Blue Moon Fans

Strategy - Chosen of Nature

cap - Mi 23 Feb, 2005 18:29
Titel: Chosen of Nature

So what is the consensus in the german forum regarding this card (chosen of nature)? I have been trying to follow the discussion using the auto-translate feature in google but I am missing most of it.

I can't see how the card would be overpowering. I would probably not put it in the deck if I had a choice because I think it would make the game tiresome - but maybe I am missing something.

Lachwurzn - Mi 23 Feb, 2005 18:39
Titel:

The consensus more or less is that the card is (surprise, surprise) TIRESOME. We are expecting epic games and the card has therefore been banned from being used within the BlueMoon (official league) online games.

Revenge - Mi 23 Feb, 2005 18:47
Titel:

Oh, of course we all love the Chosen of Nature!

...

Okay, okay, that's not right. Meanwhile there are 2 parties: ~50% would love to burn the CoN on a pyre, the other half is defending her. I think a bit more people are FOR this card, but more or less it's in balance. Unfortunately the tournament-chiefs are against it.

I also do not think the CoN is overpowered, but most CoH-enemies are of the opinion that playing this card means a too long duration of game. But nevertheless imho it's not a good idea to forbid it in tournaments.

cap - Mi 23 Feb, 2005 19:31
Titel:

Just curious - if the card is banned, what would you substitute for a game using emmissaries? Just leave it out with no substitute?

Dearlove - Mi 23 Feb, 2005 22:30
Titel:

Revenge hat folgendes geschrieben:

imho it's not a good idea to forbid it in tournaments.

I agree, and for a reason I can't tell you. (I know what that sounds like, sorry, that's life.)

CaptainGen - Mi 23 Feb, 2005 22:53
Titel:

Argh!

kilrah - Do 24 Feb, 2005 10:43
Titel:

As a defender of the CoN my main arguments are those
a) The text on the CoN practically translates into something like this: "now we both discard half of our leadership cards" At least this is the average end result when you play the whole stack of cards two times. A very interesting effect, especially against decks that heavily rely on leadership cards (like decks that buy dragons).

b) Unfortunately it painfully extends gameplay. Especially if only played as a last resource type card (I am loosing, so I play the CoN, no matter how badly suited my deck is for this). My argument is that this is only your loss (crystal wise). Also my argument is that there are enough games that don't have a terminating condition like BM does and that people should learn to aim for a 4 dragon victory against playes with the CoN.

@Dearlove: Can you at least comment if the reason is one we just don't notice or one that will only be revealed in the second inquisitor package? I have the feeling there will be a second choosen one (Pillar probably) or an Intervention that pretty much nullifies the CoN. The reason for asking is mainly this: If we are indeed waiting for a balancing card, then it might be a good idea to temporarily ban the CoN until that card is released.

kilrah - Do 24 Feb, 2005 10:47
Titel:

Sorry, bad moderator strikes again. I accidentally edited this post instead of following up to it. Whatever was here I'm afraid I've lost. If the original poster wants to put it back, I'd be grateful.

IIRC I was saying something along the lines of:
cap, we only play by the advabced rules in the league, so the problem of the emmissaries does not arise. I still believe that the choosen ones slightly favour the deck they come from however. Thus the banning of the CoN do weaken the Mimix which does not have a choosen one anymore (but so do the Terrah, the Khind and the Pillar until we get the second Allies set)

Dearlove - So 27 Feb, 2005 18:32
Titel:

I do have this from Reiner Knizia:

"I am of the opinion that there is no need to ban any cards within Blue Moon. They have all been carefully tested and the further development of the game will certainly assume that all cards are in play."

Ruwenzori - So 27 Feb, 2005 18:47
Titel:

Thank you, Chris.

Lachwurzn - So 27 Feb, 2005 19:32
Titel:

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

Without ever critisizing the mastermind of BlueMoon, but...

... Reiner most probably did not develop the game for online playing in mind. I believe that nobody wants to ban the CoN from "offline" gaming, but we're talking about a different medium here. There will always be restrictions when playing in other environments -and the implementation of online gaming certainly has an effect on the game "experience" and social interaction.

Dearlove - So 27 Feb, 2005 20:59
Titel:

Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben:

I believe that nobody wants to ban the CoN from "offline" gaming, but we're talking about a different medium here.

That was Reiner, this is me. I'm asking questions, no more, no less.

The presumed problem is, I take it, that the game may be longer. Do you have any actual statistics to support this (such as average length of matches with zero, one and two CoN cards)? Note that it is definitely matches (to 5 crystals) not games you should be considering as clearly CoN may affect the average number of games per match.

What do you see as the essential difference between the two? Why is an increase in game length (if any) differently acceptable in the two media?

Lachwurzn - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 07:41
Titel:

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

What do you see as the essential difference between the two? Why is an increase in game length (if any) differently acceptable in the two media?

Because of basic factors for any online solution such as online gaming communication structure, technical implementation of the tool (access, stability, waiting time for turns), emotional identification and expression, personality aspects... to name just a few. This is a science topic on its own.

I don't have any hard data on how long an average (non-CoN) online game takes, but my personal estimate is "at least twice as long as offline face-to-face games".

What do you consider a practical average length for BlueMoon offline games ?

kilrah - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 11:08
Titel:

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben:

I believe that nobody wants to ban the CoN from "offline" gaming, but we're talking about a different medium here.

The presumed problem is, I take it, that the game may be longer. Do you have any actual statistics to support this (such as average length of matches with zero, one and two CoN cards)? Note that it is definitely matches (to 5 crystals) not games you should be considering as clearly CoN may affect the average number of games per match.
What do you see as the essential difference between the two? Why is an increase in game length (if any) differently acceptable in the two media?

My opinion exactly. Also there is victory by 4 dragons, so noone has to play through the decks infinitely.
However there is one thing to consider, Dearlove: Currently all league matches (be it offline or online) consist of exactly 2 games. No more no less. Most crystals afterwards win. We do NOT play for 5 crystals currently (this might change with the crystal cards). Therefore we do have the problem of longer games over all.

Dearlove - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 19:26
Titel:

Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben:

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

What do you see as the essential difference between the two? Why is an increase in game length (if any) differently acceptable in the two media?

That's a list of factors which make a difference, it's not an essential difference. But the next point is interesting.

Zitat:

I don't have any hard data on how long an average (non-CoN) online game takes, but my personal estimate is "at least twice as long as offline face-to-face games".

That's not the question I asked (I'll come back to that) but I'm surprised by that ratio. I've only played one game online. I don't recall how long it took, but it was a "learning the interface in action" game, so was quite a bit longer than such a game should take. Clearly the interface is less efficient than reality (that's not a criticism, that's just a matter of some of the factors you identify) but I wouldn't have thought that much. But your experience is much greater than mine.

But that's beside the question I was asking (although relevant combined with it) which is how much difference CoN makes, in your experience. Clearly if it increased playing time by 10% banning it would be overkill. If it increased playing time by 100% the question is different. Note that there's no logic that says it can't reduce playing time - playing to 5 crystals as intended. (Incidentally I can tell you that any official tournament rules will suggest capping your score at 5 crystals, even if you score more, but counting wins first, crystals only as a tie-breaker.) I note the comment following yours in this context.

Zitat:

What do you consider a practical average length for BlueMoon offline games ?

I'm the wrong person to ask here. Almost all of my games have been teaching people to play (which is slower obviously) or playtesting, which has a different dynamic. I note that the game box has 30 minutes, which I would have said was (among experienced players) a longer tough fought game (which they often are) rather than a quick win. But I have no hard facts even from my own games.

orangeblood - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 20:26
Titel:

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

I would say that 30 minutes is a reasonable estimate for face-to-face games played to five crystals. It takes as least two rounds to get there, and that's only if one player wins both of them.

But that's just my estimate from having played about a dozen times. I've yet to have a really tough game that lasted several rounds.

I have not played online, and am also wondering how that can take longer.

Rex

Dearlove - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 20:40
Titel:

orangeblood hat folgendes geschrieben:

I would say that 30 minutes is a reasonable estimate for face-to-face games played to five crystals. It takes as least two rounds to get there, and that's only if one player wins both of them.

Unless you have the second E&I set ...

Zitat:

I have not played online, and am also wondering how that can take longer.

Oh, if I gave the impression I couldn't see how it could be longer, let me correct that now. Dragging cards around is probably similar to physically drawing them, maybe a little longer. Typing information is a bit slower than speaking it. But the real hits (from one game of course) were comprehension and handling errors - I can say, you can't do that much faster than the same online, and back up more easily. (I shouldn't give the impression I was just correcting errors, I think I corrected one and was corrected twice on not recognising card type.)

Actually the more I think about it I can see, not quite a factor of two, but definitely a serious mark up. But the faster the game, the higher the ratio - thinking time should be the same.

orangeblood - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 20:47
Titel:

Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben:

Unless you have the second E&I set ...

Ah, I wish that were so, but it's not yet available to me. Nor is the first, of course.

Zitat:

That makes sense, now I understand.

Geirröd - Mo 28 Feb, 2005 22:46
Titel:

My guess for playing times (no fast wins due to the "fourth dragon")
20-40 minutes for a real game
25-55 minutes for an online game

The really long online games were with a lot of talk/rules-discussion, which is usually much slower than in reality, since you can speak much faster than you can type words Rolling Eyes

The Inquisition will also add some minutes for sure...

Greetings Geirröd

Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
Powered by phpBB2 Plus and Kostenloses Forum based on phpBB