Closed nymanjens closed 7 years ago
Waiting for @317070 since this is controversial and @317070 skipped this in his last review batch.
I still think it is a major mistake to have a purely cooperative game without an element to break piloting. Especially when the theme is war. An alliance is only an alliance when built upon trust. An alliance which cannot be broken, is not really an alliance. I also believe you are removing a lot of the richness and complexity, and consider this A Bad Thing.
I feel like I'm playing on a level where the placement of the tokens is a more a matter of calculations rather than choices (why this is bad: http://www.mostdangerousgamedesign.com/2014/02/balance-beyond-fairness.html ). So, if there is no complexity beyond the point of placing tokens, it reduces to a game of worker placement.
I find it hard to express how 100% I am certain that this becoming a game where the only possible win is a team-win, is inferior to a game where you have team-wins 80% of the time, but they are built on diplomacy. I can imagine a beginner version where the diplomacy is non-existent (until the players plateau on calculating where to put tokens). Although I think that is not even necessary, as every beginner apparently ignores the individual goal already intuitively. But beyond that I can't see the benefit.
Ok, I thought there was a consensus as to leave this path for now and see if test-playing the master
branch actually runs into piloting problems. Apparently there's not.
Again, I think the individual-goal
branch is not worth it. I would deprecate it until we find a better alliance-breaking solution.
As agreed on (see https://github.com/nymanjens/Alliances/issues/132): We will from now on play
master
and only revive this branch if we see a piloting problem.