Eight Thoughts [Quenched]

[WidowMakers]

i don't understand how you make an alliance

What ????

[Captain Crash]

i don't understand how you make an alliance

What ????

An alliance on this map is a group of three specific territories, an example of which is in the legend, e.g.:

Mandate + Learning + Prosperity.

There are 8 possible combinations of these alliances as the seat of power in each thought has 2 other territories it may align with.

Just look at the picture in the legend and it should all be clear...if not:
Don't play the map!

Hope that helps,
Crash



(Actually, please do play the map, you'll help everybody else get a better score!)

[MR. Nate]

I love the skull now. I never had a major problem with it before, but it's awesome now. The black part is where he was killed. He met his demise via an axe to the side of the face.

[Coleman]

I love the skull now. I never had a major problem with it before, but it's awesome now. The black part is where he was killed. He met his demise via an axe to the side of the face.

As a professional hitman he knows these things.

[anamainiacks]

Haha yea. The skull looks nicely distorted. If that made any sense... haha

[Coleman]

Well I'm kinda shocked so many people like the seat thing. (I do like the bonus description on that one better) But it is still 2to1 against.

[unriggable]

There's a chunk of orange on the border of fact and something else.

[Nikolai]

We know. The skull stays as is. The black left side is called shading.

Okay. Just thought I'd mention it. And incidentally... give me some credit. I do know what shading is.

WM, you're going to want to shoot me, but... regarding the new skull... I can't get past the feeling that the black shading on the left side is something growing on it, or tarred on, or something... not an actual part of the skull. I like the shape much better than the old one, but I like the clean white look of the old one better. Can you get rid of the black goop?

[Samus]

I know this is an old topic, but I really think you need to rethink the whole Mind/Reason thing. This is how games will go:

The game starts, and some poor bastard gets Mind. Let's call him Bob. When Bob's turn comes around, he is FORCED to try and take Reason as his only rational first move regardless of what else is going on in the game, or he will continue getting screwed. Now there are a lot of players who are timid about first round rolls 6 vs 3, but poor Bob only gets 2, so he has to roll 5 vs 3, which has pretty high odds of failing. He can't wait a turn out before attacking (which a LOT of players like doing in round 1, myself included), because then he will keep getting the -1.

So poor Bob gets only 2 armies in the first round, and has good odds of only getting 2 armies the next round and not getting a card. He can't even play in the real game for one round, and possibly two rounds. I sure wouldn't want to be put into Bob's tight spot.

Now imagine the guy who actually owns Reason is a crafty guy who for some reason doesn't want Bob to thrive in this game. We'll call him Jimmy. Now Jimmy has his choice of playing anywhere on the map, and if any players play before him there's good odds Jimmy can get his card from some of the 1s laying around, and won't even need all his armies to do it. If Jimmy plays before Bob, he knows that Bob is screwed until he takes Reason, so Jimmy deploys 1 or 2 to Reason, making Bob's failure very likely!

Bob will now scream in agony because he's got a big fat Jimmy in his tight spot and he can't get it out!!!

This map is gay porn...


But seriously, the bottom line is still that the person who starts with Mind is at a substantial disadvantage. If you have to commit to both territories to avoid the -1, all of the middle territories have and extra layer of free protection. I really think you are making this map into a wheel until players that have built up a good stack of armies, and the player who starts with Mind will always be substantially behind in the game after 1 or 2 rounds.

[vakEirn79]

For this post, I'll assume that
- The player holding Mind doesn't want to attack 5v3 on the first turn. It's hard to factor personal preference AND luck into a comprehensible argument
- Whoever holds Reason isn't a teammate of the player who holds Mind, because then the team is losing a single army on turn 1, in exchange for getting 5-8 armies on Mind to attack whichever Thought they want on turn 2. Hardly something to complain about.

Since Reason is entirely contained within Mind, any armies the player with Reason puts in there for purposes of spite are basically dead to him. Also, there's a good chance that the player with Mind will get at least one of the territories adjacent to Mind, so he can deploy on Mind, fortify Mind, deploy on Mind again, and have a very good chance of taking Reason on his second turn. From there, he would have a build-up of armies on Mind, and be able to attack into any of the 8 Thoughts.

Basically, the way I see it, whoever starts with Mind is pretty much relegated to that initial tactic, in order to minimize their disadvantage to 2 armies. That's equivalent to a single bad roll of the dice most of the time, so it's not a huge handicap.

I think a bigger problem will be the frustration caused by this initial penalty. In a strategy game, two things most players hate are Bad Luck and Forced Decisions. Whoever starts with Mind, but not Reason, is going to feel like they were just hit by both of those at once. You should be fairly certain that the other aspects of gameplay on this map will make up for that.

[Coleman]

I'm not sure who won that argument. It seems everything stays as is to me. I hate USApocolypse for the same reason, you are forced to make some strange early decisions to take care of the inevitable -1 you start with.

The thing with this map is mind just about controls everything (ain't that the truth? lol). If you don't give it a -1, and I noticed this with on paper testing, the player that controls the center and a slice can win the game easy every time as long as the rolls aren't too weird.

[Zorg_rsk]

Firstly, Id like to say the map is awsome, and I realy look forward to playing it.

Secondly, I see the problem with the center controling all. However I don't think your current solution quite meets the problem. You put it that mind needs reason to equal itself out. However whoever controls mind, can control reason pretty easily with just 1 army there.

Heres my suggestion:

Keep it as it is, but make it so the back territory of each thought (ie. peace, conflict, revelation, ect.) can attack Reason (one way attack).

For one this is quite a fitting portrayal, as reason can be influenced by any strand. From a game point of view this means that the center is alot harder to take, as you have to defend both territories fairly heavily, splitting your defences and quite possibly leading to opponents being able to throw a negative 1 at you.

Thoughts?

[Coleman]

Firstly, Id like to say the map is awsome, and I realy look forward to playing it.

Secondly, I see the problem with the center controling all. However I don't think your current solution quite meets the problem. You put it that mind needs reason to equal itself out. However whoever controls mind, can control reason pretty easily with just 1 army there.

Heres my suggestion:

Keep it as it is, but make it so the back territory of each thought (ie. peace, conflict, revelation, ect.) can attack Reason (one way attack).

For one this is quite a fitting portrayal, as reason can be influenced by any strand. From a game point of view this means that the center is alot harder to take, as you have to defend both territories fairly heavily, splitting your defences and quite possibly leading to opponents being able to throw a negative 1 at you.

Thoughts?

I like it but I have no idea how WidowMakers could show it.

EDIT: Thinking more about it, this just opens up more possibilities for abuse on the guy who starts with mind when it isn't great to have it.

Although I think this solution could eliminate the need for mind to be -1 as so many places would have one way access to the center.

[dominationnation]

The map looks great but some of the territorys have hve of one color and have of an other. like freedom is that part of love, law, or both. same with exacution. is it death,law, or both

please explain

[Coleman]

The map looks great but some of the territorys have hve of one color and have of an other. like freedom is that part of love, law, or both. same with exacution. is it death,law, or both

please explain

If you have ever played the Space map those territories are like the space stations, both continents need that territory to get their bonus. So you aren't just fighting for a continent you are denying your neighbor theirs.

[dominationnation]

ok that is what I thought just wasnt sure

[Samus]

The thing with this map is mind just about controls everything (ain't that the truth? lol). If you don't give it a -1, and I noticed this with on paper testing, the player that controls the center and a slice can win the game easy every time as long as the rolls aren't too weird.

This does make sense to me. King of the Mountains is similar in that the helipads can break up any bonus, so controlling all the helipads is the key to victory.

So this is my solution: make it -1 for each region held, basically the reverse of Alcatraz on the San Francisco map. This would apply to the regular regions, not the alliance bonus. So to start out, nobody gets a -1. But soon, you will have a choice to make. When you take your region, you can either leave Mind, or claim the benefits of it at a cost of -1. Since you've got a bonus region, this is a reasonable trade-off. If you get 2 regions, Mind is all the more appealing since it can now also act to consolidate 2 defensive points, but it will now cost you -2.

I think this is a good compromise, it applies the intended punishment to the right players, but doesn't hurt anyone at game start.

[Coleman]

The thing with this map is mind just about controls everything (ain't that the truth? lol). If you don't give it a -1, and I noticed this with on paper testing, the player that controls the center and a slice can win the game easy every time as long as the rolls aren't too weird.

This does make sense to me. King of the Mountains is similar in that the helipads can break up any bonus, so controlling all the helipads is the key to victory.

So this is my solution: make it -1 for each region held, basically the reverse of Alcatraz on the San Francisco map. This would apply to the regular regions, not the alliance bonus. So to start out, nobody gets a -1. But soon, you will have a choice to make. When you take your region, you can either leave Mind, or claim the benefits of it at a cost of -1. Since you've got a bonus region, this is a reasonable trade-off. If you get 2 regions, Mind is all the more appealing since it can now also act to consolidate 2 defensive points, but it will now cost you -2.

I think this is a good compromise, it applies the intended punishment to the right players, but doesn't hurt anyone at game start.

This is a freakishly weird idea. It could work I suppose. I wonder what WidowMakers is up to, I'd like to know what he is thinking about these recent suggestions.

[WidowMakers]

The thing with this map is mind just about controls everything (ain't that the truth? lol). If you don't give it a -1, and I noticed this with on paper testing, the player that controls the center and a slice can win the game easy every time as long as the rolls aren't too weird.

This does make sense to me. King of the Mountains is similar in that the helipads can break up any bonus, so controlling all the helipads is the key to victory.

So this is my solution: make it -1 for each region held, basically the reverse of Alcatraz on the San Francisco map. This would apply to the regular regions, not the alliance bonus. So to start out, nobody gets a -1. But soon, you will have a choice to make. When you take your region, you can either leave Mind, or claim the benefits of it at a cost of -1. Since you've got a bonus region, this is a reasonable trade-off. If you get 2 regions, Mind is all the more appealing since it can now also act to consolidate 2 defensive points, but it will now cost you -2.

I think this is a good compromise, it applies the intended punishment to the right players, but doesn't hurt anyone at game start.

This is a freakishly weird idea. It could work I suppose. I wonder what WidowMakers is up to, I'd like to know what he is thinking about these recent suggestions.

Sorry for the long post drought. I have had other things going in the real world.

I don't think this is a bad idea from a game play sense. It would eliminate the -1 starting issue. The bonus text would now say: -1 MIND plus Any Thought Group. Instead of -1 MIND without REASON & +0 MIND with REASON.

BUT......That does not make any sense. The entire point of the -1 & +0 was to show that having a mind without reason is a BAD thing and applying reason is good.

So we basically have 1 final issue (As far as the posts are letting on) Do we change game play (-1 for Mind plus every thought controlled) and make the board not make sense from a philosophical sense. Or do we leave the -1 & +0 bonus (the current board) and deal with the disadvantage of a person starting with -1 (aka USApocalypse).

I vote for the second, keep the map as is and deal with the -1 potential at the beginning. I am not saying this because I don't want to redo anything, but because I think it is best.

There's a chunk of orange on the border of fact and something else.

I will fix this

Also. Based on the poll, the current ally text is staying. It seems that people like the seats explanation but think it is too cluttered. I really don't think it is cluttered. Even if it is a little more, the benefits of teh explaination out way the increased clutter (IMHO).

[Samus]

BUT......That does not make any sense. The entire point of the -1 & +0 was to show that having a mind without reason is a BAD thing and applying reason is good.

So we basically have 1 final issue (As far as the posts are letting on) Do we change game play (-1 for Mind plus every thought controlled) and make the board not make sense from a philosophical sense. Or do we leave the -1 & +0 bonus (the current board) and deal with the disadvantage of a person starting with -1 (aka USApocalypse).

I vote for the second, keep the map as is and deal with the -1 potential at the beginning. I am not saying this because I don't want to redo anything, but because I think it is best.

I think we can make it work from both gameplay and philosophical perspectives. The three possible solutions I see would be:

1. Mind + region worth -1, all thoughts could attack reason (one way attacks, Zorg's idea).

From a gameplay standpoint, obviously a lot more players will be taking Reason if only to get to Mind.

Philosophically this doesn't directly solve what you were talking about (Mind without Reason = bad), but it does fit that you cannot ignore Reason, because thoughts can affect Reason, which can change your Mind.


2. Mind + region worth -1, Mind + Reason + region worth 0.

Basically you would have 8 regions worth -1 and 8 regions worth +1.

Philosophically, if thoughts influence your Mind without Reason, that's bad, but with Reason it's fine.


3. Mind + region worth -1, Mind + Reason worth +1.

So if you have just Mind and Reason, you get a bonus. If you have Mind, Reason, and a region, it works out to 0. If you have Mind, Reason, and two regions, it works out to -1 total. And on and on.

Philosophically similar to #2, but the idea is that if you have more than 1 thought in your Mind, it starts to overwhelm your Reason.


Personally I like #3, although there's no reason it has to be exclusive to Zorg's suggestion (#1).

[AndyDufresne]

• • • • • • Final Forge

---The Eight Thoughts Map has reached the ‘Final Forge’ Stage. I've revived this thread from the pits of the Foundry furnace and have examined the contents. Nearly every major concern has been addressed. If there are any other current concerns, please make your voice heard. There will be at least two days (but may extend pass that) for you to post any objections; if no one has posted any protest after two days the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play. If after two days there is still discussion going on it may continue until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version.

Post questions and concerns if any.


--Andy

[Nikolai]

Didn't we already decide that mind + reason being worth one alone would stack gameplay? That might change if you implement zorg's suggestion, since you'd have to defend two territories for the plus one - like on Discworld. I usually tend to take a "tough luck" approach with stuff like starting with a -1 - I figure you can get screwed bad enough on your drop whether that's there or not - but in this case, because there's only one, and because it's so central, I sort of like some sort of mix of bonus and zorg's suggestion. Maybe not even a bonus... I'm gonna have to think about that one.

[Gilligan]

What is the "With reason" and "Without reason"?

[Coleman]

What is the "With reason" and "Without reason"?

It's ghey and I'd rather we just have the center be the center and not put any bonus effects on it. But all the gameplay people want mind to be worth -1, so to compromise if you own Mind & Reason you don't get -1, but if you own Mind without Reason you do.

It's still ghey...

I used to support the mind -1 but I'm getting burnt out with the whole thing. I like the solution that we let all the symbol territories one way attack reason.

[Gilligan]

Yeah, I think it should just not be there.