I like the breakout into these categories, as I think people often conflate many of these categories into the descriptor when talking about games. I know in particular, Connie tries to design games that require high expertise but low familiarity, which doesn't align with some people's definition or understanding of "strategy". Good luck at the tournaments, Nick! We just ran through a few practice games with Chris W over the weekend.
I played with him this weekend, too, so he must have been in full game mode this weekend! I'm also a fan of the high expertise, low familiarity- rewarding practice means that folks are spending time actually playing. Thanks for the well wishes and hope to see you soon!
I've come to think player count is quite significant for most games when considering variance. It's a bit similar to how games with more random elements require a longer series to feel confident that the more thoughtful and experienced player will come out ahead (for example, in chess I might feel confident that the result of a best of 3 series would usually reveal the more experienced player, while in heads-up poker I might feel the need to run a larger number of matches to have a similar level of confidence). With some euro games, I think the same is true of player count. I often feel fairly confident that a best of 9 match would reveal the more thoughtful and experienced player at 2-player count. But in 4-player matches I think I'd need to see the result of a best of a longer series of games to feel a similar level of confidence distinguishing between closely skill-matched players.
I mean, this is just math. I need to win 51% of times to be best in 2p and 26% of times to be best in 4p. The latter has more variance definitively. In 9 2p games, if you won 5, would you say you're definitively the better player? I suspect not. In 9 4p games, if you won 5 times, you're almost certainly the better player. The comparisons are just not equivalent.
@@phoenicksgaming Hmm, perhaps would have to discuss in person to fully understand your perspective. There are a few games (like GWT) that I've played in a number of tournaments at both 2p and 4p in recent years, and I definitely feel subjectively that the result is correlated to taking the wisest moves in 2p more consistently than at 4p. Just to pull some numbers out of the air to illustrate, maybe an "expert vs master" matchup might result in 75% win rate (25pp above even) in 2p but only 35% (10pp above even) in 4p. It's quite an interesting topic, and of course I'm open to the possibility there's an angle I'm not fully considering.
I'm a bit surprised by the Brass variance discussion. My experience is that because of how the levels of the buildings work, you kind of have to commit your strategy early on, and what ends up being good really depends on what the other players are doing. There are a lot of tactics and stuff, but for example if 3 people are really trying to dog the beers/rails than someone going Cotton will run away with it. However, cotton can only support one person, so if someone decides they want to undercut you, they can basically throw your game (at the cost of them probably not winning either). I haven't gotten to a very high level though because it's hard to get my group to dig deep into a game, so maybe I'm missing something
I agree with what you're saying here. I may have misspoke in the video but the community (and i) feel that BB is on the low variance side of things - what you described matters a lot but is player controlled so I'm less inclined to describe the experience as "random" for that reason.
I agree with you @BrainofJikir that 3-4 player games can fairly be described as substantially more random than 2 player games. I think this is true of all games at higher player counts, whether multiple players cause "strategic randomness" as in the Brass example, or "tactical randomness" as in an area control game like El Grande. In either case, one player having a very different valuation of the game state than you can lead to them taking actions that cause another player to get ahead of you.
@PatrickoftheIsles hmmm, interesting. I'd say they are more chaotic and less controllable for this reason - you only touch 25% of the game rather than 50% of it - so I can see how that could be "variance." But it doesn't much impact my interpretation of how variant a specific game is - I guess I could conjure a few examples of where the delta variance from 2 to 4p is more dramatic in that game than in other 2 to 4p differences.
@@phoenicksgaming I see what you are saying. I guess I see the other players as a source of "randomness" since I have no control over the actions. You can still get an idea of what they want by looking at their board state, but it's sort of akin to counting cards or something where you can know what a good play is but it's still very probabilistic. Maybe a better way to think of it is as having a high degree of player interaction, such that you can't "raw skill" your way to victory against a table of medium skill players, the same way you could in like Scythe or Gaia Project or Great Western Trail or something. Those games are also pretty deterministic after the setup, but I feel like you can tactic and pivot your way through them a lot easier, or the player interaction is low enough that you can kind of do your plan and if it's the right plan people getting into the same strategic lane as you after the fact don't impact you as much. I feel like in Brass the "right plan" is so dependent on what the other players are doing, I think it's a prime example of a game that has a lot of local maxima/minima depending on the groupthink.
@brainofjikir really like the citing of local maxima and minima in this context. I'd argue a definitively better player should be able to suss out how people are playing and adapt accordingly. But you're right that you'll play games of brass where some players are being incidentally gifted and it can be hard to come back from those circumstances
Your comment regarding “Heat”, that it is a game that you can table with gamers and non-gamers, what are some of your current favorite games that have that medium-medium/light ratio, but also have great depth/replayability?
I like the breakout into these categories, as I think people often conflate many of these categories into the descriptor when talking about games. I know in particular, Connie tries to design games that require high expertise but low familiarity, which doesn't align with some people's definition or understanding of "strategy". Good luck at the tournaments, Nick! We just ran through a few practice games with Chris W over the weekend.
I played with him this weekend, too, so he must have been in full game mode this weekend! I'm also a fan of the high expertise, low familiarity- rewarding practice means that folks are spending time actually playing. Thanks for the well wishes and hope to see you soon!
I've come to think player count is quite significant for most games when considering variance. It's a bit similar to how games with more random elements require a longer series to feel confident that the more thoughtful and experienced player will come out ahead (for example, in chess I might feel confident that the result of a best of 3 series would usually reveal the more experienced player, while in heads-up poker I might feel the need to run a larger number of matches to have a similar level of confidence). With some euro games, I think the same is true of player count. I often feel fairly confident that a best of 9 match would reveal the more thoughtful and experienced player at 2-player count. But in 4-player matches I think I'd need to see the result of a best of a longer series of games to feel a similar level of confidence distinguishing between closely skill-matched players.
I mean, this is just math. I need to win 51% of times to be best in 2p and 26% of times to be best in 4p. The latter has more variance definitively.
In 9 2p games, if you won 5, would you say you're definitively the better player? I suspect not.
In 9 4p games, if you won 5 times, you're almost certainly the better player. The comparisons are just not equivalent.
@@phoenicksgaming Hmm, perhaps would have to discuss in person to fully understand your perspective. There are a few games (like GWT) that I've played in a number of tournaments at both 2p and 4p in recent years, and I definitely feel subjectively that the result is correlated to taking the wisest moves in 2p more consistently than at 4p. Just to pull some numbers out of the air to illustrate, maybe an "expert vs master" matchup might result in 75% win rate (25pp above even) in 2p but only 35% (10pp above even) in 4p. It's quite an interesting topic, and of course I'm open to the possibility there's an angle I'm not fully considering.
I'm a bit surprised by the Brass variance discussion. My experience is that because of how the levels of the buildings work, you kind of have to commit your strategy early on, and what ends up being good really depends on what the other players are doing. There are a lot of tactics and stuff, but for example if 3 people are really trying to dog the beers/rails than someone going Cotton will run away with it. However, cotton can only support one person, so if someone decides they want to undercut you, they can basically throw your game (at the cost of them probably not winning either). I haven't gotten to a very high level though because it's hard to get my group to dig deep into a game, so maybe I'm missing something
I agree with what you're saying here. I may have misspoke in the video but the community (and i) feel that BB is on the low variance side of things - what you described matters a lot but is player controlled so I'm less inclined to describe the experience as "random" for that reason.
I agree with you @BrainofJikir that 3-4 player games can fairly be described as substantially more random than 2 player games. I think this is true of all games at higher player counts, whether multiple players cause "strategic randomness" as in the Brass example, or "tactical randomness" as in an area control game like El Grande. In either case, one player having a very different valuation of the game state than you can lead to them taking actions that cause another player to get ahead of you.
@PatrickoftheIsles hmmm, interesting. I'd say they are more chaotic and less controllable for this reason - you only touch 25% of the game rather than 50% of it - so I can see how that could be "variance." But it doesn't much impact my interpretation of how variant a specific game is - I guess I could conjure a few examples of where the delta variance from 2 to 4p is more dramatic in that game than in other 2 to 4p differences.
@@phoenicksgaming I see what you are saying. I guess I see the other players as a source of "randomness" since I have no control over the actions. You can still get an idea of what they want by looking at their board state, but it's sort of akin to counting cards or something where you can know what a good play is but it's still very probabilistic. Maybe a better way to think of it is as having a high degree of player interaction, such that you can't "raw skill" your way to victory against a table of medium skill players, the same way you could in like Scythe or Gaia Project or Great Western Trail or something. Those games are also pretty deterministic after the setup, but I feel like you can tactic and pivot your way through them a lot easier, or the player interaction is low enough that you can kind of do your plan and if it's the right plan people getting into the same strategic lane as you after the fact don't impact you as much. I feel like in Brass the "right plan" is so dependent on what the other players are doing, I think it's a prime example of a game that has a lot of local maxima/minima depending on the groupthink.
@brainofjikir really like the citing of local maxima and minima in this context. I'd argue a definitively better player should be able to suss out how people are playing and adapt accordingly. But you're right that you'll play games of brass where some players are being incidentally gifted and it can be hard to come back from those circumstances
Your comment regarding “Heat”, that it is a game that you can table with gamers and non-gamers, what are some of your current favorite games that have that medium-medium/light ratio, but also have great depth/replayability?
Sad no Twilght struggle.
I didn't tackle the war game side of the event because it conflicts with D1 of wsbg. Are you planning on playing?