Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

BoardGameGeek features information related to the board gaming hobby

older | 1 | .... | 114 | 115 | (Page 116) | 117 | 118 | .... | 183 | newer

    0 0

    by Redward

    steveg700 wrote:

    Was just watching a Dice Tower Q&A session, and at about 28 minues in, one of the questions is "How do you feel Le Havre holds up today? Does the fact that game has been solved hurt it?"

    So, is this really a "fact", or mere hyperbole?


    The game is not 100% solvable because of the variable set up. Different buildings are available at different times and several special buildings come out during the game. Also, players can block each other in various ways.

    It may have a dominant strategy or two but that is different from being solved (IMHO).

    0 0

    by jamuki

    What does they mean with "solved"?

    0 0

    by Redward

    jamuki wrote:

    What does they mean with "solved"?


    Can't say if this is what they mean but this explains my understanding of the expression:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

    0 0

    by jamuki

    Redward wrote:

    jamuki wrote:

    What does they mean with "solved"?


    Can't say if this is what they mean but this explains my understanding of the expression:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game


    Thanks! That's my understanding too, but if that is the meaning, I do not think it has been solved. My humble impression is that the one-player game *may* be solved, but not with more than one player.

    Just my two cents.

    0 0

    by tumorous

    steveg700 wrote:

    So, is this really a "fact", or mere hyperbole?

    Mere hyperbole.

    0 0

    by steveg700

    Okay, thanks. Gotta love the way some folks will bandy around the word "fact" with reckless abandon.

    0 0

    by jamuki

    It's a very solid and good game. By far, my Uwe's favourite.

    0 0

    by adamredwoods

    I think the "solved" idea stems from the steel/shipping strategy. But getting there is the variable part. Still a great game.


    0 0

    by steveg700

    adamredwoods wrote:

    I think the "solved" idea stems from the steel/shipping strategy. But getting there is the variable part. Still a great game.

    So perhaps "solved" in the same sense that Puerto Rico was long ago deemed "solved", which is to say nobody's still trying to figure out new winning strategies, but rather racing to compete in the accepted dominant strategy.

    Not "solved" as in A Few of Snow's "Halifax Hammer".

    0 0

    by davypi

    steveg700 wrote:

    Okay, thanks. Gotta love the way some folks will bandy around the word "fact" with reckless abandon.


    I'm wondering if this was an older video/podcast you were watching. The problem is not with the word "fact" but with the word "solved." About a year or two ago this was a word that would occasionally get thrown around by people who did not know what it meant.

    0 0

    by grant5

    steveg700 wrote:

    adamredwoods wrote:

    I think the "solved" idea stems from the steel/shipping strategy. But getting there is the variable part. Still a great game.

    So perhaps "solved" in the same sense that Puerto Rico was long ago deemed "solved", which is to say nobody's still trying to figure out new winning strategies, but rather racing to compete in the accepted dominant strategy.

    Not "solved" as in A Few of Snow's "Halifax Hammer".

    No, that's just going to further confuse people.

    A Few Acres of Snow is not solved, it has an exploitable flaw that makes it broken (another key term flung around when it shouldn't be). Another example of broken would be Caverna before the errata, as it had a combo that created an infinite loop.

    Solved means mathematically solvable, as in there is a single best course that can be calculated perfectly every time. Games like tic-tac-toe and Connect Four have been solved.

    Games like LeHavre and Puerto Rico merely have dominant strategies, but there is still a lot of decision space within those strategies, and perusing one does not guarantee victory.

    0 0

    by steveg700

    davypi wrote:

    steveg700 wrote:

    Okay, thanks. Gotta love the way some folks will bandy around the word "fact" with reckless abandon.


    I'm wondering if this was an older video/podcast you were watching. The problem is not with the word "fact" but with the word "solved." About a year or two ago this was a word that would occasionally get thrown around by people who did not know what it meant.


    Here you go:

    Youtube Video
    Like I said, about 28 minutes in.

    0 0

    by steveg700

    grant5 wrote:

    steveg700 wrote:

    adamredwoods wrote:

    I think the "solved" idea stems from the steel/shipping strategy. But getting there is the variable part. Still a great game.

    So perhaps "solved" in the same sense that Puerto Rico was long ago deemed "solved", which is to say nobody's still trying to figure out new winning strategies, but rather racing to compete in the accepted dominant strategy.

    Not "solved" as in A Few of Snow's "Halifax Hammer".

    No, that's just going to further confuse people.

    A Few Acres of Snow is not solved, it has an exploitable flaw that makes it broken (another key term flung around when it shouldn't be). Another example of broken would be Caverna before the errata, as it had a combo that created an infinite loop.

    Solved means mathematically solvable, as in there is a single best course that can be calculated perfectly every time. Games like tic-tac-toe and Connect Four have been solved.]/q\
    Well, to me that sounds like splitting hairs over a term that has no authoritative definition in the context of board gaming (which is why the term seemed to elicit some confusion).

    Games like LeHavre and Puerto Rico merely have dominant strategies, but there is still a lot of decision space within those strategies, and perusing one does not guarantee victory.

    Sounds like what I said.

    0 0

    by grant5

    steveg700 wrote:

    grant5 wrote:

    steveg700 wrote:

    adamredwoods wrote:

    I think the "solved" idea stems from the steel/shipping strategy. But getting there is the variable part. Still a great game.

    So perhaps "solved" in the same sense that Puerto Rico was long ago deemed "solved", which is to say nobody's still trying to figure out new winning strategies, but rather racing to compete in the accepted dominant strategy.

    Not "solved" as in A Few of Snow's "Halifax Hammer".

    No, that's just going to further confuse people.

    A Few Acres of Snow is not solved, it has an exploitable flaw that makes it broken (another key term flung around when it shouldn't be). Another example of broken would be Caverna before the errata, as it had a combo that created an infinite loop.

    Solved means mathematically solvable, as in there is a single best course that can be calculated perfectly every time. Games like tic-tac-toe and Connect Four have been solved.]/q\
    Well, to me that sounds like splitting hairs over a term that has no authoritative definition in the context of board gaming (which is why the term seemed to elicit some confusion).

    Games like LeHavre and Puerto Rico merely have dominant strategies, but there is still a lot of decision space within those strategies, and perusing one does not guarantee victory.

    Sounds like what I said.

    Did you miss the part where I directly contradicted what you said?

    0 0

    by steveg700

    grant5 wrote:

    Did you miss the part where I directly contradicted what you said?

    I've noted where you were splitting hairs, and will further note that you are a contrarian. You're on the bubble for "peevish" and "quarrelsome".

    0 0

    by grant5

    steveg700 wrote:

    grant5 wrote:

    Did you miss the part where I directly contradicted what you said?

    I've noted where you were splitting hairs, and will further note that you are a contrarian. You're on the bubble for "peevish" and "quarrelsome".

    Yikes, that's a bit harsh. Considering you, too, came into this thread to help clarify the terms the OP was using, I'd say that's hypocritical to boot.

    Do you not think it's important to differentiate between the usage of very different terms such as "broken", "solved", and "dominant strategy"? Separating those terms is significant in discussing board games (which we are all here to do) and very far from splitting hairs.

    I mean, those terms being used incorrectly led directly to the creation of this thread.

    0 0

    by grant5

    steveg700 wrote:

    grant5 wrote:

    Did you miss the part where I directly contradicted what you said?

    I've noted where you were splitting hairs, and will further note that you are a contrarian. You're on the bubble for "peevish" and "quarrelsome".

    I'm also not sure you know what "contrarian" means.

    0 0

    by steveg700

    grant5 wrote:

    Do you not think it's important to differentiate between the usage of very different terms such as "broken", "solved", and "dominant strategy"? Separating those terms is significant in discussing board games (which we are all here to do) and very far from splitting hairs.

    I mean, those terms being used incorrectly led directly to the creation of this thread.

    I got the impression that you weren't open to discussion of the terms, but rather were simply acting as the arbiter thereof.

    Perhaps I misread. If so, I apologize if I gave you an unfair shake.

    0 0

    by Redward

    steveg700 wrote:

    davypi wrote:

    steveg700 wrote:

    Okay, thanks. Gotta love the way some folks will bandy around the word "fact" with reckless abandon.


    I'm wondering if this was an older video/podcast you were watching. The problem is not with the word "fact" but with the word "solved." About a year or two ago this was a word that would occasionally get thrown around by people who did not know what it meant.


    Here you go:

    Youtube Video
    Like I said, about 28 minutes in.


    Link to where it is discussed: https://youtu.be/l9FxSKiszV0?t=28m16s

    Looks like a user asked Tom about this and then Tom disagreed but not at length.

    0 0

    by grant5

    steveg700 wrote:

    grant5 wrote:

    Do you not think it's important to differentiate between the usage of very different terms such as "broken", "solved", and "dominant strategy"? Separating those terms is significant in discussing board games (which we are all here to do) and very far from splitting hairs.

    I mean, those terms being used incorrectly led directly to the creation of this thread.

    I got the impression that you weren't open to discussion of the terms, but rather were simply acting as the arbiter thereof.

    Perhaps I misread. If so, I apologize if I gave you an unfair shake.

    So let's discuss. Do you disagree with the definitions and examples that I laid out?

older | 1 | .... | 114 | 115 | (Page 116) | 117 | 118 | .... | 183 | newer