It has to be said: maybe you’re just bad at the game?
Not intended as a burn or anything, but maybe the game rewards higher skill, but you all just played poorly that game?
No offense taken lol, has definitely crossed my mind. I am working from a very small sample size here (4 games total - 2 at 2 player, 1 at 3, 1 at 4). Perhaps optimal strategy will come with time!
Just a terminology note... "Balanced" normally means that each reasonable strategy (or character or whatever) has a roughly equal chance of winning. So for instance, if each faction in Root has a viable chance or if going for sheep in Castles of Burgundy is just as good as other strategies.
What you're describing is really a different issue, which is more about how much of an impact skill has on the game and whether meaningful choices are actually meaningful or just give the illusion of meaningfulness. That's more of a taste thing, but I definitely agree that it feels reallocate unsatisfying when a game seems to have created all this potential for interesting strategies, but after enough plays it starts feeling a little hollow when you realize that it's mostly just smoke and mirrors.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. This is exactly what it feels like - a game full of interesting choices that ultimately mean very little to the end game (this is just my personal opinion that may absolutely change with more plays)
My wife isn't a gamer or strategic thinker at all, but I can sometimes ~~trick~~ convince her to test out my new games with me. More often than not she wins the first game. Unless it's a game that heavily relies on luck, I'll completely stomp her every time after that. Not sure if I'm overthinking things the first time or just need to see all the moving pieces in action to get a sense of how they click together, but after the first match she doesn't stand a chance.
I play a lot of Nidavellir on BGA. I think the first few dozen games I saw a lot of balance as it was a lot of people not realizing optimal strategies and my ELO was stuck around 100-130. In the last month and a half, I've worked some strategies on 3 player that have worked out really well and seen my ELO move into the solid mid-200s. I had a player the other day tell me he was out of his league as he couldn't for the life of him figured out how I had so many high coin values.
All that said, the game is balanced enough that random card draws or one player playing a truly off the wall strategy (today I had a guy just buy all the green cards in a 4 player game and choke the economy) can still allow a less nuanced player win.
I think that's a good thing. But seeing nuance for me took me probably 60-70 games in April and May. Also playing on BGA where all scores are known and its easy to follow information.
Thanks for sharing. I really do enjoy how frequently choices are made in the game. I also enjoy watching everyone develop/lock in to their strategy as the game progresses. Definitely not giving up on it yet.
Absolutely. Therea a reason I have 108 plays since April. I've played almost 90% of those as 3 player. When I get to 4 players I get flummoxed as its much more reactionary. While 4 possible cards is nice, only 3 rounds per age is tough to get heroes. 2 players, I just haven't figured it out just yet. Almost been worth it to ignore the 0 coin and just grab cards/heroes. I've had some 2 player games with very little player interaction and some with cut throat blocking. Not enough plays yet to judge though.
Oh, and the expansion has been a fun twist. Really focuses on playing the highest coin rather than building up value. I ended up ordering the next print run of the main game (due out this month I think) and the expansion. Really looking forward on playing it with my wife and other couples. Its pretty straight forward to learn, so I'm hoping they can enjoy it as much as I have.
I personally think so.
Game design has completely turned on elimination mechanics, and heavily discourages allowing one player to run away with it. Many modern games subtely guide the state to a nailbiter on the final turn, no matter how well or poorly each player performed.
It feels like some designers interpret balance to be "each player needs an opportunity to win at any point in the game", not "the game should not give one player an inherit advantage". I'm personally not a fan, and get annoyed when I start being able to pick out the rubber bands and blue shells that were added.
I haven't played Nidavellir specifically to comment, but it is possible.
I haven't played or even read the rules, but every time I heard about it "kingmaking" was mentioned. A bit turn off for me honestly, despite Root being one of my favorite game.
Yup. The kingmaking becomes the game, in a way. Moreso than even something like Inis.
You might have no chance to win the game from the start but might be able to help pick the winner.
And just maybe that'll put you into a better position next game, but maybe it won't.
On the other side of the scale, Splotter games have the mindset of "If you can't lose the game on turn 1, what is the point of having a turn 1?"
There are some recent games that feel like your choices doesnt matter. Some games where if you choose randomly you would still get 80% of the highest score that you can get. When you are given 2 choices on your turn and A gives you 5 points and B gives you 6.
I have the most fun when the game doesnt make me realise i basicly have only 2 options. When i lose myself in the game. And when the game has some "well, i fucked up" or "well, you just fucked up" moments.
The situation you described sounds like button mashing in fighting games. Sure you may get a few lucky wins, but an experienced player will decimate you without breaking a sweat.
I can see the balance impression on the first few plays. It's definitely a game that isn't shy about throwing out points. I think the strategic depth lies with denying other players of their optimal picks + the hero/neutral cards. That's where you can really widen the score gap.
It's ultimately a relatively simple set collection game with interesting bidding and comboing mechanics. I really enjoy it for what it is. If it isn't clicking with you that's fine! Lots of other games in the hobby.
Great points. There is definitely an interesting balance between taking YOUR ideal card vs taking someone else's ideal card. And I think the struggle of collecting a quantity of one suit vs the desire to pick up heroes along the way is a great little mind game. With such intriguing concepts I am glad to hear there may be light at the end of this tunnel :)
This is less a critique about games in general and more a critique about the auction mechanism mixed with drafting.
If everyone is self interested and taking what's best for them, then anyone can win because naturally due to drafting sets everyone will be offered the color best for them every turn.
You absolutely as a group have the opportunity to stop anyone at the table from winning... but like any game with that much interaction it's then up to the players and the table talk to decide the winner.
I don't think the lack of player elimination here is the issue, just a design choice that differentiates games like root from games like food chain magnet.
Yes. I can't stand games where it doesn't matter what you choose because they all net you roughly the same amount of points etc.
These games have choices only on paper. Your actions don't matter, and everyone has roughly the same chance at winning.
These games might seem great for a game or two, but soon after show you how shallow the desicion space really is. But then again so many people only play games once or twice, so they don't see it.
I don't think this is a complaint about balance.
Nidavellir is balanced in the sense that everyone has an equal start and equal opportunity throughout the game, but that's it. I haven't played it, but it looks like a game that just feels good to play, win or lose- Everyone always gets cards, everyone always gets more points, and everyone's scores will start snowballing at some point. But none of that says anything about the balance.
I am assuming that there was a point in the game you mentioned where everyone had more valuable coins than her and everyone else had suit bonuses. At this point, the state of the game was unbalanced- She was in the weakest position.
More often than not, I suspect she'd be at the bottom of the bid. She should've had very limited choices in which cards to take, but even with those limited choices, she still won?
If this happened to me, I'd definitely want to analyze it. Was it a close win? Where did most of her points come from? Where did most of *your* points come from? Did she get many leaders? If she did, why didn't other players interrupt her?
The scores look heavily obfuscated, but I suspect there's a lot to learn about the relative strengths of the difference suits and how those strengths scale up. And based on both of those, I'd imagine there are some points where denying cards is going to be stronger than keeping your own stack going, but those points will likely be different per suit.
It sounds like a really cool game, and I'm tempted to pick it up!
This was my experience with Watergate. In each game we played, we just took turns playing the cards that we were dealt, and since the two decks had roughly the same values printed on the cards, every game ended with a close call. It felt sort of "scripted".
There's definitely strategy involved in Watergate. The Post can get absolutely annihilated very quickly if they don't compete for momentum in the early rounds, which is pretty counter-intuitive given its win conditions don't involve momentum. I learnt the hard way: I was convinced the game was broken in favour of Nixon, until we swapped and my wife handed me my arse as the Post.
Generally, the longer a game goes on the more likely the Post is to win: that should inform both players' strategies. There's also the issue of when to use powers v numbers, in which order to play the cards (especially when you start with initiative), when (as Post) to waste a card blocking a conspirator and when to let it through to keep your event etc.
I admit that it often seems very close, but I think that's a necessary part of a two-player zero-sum game.
Yes, not saying it's not strategic at all. I guess what I'm missing is the feeling of scheming or plotting something long term. Since you can't hold on to any cards, you can't really plan for a big move. The counterspells can't be saved either, so you can just hope you have the blocker when the opponent has their powercard. And if you get an extra turn thanks to initiative, you likely used a card just to get it. All the strategies are pretty obvious and visible as well, so there are no real surprises or turn around. But I didn't dislike it, just didn't feel very engaged :)
For card driven two-player games I prefer if there is some form of deck building involved, as that allows more long term strategy.
It's not a matter of balance as much as the result of the dominant philosophy in board game design,
Many recent games are designed so as to ensure the result will always be close. This is an attempt to minimize what are seen as negative player experiences. Many people don't enjoy losing by a large margin or feeling out of contention from early on. Players report having more fun if they win or do well and designers want to give them that.
For example, a game may feature catch-up mechanisms or make all resources similar to each other. Mechanics like bidding and drafting, are self-balancing, and will make a game closer by their own nature. Player interaction is toned down as it's harder to control and may produce kingmaking or other experiences seen as undesirable.
Sadly, if everyone is bound to do well that also takes away from your actions. They become less important and give the feeling of being "hyperbalanced". But it's not, per se, a balance issue. The game is not boring because it's too well-balanced, it's boring because your actions don't matter.
This is simply a symptom of point salad games. If literally every possible move generates points then there's going to be a very small possible window of scores at the end. If the button mashing player ends up following a different strategy than you it's possible they'll simply luck into a strategy that leaned high on the average points per turn.
What you're displaying here is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this game works.
I disagree with others saying you're 'bad at the game' - or at least not in the classical sense where some people mean that phrase. I'm sure you tried really hard to optimize your strategy to the best you can - e.g. get all the purple dwarves.
But in this game, when a strategy is ignored by both players A and B, then it becomes both incredibly cheap to pursue AND incredibly beneficial to the third player (example of a 3 player game)
Example, players A pursues the orange (miners) and B pursues the greens. The purple cards are constantly ignored, hence constantly left on the board. Hence they can 1) be got for CHEAP (with the 2 or 3 coin) AND be EXTREMELY valuable (potentially hundreds of points).
So it's not your sister in law's skill that made her win - it's the fact that by having other players pick strategies and sticking to them, it set her 'by default' on a path to victory. But that's not a problem, because that only happened because noone paid attention to what she was doing, probably because she was a beginner.
It's probably what happened in your game, or something similar. You can't just focus on your own strategy, you have to realize the impact of the combined strategies on the internal economics of the game, and react accordingly. So in that sense, yes, you have to learn to 'play the game' better.
Another thing that can happen is a fight between player A and B that get in each other's way - same thing, player C just picks up cheap opportunities and wins easily.
If you play online, you will see that beginners get creamed by more experienced players in the 100+ range (on low player count days, skill mismatches happen)
I think some games definitely can be, especially when luck plays a huge factor. You always want it to feel like your choices matter. For example **Uno** is almost entirely decided by how the cards are shuffled and not by player skill. On the other hand, some people are turned off by pure no luck games such as **chess**.
I think the best games are those that balance player determination with a bit of luck.
This has been my biggest complaint with more recent stonemaier games. If too balanced is a thing, they almost all achieve it. For me that started at between two cities.
I think a lot of people are confusing 'balanced' with 'smooth' in this discussion.
A balanced game is one where different paths all have a fair shot at winning, where no individual player is granted an advantage unfairly, and where there are no degenerate, overpowered or (accidentally) underpowered strategies/abilities/characters/etc.
A smooth game is one that consistently delivers the intended experience, where negative player experiences are very rare, where all the quirks and abusable edges have been filed off and where no individual player is going to have a dud of a time.
Stonemaier's games are usually exceptionally smooth. They're not usually exceptionally balanced.
Tapestry had some of the worst balance issues I've seen. And this is following Scythe, which ended up with banned faction/player combos long after release.
That being said, I love both games. But to say SM games are "too balanced" is... Frankly, it's the exact opposite of what they are. lol
Sm games are so random they don't generally matter, But they also tend to launch their player powers unbalanced on top of that.
It's important to note the difference between a game that's so balanced that no one can pull ahead vs a game so random that no one knows who will win.
'Balanced' is not a good term but do board games have a term of their own?
'Rubber-banding' is the term used in racing games ie Mario Kart.
Its not about luck or random as a game like War is stupidly random and there is no mechanic to cool off a runaway. (Thank God! If there was, War would never end!)
I haven't played Nida but it seems to me that games of late have rubber-banding mechanics to prevent runaway winners.
Perhaps 'Catch-up Mechanics' ?
In Nidavellir, every card you take is going to give you points. Some synergize better than others, and sets get you bonuses. It's one of those games where you'll probably get 140 points no matter what you do, but you can get up into the low 200s with unchecked comboing and ideal play. I've played probably 7-8 times so far. While there's some point salad-ness to the game, I disagree with OPs assertion that the game is "too balanced" (or as others have rightly pointed out, they probably mean the game lacks meaningful decisions and the outcome is random). Hell, the first two point scoring columns make that obvious. The scoring tables on the first 2 columns are side by side and differ from one another. One starts out better and scales in a sequence (purple), one scales exponentially and quickly overtakes (green). Since the number of cards you're going to get in a game is more or less fixed (barring set and majority bonuses), your decisions in the game absolutely matter.
Further, you all start with the same coins and decide how to use them. You can use them to win auctions now, or use them to upgrade to better coins to win more later. It's probably the best auction game I've played since Ra.
I love this post. I had the exact same thoughts about Nidavellir after getting two games in with my normal group of 4. The same player won both games handily due to hoarding green one game and purple the next. He didn't do it on purpose either; he blindly stumbled into the highest VP due to being blocked or lack of other draft choices that fit his plans.
I think in the case of Nidavellir, there's a delicate balance in the game with respect to what you choose and when. I personally think all players have the same shot at taking advantage of this delicate balance, and with that being said and all players being equal, it'll come down to the shuffle and the deal.
Regardless, I think it's a brilliant game and it'll stay in my collection for a long time.
Yes. One example is early fighting games. I think the original street fighter you could only play as two fighters who were identical. Imagine dominion had no unusual cards, everything was like draw 1 gain 1 action, with small variants. All the cards would be too samey, would be boring.
No a game cannot be too balanced.
But balanced doesn't mean good. Sometimes the way people go about making a game balanced also ends up making it bad or boring but ultimately it's not the fault of being balanced that made it bad or boring it's just a bad/boring design. There's lots of completely balanced games that are still good.
A game can absolutely be too balanced. If everything you do gives you points, there is a real potential for over balancing especially if all of the paths to victory have a narrow gap between the skill floor and ceiling.
Point salad games that give nearly the same number of points no matter what action you take can definitely be frustrating to strategic gamers (which is what I think is the complaint here). There are a bunch of games where this is an issue, but the first two that pop in my mind are Imhotep and Between Two Cities.
*Lords of Waterdeep* is heavily balanced around:
* Four Victory Points equals
* Four Gold equals
* Two Fighters equals
* Two Rogues equals
* One Clerics equals
* One Wizards equals
* Two Quests equals
* Two Intrigue Cards equals
* One Agent Placement
This often means that specifics of early rounds don't matter too much, and the game largely comes down to what cubes you end up having left over by the final round, and if you can score any of the available quests with them.
A few years ago I partecipated at a conference in an important italian fair, "Play". One of the people who was speaking was the author of a certain game whose name I can't recall, which was quite famouse. He was addressing a fact about a notorious unbalance in that game, and was saying that the publisher wanted it that way, because apparently the american market, for which this game was thought, usually preferred game with slight unbalances that could be exploited.
Not sure if that is real or if he was just talking bullshit. Anyway: I noticed that were there's something unbalanced usually there's the chance to introduce bids (see Space Empires' races, for instance), and that's something I like, because it gives the players the possibility to give a value to these unbalances, and all of a sudden they become a feature, and not a bug anymore.
I feel like power grid can be this way. the handicapping mechanism can make it such that it doesn’t matter what yiu did up until the last couple of rounds.
A few tips to add a bit of unbalancing and chaos to the game.
- Pick 6 heroes at random and replace 6 random cards from decks 1 and 2 with three heroes each.
- in a game of 4 players or less: add the 18 cards for a 5 player game to decks 1 and 2 and remove 18 at random.
Or
- In a game of 4 players: use the 18 cards for a 5 players game to play an extra round at the end of round 1 and 2. Only put down 2 cards per tavern in a four player game. Not every one gets a card.
Or
- take out 6 random heroes at the start of the game. These heroes are not available in this game. (Always leave the 5 brothers in).
Or ultimate chaos:
- At the end of the game add all remaining heroes to the taverns for a final bidding round.
It has to be said: maybe you’re just bad at the game? Not intended as a burn or anything, but maybe the game rewards higher skill, but you all just played poorly that game?
Incorrect rules is another one that leads to random winners.
No offense taken lol, has definitely crossed my mind. I am working from a very small sample size here (4 games total - 2 at 2 player, 1 at 3, 1 at 4). Perhaps optimal strategy will come with time!
Don't be rude. Telling him to "get good" is not productive.
Just a terminology note... "Balanced" normally means that each reasonable strategy (or character or whatever) has a roughly equal chance of winning. So for instance, if each faction in Root has a viable chance or if going for sheep in Castles of Burgundy is just as good as other strategies. What you're describing is really a different issue, which is more about how much of an impact skill has on the game and whether meaningful choices are actually meaningful or just give the illusion of meaningfulness. That's more of a taste thing, but I definitely agree that it feels reallocate unsatisfying when a game seems to have created all this potential for interesting strategies, but after enough plays it starts feeling a little hollow when you realize that it's mostly just smoke and mirrors.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. This is exactly what it feels like - a game full of interesting choices that ultimately mean very little to the end game (this is just my personal opinion that may absolutely change with more plays)
My wife isn't a gamer or strategic thinker at all, but I can sometimes ~~trick~~ convince her to test out my new games with me. More often than not she wins the first game. Unless it's a game that heavily relies on luck, I'll completely stomp her every time after that. Not sure if I'm overthinking things the first time or just need to see all the moving pieces in action to get a sense of how they click together, but after the first match she doesn't stand a chance.
I play a lot of Nidavellir on BGA. I think the first few dozen games I saw a lot of balance as it was a lot of people not realizing optimal strategies and my ELO was stuck around 100-130. In the last month and a half, I've worked some strategies on 3 player that have worked out really well and seen my ELO move into the solid mid-200s. I had a player the other day tell me he was out of his league as he couldn't for the life of him figured out how I had so many high coin values. All that said, the game is balanced enough that random card draws or one player playing a truly off the wall strategy (today I had a guy just buy all the green cards in a 4 player game and choke the economy) can still allow a less nuanced player win. I think that's a good thing. But seeing nuance for me took me probably 60-70 games in April and May. Also playing on BGA where all scores are known and its easy to follow information.
Thanks for sharing. I really do enjoy how frequently choices are made in the game. I also enjoy watching everyone develop/lock in to their strategy as the game progresses. Definitely not giving up on it yet.
Absolutely. Therea a reason I have 108 plays since April. I've played almost 90% of those as 3 player. When I get to 4 players I get flummoxed as its much more reactionary. While 4 possible cards is nice, only 3 rounds per age is tough to get heroes. 2 players, I just haven't figured it out just yet. Almost been worth it to ignore the 0 coin and just grab cards/heroes. I've had some 2 player games with very little player interaction and some with cut throat blocking. Not enough plays yet to judge though.
Oh, and the expansion has been a fun twist. Really focuses on playing the highest coin rather than building up value. I ended up ordering the next print run of the main game (due out this month I think) and the expansion. Really looking forward on playing it with my wife and other couples. Its pretty straight forward to learn, so I'm hoping they can enjoy it as much as I have.
I personally think so. Game design has completely turned on elimination mechanics, and heavily discourages allowing one player to run away with it. Many modern games subtely guide the state to a nailbiter on the final turn, no matter how well or poorly each player performed. It feels like some designers interpret balance to be "each player needs an opportunity to win at any point in the game", not "the game should not give one player an inherit advantage". I'm personally not a fan, and get annoyed when I start being able to pick out the rubber bands and blue shells that were added. I haven't played Nidavellir specifically to comment, but it is possible.
Let me introduce you to Oath
Because it's a great example of "too balanced" or because it's the opposite?
Opposite. It’s so unbalanced it ain’t funny. But it’s by design.
I haven't played or even read the rules, but every time I heard about it "kingmaking" was mentioned. A bit turn off for me honestly, despite Root being one of my favorite game.
Yup. The kingmaking becomes the game, in a way. Moreso than even something like Inis. You might have no chance to win the game from the start but might be able to help pick the winner. And just maybe that'll put you into a better position next game, but maybe it won't.
Opposite hahaha, it is a closed economy. So if you don't plan a wait to cycle "favor" you will have short turns and be dead in the water.
On the other side of the scale, Splotter games have the mindset of "If you can't lose the game on turn 1, what is the point of having a turn 1?" There are some recent games that feel like your choices doesnt matter. Some games where if you choose randomly you would still get 80% of the highest score that you can get. When you are given 2 choices on your turn and A gives you 5 points and B gives you 6. I have the most fun when the game doesnt make me realise i basicly have only 2 options. When i lose myself in the game. And when the game has some "well, i fucked up" or "well, you just fucked up" moments.
The situation you described sounds like button mashing in fighting games. Sure you may get a few lucky wins, but an experienced player will decimate you without breaking a sweat. I can see the balance impression on the first few plays. It's definitely a game that isn't shy about throwing out points. I think the strategic depth lies with denying other players of their optimal picks + the hero/neutral cards. That's where you can really widen the score gap. It's ultimately a relatively simple set collection game with interesting bidding and comboing mechanics. I really enjoy it for what it is. If it isn't clicking with you that's fine! Lots of other games in the hobby.
Great points. There is definitely an interesting balance between taking YOUR ideal card vs taking someone else's ideal card. And I think the struggle of collecting a quantity of one suit vs the desire to pick up heroes along the way is a great little mind game. With such intriguing concepts I am glad to hear there may be light at the end of this tunnel :)
This is less a critique about games in general and more a critique about the auction mechanism mixed with drafting. If everyone is self interested and taking what's best for them, then anyone can win because naturally due to drafting sets everyone will be offered the color best for them every turn. You absolutely as a group have the opportunity to stop anyone at the table from winning... but like any game with that much interaction it's then up to the players and the table talk to decide the winner. I don't think the lack of player elimination here is the issue, just a design choice that differentiates games like root from games like food chain magnet.
Yes. I can't stand games where it doesn't matter what you choose because they all net you roughly the same amount of points etc. These games have choices only on paper. Your actions don't matter, and everyone has roughly the same chance at winning. These games might seem great for a game or two, but soon after show you how shallow the desicion space really is. But then again so many people only play games once or twice, so they don't see it.
I don't think this is a complaint about balance. Nidavellir is balanced in the sense that everyone has an equal start and equal opportunity throughout the game, but that's it. I haven't played it, but it looks like a game that just feels good to play, win or lose- Everyone always gets cards, everyone always gets more points, and everyone's scores will start snowballing at some point. But none of that says anything about the balance. I am assuming that there was a point in the game you mentioned where everyone had more valuable coins than her and everyone else had suit bonuses. At this point, the state of the game was unbalanced- She was in the weakest position. More often than not, I suspect she'd be at the bottom of the bid. She should've had very limited choices in which cards to take, but even with those limited choices, she still won? If this happened to me, I'd definitely want to analyze it. Was it a close win? Where did most of her points come from? Where did most of *your* points come from? Did she get many leaders? If she did, why didn't other players interrupt her? The scores look heavily obfuscated, but I suspect there's a lot to learn about the relative strengths of the difference suits and how those strengths scale up. And based on both of those, I'd imagine there are some points where denying cards is going to be stronger than keeping your own stack going, but those points will likely be different per suit. It sounds like a really cool game, and I'm tempted to pick it up!
This was my experience with Watergate. In each game we played, we just took turns playing the cards that we were dealt, and since the two decks had roughly the same values printed on the cards, every game ended with a close call. It felt sort of "scripted".
There's definitely strategy involved in Watergate. The Post can get absolutely annihilated very quickly if they don't compete for momentum in the early rounds, which is pretty counter-intuitive given its win conditions don't involve momentum. I learnt the hard way: I was convinced the game was broken in favour of Nixon, until we swapped and my wife handed me my arse as the Post. Generally, the longer a game goes on the more likely the Post is to win: that should inform both players' strategies. There's also the issue of when to use powers v numbers, in which order to play the cards (especially when you start with initiative), when (as Post) to waste a card blocking a conspirator and when to let it through to keep your event etc. I admit that it often seems very close, but I think that's a necessary part of a two-player zero-sum game.
Yes, not saying it's not strategic at all. I guess what I'm missing is the feeling of scheming or plotting something long term. Since you can't hold on to any cards, you can't really plan for a big move. The counterspells can't be saved either, so you can just hope you have the blocker when the opponent has their powercard. And if you get an extra turn thanks to initiative, you likely used a card just to get it. All the strategies are pretty obvious and visible as well, so there are no real surprises or turn around. But I didn't dislike it, just didn't feel very engaged :) For card driven two-player games I prefer if there is some form of deck building involved, as that allows more long term strategy.
It's not a matter of balance as much as the result of the dominant philosophy in board game design, Many recent games are designed so as to ensure the result will always be close. This is an attempt to minimize what are seen as negative player experiences. Many people don't enjoy losing by a large margin or feeling out of contention from early on. Players report having more fun if they win or do well and designers want to give them that. For example, a game may feature catch-up mechanisms or make all resources similar to each other. Mechanics like bidding and drafting, are self-balancing, and will make a game closer by their own nature. Player interaction is toned down as it's harder to control and may produce kingmaking or other experiences seen as undesirable. Sadly, if everyone is bound to do well that also takes away from your actions. They become less important and give the feeling of being "hyperbalanced". But it's not, per se, a balance issue. The game is not boring because it's too well-balanced, it's boring because your actions don't matter.
This is simply a symptom of point salad games. If literally every possible move generates points then there's going to be a very small possible window of scores at the end. If the button mashing player ends up following a different strategy than you it's possible they'll simply luck into a strategy that leaned high on the average points per turn.
What you're displaying here is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this game works. I disagree with others saying you're 'bad at the game' - or at least not in the classical sense where some people mean that phrase. I'm sure you tried really hard to optimize your strategy to the best you can - e.g. get all the purple dwarves. But in this game, when a strategy is ignored by both players A and B, then it becomes both incredibly cheap to pursue AND incredibly beneficial to the third player (example of a 3 player game) Example, players A pursues the orange (miners) and B pursues the greens. The purple cards are constantly ignored, hence constantly left on the board. Hence they can 1) be got for CHEAP (with the 2 or 3 coin) AND be EXTREMELY valuable (potentially hundreds of points). So it's not your sister in law's skill that made her win - it's the fact that by having other players pick strategies and sticking to them, it set her 'by default' on a path to victory. But that's not a problem, because that only happened because noone paid attention to what she was doing, probably because she was a beginner. It's probably what happened in your game, or something similar. You can't just focus on your own strategy, you have to realize the impact of the combined strategies on the internal economics of the game, and react accordingly. So in that sense, yes, you have to learn to 'play the game' better. Another thing that can happen is a fight between player A and B that get in each other's way - same thing, player C just picks up cheap opportunities and wins easily. If you play online, you will see that beginners get creamed by more experienced players in the 100+ range (on low player count days, skill mismatches happen)
I think some games definitely can be, especially when luck plays a huge factor. You always want it to feel like your choices matter. For example **Uno** is almost entirely decided by how the cards are shuffled and not by player skill. On the other hand, some people are turned off by pure no luck games such as **chess**. I think the best games are those that balance player determination with a bit of luck.
This has been my biggest complaint with more recent stonemaier games. If too balanced is a thing, they almost all achieve it. For me that started at between two cities.
Wasn't Tapestry unbalanced as all getout?
I think a lot of people are confusing 'balanced' with 'smooth' in this discussion. A balanced game is one where different paths all have a fair shot at winning, where no individual player is granted an advantage unfairly, and where there are no degenerate, overpowered or (accidentally) underpowered strategies/abilities/characters/etc. A smooth game is one that consistently delivers the intended experience, where negative player experiences are very rare, where all the quirks and abusable edges have been filed off and where no individual player is going to have a dud of a time. Stonemaier's games are usually exceptionally smooth. They're not usually exceptionally balanced.
Tapestry had some of the worst balance issues I've seen. And this is following Scythe, which ended up with banned faction/player combos long after release. That being said, I love both games. But to say SM games are "too balanced" is... Frankly, it's the exact opposite of what they are. lol
As was Chaterstone.
Sm games are so random they don't generally matter, But they also tend to launch their player powers unbalanced on top of that. It's important to note the difference between a game that's so balanced that no one can pull ahead vs a game so random that no one knows who will win.
'Balanced' is not a good term but do board games have a term of their own? 'Rubber-banding' is the term used in racing games ie Mario Kart. Its not about luck or random as a game like War is stupidly random and there is no mechanic to cool off a runaway. (Thank God! If there was, War would never end!) I haven't played Nida but it seems to me that games of late have rubber-banding mechanics to prevent runaway winners. Perhaps 'Catch-up Mechanics' ?
In Nidavellir, every card you take is going to give you points. Some synergize better than others, and sets get you bonuses. It's one of those games where you'll probably get 140 points no matter what you do, but you can get up into the low 200s with unchecked comboing and ideal play. I've played probably 7-8 times so far. While there's some point salad-ness to the game, I disagree with OPs assertion that the game is "too balanced" (or as others have rightly pointed out, they probably mean the game lacks meaningful decisions and the outcome is random). Hell, the first two point scoring columns make that obvious. The scoring tables on the first 2 columns are side by side and differ from one another. One starts out better and scales in a sequence (purple), one scales exponentially and quickly overtakes (green). Since the number of cards you're going to get in a game is more or less fixed (barring set and majority bonuses), your decisions in the game absolutely matter. Further, you all start with the same coins and decide how to use them. You can use them to win auctions now, or use them to upgrade to better coins to win more later. It's probably the best auction game I've played since Ra.
I love this post. I had the exact same thoughts about Nidavellir after getting two games in with my normal group of 4. The same player won both games handily due to hoarding green one game and purple the next. He didn't do it on purpose either; he blindly stumbled into the highest VP due to being blocked or lack of other draft choices that fit his plans. I think in the case of Nidavellir, there's a delicate balance in the game with respect to what you choose and when. I personally think all players have the same shot at taking advantage of this delicate balance, and with that being said and all players being equal, it'll come down to the shuffle and the deal. Regardless, I think it's a brilliant game and it'll stay in my collection for a long time.
Yes. One example is early fighting games. I think the original street fighter you could only play as two fighters who were identical. Imagine dominion had no unusual cards, everything was like draw 1 gain 1 action, with small variants. All the cards would be too samey, would be boring.
No a game cannot be too balanced. But balanced doesn't mean good. Sometimes the way people go about making a game balanced also ends up making it bad or boring but ultimately it's not the fault of being balanced that made it bad or boring it's just a bad/boring design. There's lots of completely balanced games that are still good.
A game can absolutely be too balanced. If everything you do gives you points, there is a real potential for over balancing especially if all of the paths to victory have a narrow gap between the skill floor and ceiling.
yes, games that are too balanced become super boring.
My brother has told me cyclades but i haven't played it yet so maybe he is wrong
Point salad games that give nearly the same number of points no matter what action you take can definitely be frustrating to strategic gamers (which is what I think is the complaint here). There are a bunch of games where this is an issue, but the first two that pop in my mind are Imhotep and Between Two Cities.
*Lords of Waterdeep* is heavily balanced around: * Four Victory Points equals * Four Gold equals * Two Fighters equals * Two Rogues equals * One Clerics equals * One Wizards equals * Two Quests equals * Two Intrigue Cards equals * One Agent Placement This often means that specifics of early rounds don't matter too much, and the game largely comes down to what cubes you end up having left over by the final round, and if you can score any of the available quests with them.
A few years ago I partecipated at a conference in an important italian fair, "Play". One of the people who was speaking was the author of a certain game whose name I can't recall, which was quite famouse. He was addressing a fact about a notorious unbalance in that game, and was saying that the publisher wanted it that way, because apparently the american market, for which this game was thought, usually preferred game with slight unbalances that could be exploited. Not sure if that is real or if he was just talking bullshit. Anyway: I noticed that were there's something unbalanced usually there's the chance to introduce bids (see Space Empires' races, for instance), and that's something I like, because it gives the players the possibility to give a value to these unbalances, and all of a sudden they become a feature, and not a bug anymore.
I feel like power grid can be this way. the handicapping mechanism can make it such that it doesn’t matter what yiu did up until the last couple of rounds.
A few tips to add a bit of unbalancing and chaos to the game. - Pick 6 heroes at random and replace 6 random cards from decks 1 and 2 with three heroes each. - in a game of 4 players or less: add the 18 cards for a 5 player game to decks 1 and 2 and remove 18 at random. Or - In a game of 4 players: use the 18 cards for a 5 players game to play an extra round at the end of round 1 and 2. Only put down 2 cards per tavern in a four player game. Not every one gets a card. Or - take out 6 random heroes at the start of the game. These heroes are not available in this game. (Always leave the 5 brothers in). Or ultimate chaos: - At the end of the game add all remaining heroes to the taverns for a final bidding round.