no idea where I got cow from, think my mind has gone a bit blurry from continuously refreshing pages all night long!

[Grujah]

OK, I zoomed it up, and the opening placements are even worse.

Brown went on 5/9/10 and 2/8/10.  The 5/9/10 wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact they're all brick and he is nowhere near a Brick port, and he has no wheat either.

Blue started off beautifully with the 6/5/9, but then went on the 2/11/12 ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ

White put his first two settlements together, usually a no-no, and pointed their roads at each other, a definite no-no.  I can't see white's numbers but he has zero access to Ore or Brick with no port to compensate.

On this board the ideal start would have been on the 6/5/9, and then probably the 9 wood with a port rather than trying to stake out a 2, 11, or 12 ore.

Maybe they are learning to as they will code it later?

Maybe its better if we don't see a shot of them playing dominion and making terrible openings? 

[ftl]

This is absolutely not the case.  By variance, I mean, 6's rolling instead of 8's, or the 10 being rolled a lot.  At the end of the game the bell curve is almost always intact.

I don't think that's true. I  played for a while with a guy who would chart the rolls over the course of the game, it was rare for it to actually even out to a bell curve over a single game. Not a large enough sample size.

Hence my claim that overall, the luck in the game is definitely there, but it's not a luckfest any more than Dominion is a luckfest if you open Chapel/Silver and draw them on Turn 5.  In which case you are probably lost anyway no matter what.

That said, I entirely agree with that statement.

There was a guy in college who would consistently win roughly two-thirds of his Settlers games. (And those are 3 or 4-player games, not 2-player games). And he wasn't playing with newbies either, there was the same core group of players around who knew what they were doing. (And he'd lose games against newbies because it was his policy that in somebody's first game, he'd give them helpful advice all game long if they wanted it.)

So that's my estimate for the variance inherent in the game, a great player can have that sort of advantage over merely good players.

[blueblimp]

This is absolutely not the case.  By variance, I mean, 6's rolling instead of 8's, or the 10 being rolled a lot.  At the end of the game the bell curve is almost always intact.

I don't think that's true. I  played for a while with a guy who would chart the rolls over the course of the game, it was rare for it to actually even out to a bell curve over a single game. Not a large enough sample size.

I've done the same thing before with Settlers, and yeah, the games aren't long enough to get a proper curve. You usually have some number getting screwed pretty badly. And that's only looking at total production, ignoring that some number might roll fine overall but destroy a player at a critical time in the game.

One variant I've played a few times (and liked) is zero-trade Settlers. Maybe heresy, but it speeds up the gameplay (no annoying haggling) while increasing the number of turns (because it's harder to DO anything), which leads to a more even roll distribution in the end. It also makes ports more valuable than in the original game, which seems nice.

[Ozle]

One variant I've played a few times (and liked) is zero-trade Settlers. Maybe heresy, but it speeds up the gameplay (no annoying haggling) while increasing the number of turns (because it's harder to DO anything), which leads to a more even roll distribution in the end. It also makes ports more valuable than in the original game, which seems nice.

Removing the haggling makes it surely more dice roll dependant surely?! And takes away the skilful part

Its not hard to see where the best village placements are, and when to upgrade or buy developments

[blueblimp]

One variant I've played a few times (and liked) is zero-trade Settlers. Maybe heresy, but it speeds up the gameplay (no annoying haggling) while increasing the number of turns (because it's harder to DO anything), which leads to a more even roll distribution in the end. It also makes ports more valuable than in the original game, which seems nice.

Removing the haggling makes it surely more dice roll dependant surely?! And takes away the skilful part

Its not hard to see where the best village placements are, and when to upgrade or buy developments

Well I'm no Catan pro, but the idea is that the lack of trading increases the number of turns quite a bit, because nobody has the resources they need. You see a lot of 4-for-1 trades, for example, which IMX in the normal game are more rare. Edit: And the point of this is that, the longer the game, the more the rolls even out.

The placements become a bit more subtle, because ports are greatly increased in value, since that's your only way to trade (outside of horrible 4-for-1 deals).

Edit: I've only played it a few times, so I can't speak to how much depth it has, but it was interesting.

[theory]

Uhh, lack of trading would basically destroy one of the few ways in Settlers to rein in the leader (other than the robber, which the leader can control with dev cards).

[theory]

As for the bell curve, try http://www.betweenwaters.com/probab/dice/dicemainD.html

Input 60, which is a vague guesstimate for how many rolls there will be.  Most of the times I've tried, it comes out at least approximating the bell curve, with only rare extreme discrepancies.

Of course, just because the final product is a bell curve, does not mean that it was "fair", since timing of resources matters a lot.  But therein is the kind of luck akin to Turn 5 shuffle luck in Dominion.  You try to rein in the leader with trading/robbers, or you just suck it up and play another game.

[Captain_Frisk]

As for the bell curve, try http://www.betweenwaters.com/probab/dice/dicemainD.html

Input 60, which is a vague guesstimate for how many rolls there will be.  Most of the times I've tried, it comes out at least approximating the bell curve, with only rare extreme discrepancies.

Of course, just because the final product is a bell curve, does not mean that it was "fair", since timing of resources matters a lot.  But therein is the kind of luck akin to Turn 5 shuffle luck in Dominion.  You try to rein in the leader with trading/robbers, or you just suck it up and play another game.

Did you set it to session mode?

Roll   Session   Expected
2   8.33% (5/60)   2.78% (1/36)
3   3.33% (2/60)   5.56% (2/36)
4   1.67% (1/60)   8.33% (3/36)
5   11.67% (7/60)   11.11% (4/36)
6   23.33% (14/60)   13.89% (5/36)
7   16.67% (10/60)   16.67% (6/36)
8   13.33% (8/60)   13.89% (5/36)
9   1.67% (1/60)   11.11% (4/36)
10   10% (6/60)   8.33% (3/36)
11   8.33% (5/60)   5.56% (2/36)
12   1.67% (1/60)   2.78% (1/36)

[Ozle]

2   8.33% (5/60)   2.78% (1/36)

Remind me never to take you to play craps!

[Captain_Frisk]

2   8.33% (5/60)   2.78% (1/36)

Remind me never to take you to play craps!

I feel bad for the dude who thought that 9 was going to pay out this game!

[sherwinpr]

In a Settlers game I played last month, which was incidentally the first time I played settlers in maybe 4 or more years (I played at least a few dozen games 5-6 years ago), I think 7 was rolled about 4-5 times, with the first 7 being rolled around the half way point in the game.  Only one player ever discarded cards to a 7.

[Robz888]

Me and my friends play a good amount of Catan (or did for the last two years or so, anyway). And one of my friends kept track of a lot of stuff on his laptop while we played. One thing he recorded was dice rolls for resource production. In fact, we have a chart of all our dice rolls over all the games we have. Basically, the thing follows the bell curve just as it should, with one exception.

4. We never roll 4. Not nearly as much as we should.

We've actually rolled about as many 3's as we have 4's. It's fairly eery. I mean, I know that can happen obviously. But it's almost a factor in the game. Normally I like diversity of numbers in Catan--I want to see if I can hit all the numbers 4-10 with my two opening settlements. Except in the back of my mind there's always that truth: The 4 doesn't actually matter, because nobody's going to roll it.

Weird.

[eHalcyon]

Maybe your dice are rigged.

Is it any eerier if I tell you that 4 is an unlucky number for Chinese people?  It's because the word sounds like the word for "death".

[blueblimp]

At one point me and some others did a statistical test of the dice that came in the box, and concluded with reasonable certainty that they were unfair. Never could quite replicate that, so it might have been a fluke.

[sherwinpr]

At one point me and some others did a statistical test of the dice that came in the box, and concluded with reasonable certainty that they were unfair. Never could quite replicate that, so it might have been a fluke.

Did you test the joint probability of the sums (rolls of 2 through 12), or did you test each die individually (rolls of 1 through 6)?

[blueblimp]

At one point me and some others did a statistical test of the dice that came in the box, and concluded with reasonable certainty that they were unfair. Never could quite replicate that, so it might have been a fluke.

Did you test the joint probability of the sums (rolls of 2 through 12), or did you test each die individually (rolls of 1 through 6)?

I'm pretty sure it was individually, as doing them together would be pointless.

[^_^_^_^]

One thing I want to see irl is something like the dice rolling technique called 'double hit' but with 6-sided dice. I remember when I was little I found a way to get 6/6 6/5 every time. Sadly, I've forgotten how. Although, that may be better lol.
(the technique used in yugioh)

[Saucery]

The board in that picture has some sides of length four and the others length three. Is that an expansion or variant? I've always played with a regular 3 length hexagon..

[Kirian]

The board in that picture has some sides of length four and the others length three. Is that an expansion or variant? I've always played with a regular 3 length hexagon..

Expansion.  That's the setup for 5-6 players.  You can also see the brown pieces used by a 5th/6th player.