This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - DLloyd09
31
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:34:36 AM »
The very premise of the game depends on hidden backs, so there's just no way they'll print the tiles on both sides. The tile bag doesn't even come with the base game. In the original you're supposed to draw from face down stacks. I'm sure this is just poor phrasing.
That said, it's beginning to sound like they're definitely switching to new art across the board if your reseller is to be believed, instead of 2.0 being a one-off. In that case, sounds like my collection is nearing completion, because there's no way I'm buying anything with that cartoony art. I've got enough of an OCD problem that it would drive me crazy to have mismatched fronts and I'm just not going to own two copies of everything. My money can be better spent. Not sure why they feel the need to alienate their biggest fans by blowing up their collections like this. How many new people are really gonna be drawn to the game because of a redesign? Sigh...
32
« on: January 31, 2015, 07:15:43 PM »
While I am quite enthusiastic about it, I totally agree that if this is to be done, it needs to be done right.
33
« on: January 30, 2015, 02:09:01 PM »
I've only played it twice, but I think the robbers get a lot of somewhat-undeserved hate. I think the mere threat of a robber on the board can force players to make sometimes questionable plays, just to score their opponent's robber at 1 or 2, but those plays are often wasteful and the tile used to score something tiny could be better played elsewhere. The player getting robbed thus has to have a mediocre turn, while the players not under the threat of being robbed can make more aggressive or profitable plays without the threat of having their pockets picked.
So it's not so much about the points, I think, but about the strategy mucking-up, that makes the robbers fairly interesting to me. I've got a feeling though that I might be the only person with something somewhat nice to say.
34
« on: January 30, 2015, 01:28:10 PM »
(Not that interested in having a collection like most of you)
How many of us have said this? *raises hand* 19 expansions later... 
35
« on: January 30, 2015, 07:47:10 AM »
Remember that the copyright for the artwork on all of the tiles still belongs to HiG. Thus, even if we make our own example pictures, ultimately the publisher has to be on board with it.
Likewise for publication of the rules. They own the copyright to the rules text, so we can't go copy-pasting any of that onto a website/wiki/blog without the okay of HiG.
This is true on both fronts. I hope that if this gets moved forward they would be open to it, seeing as the CAR is, among many other things, also a compendium of the published rulebooks and is a freely-accessible download and many of the distributors also post the rulebooks online for free.
36
« on: January 29, 2015, 06:03:18 PM »
In an interview at the podcast "Bretterwisser" told Dirk Geilenkeuser (HiG) that the next "Around the World" project will take place in the area of the "Amazonas".
I've tested a prototype of "Amazonas" - I have to say: there will be much work to do, this needs many more play testing...
Amazonas needs much work - the release wouldn't come this year.
Looks like probably not this year.
37
« on: January 29, 2015, 08:08:12 AM »
What I'm thinking right now, based on your latest comments, is that the wiki would probably need to become the authoritative "document", as it would be kept up-to-date constantly. The PDF releases would continue to occur on a regular cycle, which could then be printed and inserted into a binder, or saved to your tablet for situations where you don't have Internet access.
As such, I think it would be best to pull together a small group of 2-4 people to initially load up the wiki, get some people to proofread and offer feedback, and then Obervet would become solely in charge of editing, so that he can keep track of what needs to be changed in the next PDF release. I don't want to make his life difficult by having multiple people editing the wiki. If there was a way to have separate permissions for the Talk pages, that might be helpful for keeping track of questions and answers with the publisher.
I suppose that is my train of thought, yes. I know I'd be more than happy to help with a migration to the wiki. As for the updating, I'd certainly want to get obervet's opinion on all of this before asking him to take on any additional work. I'm sure it's plenty of work just managing the CAR as it is. With respect to permissions, I think all registered users should have the edit permission (so they can make talk edits), but the main article pages should be protected, so that only the designated individuals can edit them. I know that MediaWiki allows for permissions like that. That is a good point, kettlefish. The wiki may not at least initially be able to use the images from the printed rules. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, though. In-house graphics could end up being better in the long run. I've never personally been impressed with some of the Carcassonne rules graphics. Combined with the captions, they are not always easy to understand.
While I think there's a lot of value in the originals, I think updated images prepared in-house would be excellent, if we don't get permission to use them. I'd of course recommend water-marking any in-house images, but that's many steps down a still-hypothetical road.
38
« on: January 28, 2015, 07:54:08 PM »
+1 to whaleyland's comments. From a convenience perspective, a wiki makes it really easy to jump around to various sections without having to scroll through or jumping back to the table of contents to find the page you need and then jumping forward again. If the internal links are set up well, I think that a wiki could be very easy for new and veteran players to navigate. And at 300+ pages, I think the major drawback of the CAR is indeed that it is very cumbersome.
Another huge advantage? The CAR can be updated constantly as we learn of new clarifications and make minor changes to the text, without the need to wait for enough content to bulk up for a major release. I've seen a few posts from obervet recently where he's remarked on changing the language of a sentence or adding a new clarification in the next version of the CAR. Why wait for S-CAR 7.4? Post it now on the wiki, and then have the regular PDF releases with more bulk updates for the folks who prefer a "hard copy".
I don't think this should be structured as an either/or thing, and I sort of feel from your comments Scott that that's how you might be interpreting it? I don't at all think a wiki should replace the PDF version of the CAR, but rather act as a companion document more tailored to people who prefer that style of navigation. For example, if I was playing at a friend's house and needed a rules clarification, I'd have a much happier and easier time navigating through a wiki than trying to scroll through a 300+ page document on my tiny cell phone.
39
« on: January 28, 2015, 06:02:11 PM »
I love wikis and have been editing Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, the Lord of the Rings wiki, and others for years. That being said, I'd argue against an open-access wiki site and strongly suggest an in-house wiki that can only be edited by administrators. This level of access doesn't seem to be allowed on servers like Wikia, which runs both of the fan sites above. I think the idea of a wiki is a good one, though, and it could easily be expanded to include things like fan expansions, strategy, and general game information. It just can't be open to the public for editing.
 Totally agree on this, and should have made that clear. I think it should be a restricted wiki for sure; open only to registered users or a subset thereof for editing and open to the public for viewing. MediaWiki has a good slate of access controls.
40
« on: January 28, 2015, 03:44:10 PM »
Maybe I've lost the original notion, but why are we talking about (and considering?) the creation of a new rules document?
I've been waiting for someone to say this just to be sure that I wasn't the only one confused by the existence of this thread.
Personally, I think the CAR is perfectly fine the way it is.
I agree with this as well. Concern about players not knowing which expansion certain elements belong to is covered by the reference on pages 5-6 of the CAR. The one thing I would like to see is some sort of online version of the CAR on something like a wiki. I think that might be nice and would also take care of the other major concern about easy accessibility on tablets. They aren't too intensive to set up, and if a CC admin were able to set up a wiki tied to the site, I would be happy to spearhead the project of creating an online version there. Or I could try to set up an offsite wiki that would be linked to from here. But I'll wait and see what other folks think before going crazy on that. 
41
« on: January 26, 2015, 07:59:26 PM »
And unlike DLloyd09, I would prefer each player have two bridges and two Castles. It's only fair. The odds of all sixteen of both being played is almost impossible, but at least the option is there. Plus, bridges especially often play off one another, so having two per players is almost essential to encourage that kind of use.
Having only played bridges with TWO people, I would think that eight people with two bridges each would turn into an absolute field nightmare, but maybe that's just me.  I honestly hadn't thought much about 8-player upgrade problems until this post. What other things should be increased to match the higher number of players? Obviously tunnel tokens. Perhaps Dragon-moves phases should go to 8 instead of 6? Extra sets of Catapult tokens are needed. Anything else required to scale up a game of Carcassonne with expansions to 8 players?
Off the top of my head, depending on the extent of your collection, besides the already mentioned abbeys, tower pieces, tunnels, and catapult tokens: (1) at least an extra set of Halflings, (2) some extra 50/100 tiles, (3) extra phantoms, (4) extra little buildings. Probably more that I'm not thinking of.
42
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:29:27 PM »
If I were ever to play with 8 players (which, first I would need to try playing with at least 5  ), I would only buy 2 more tower pieces and I wouldn't buy any more bridges or castles. 4 towers/person and 1 bridge or castle/person seems like plenty. I would think that the possibility of 16 castles or bridges would make them a bit too strong.
43
« on: January 25, 2015, 08:18:53 PM »
I think a lot of people (myself included) are in this boat  I hope somebody has something for you, sorry that I don't.
44
« on: January 23, 2015, 12:33:11 PM »
What a cool way to share the news... congratulations!
45
« on: January 21, 2015, 08:02:35 AM »
http://www.meeplesource.com/proddetail.php?prod=Wine (a little too cute for me!)
Saw these too, but I'm not a fan of these either!
Meeplesource have just got a load more stock in, including these: http://www.meeplesource.com/proddetail.php?prod=Barrels
They're not the same as the ones I sent out to World Cup participants (these are 3D, like little barrels rather than flat, barrel-shaped tokens), but meeplesource did give me a big bag of these for free and they're pretty neat!
Awesome! I may just have to buy a pack. Thanks for the heads up!
|
Show Posts