Normal players ?

[JagarKlato]

Hello,
are here any players that play game normally ? I mean, that they dont take 2 minutes just to simple pass or just to use one simple action, like add one fish to the card.

I mean, I am nowhere near the TM Genius, but most of my games are: Me watching screen and waiting for one simple turn, that could be played within 10 seconds (like I mentioned earlier).

Are here any players that have similar experience ? I would like to play, for a change, with somebody, that thinks in advance, what to do in next turn and not, dunno, watch "amazing" art on cards (which is one of the worst in board games)

[chaney]

Maybe invite your friends to a game?

[JagarKlato]

Originally posted by chaney:

Maybe invite your friends to a game?

with my friends I play the classic board game. And even there I had to "blacklist" couple of them, due the exact reason I mentioned above

[Ysthrall]

If it takes them a minute to get back from what else they were doing, if they don't have animations sped up, and they watch those, and then think about what it means, and then check through all their cards to remind themselves, and then maybe do one action.... well, it's true to the board game.

Bloody annoying, isn't it....?

I suggest (a) playing vs the computer, or (b) playing on a tighter time limit.

As I find the people who play a 2hr/player game NEED 2 hours to take all their turns....

and while I'm happy with a game of this taking an hour or two, six is way out.

[JagarKlato]

I am fine, if you think about your actions, its the essence of the game after all. But if I have to stare at the screen for 2 minutes and then see the "pass" action, thats beyond annoying.

I played couple of 3 or 4 players games. 30 minutes per player. At the end of the game, I had still 14 minutes left on time, while others had 2-4 minutes. Some games I won, some games I last. But timer was still as I described.

Games agains AI are not challenging at all

[chaney]

The low information availability to players makes this version much worse than the board game. Sometimes you need to alter you actions based on the previous player's actions, and reevaluating that state does take time. In the table top version, you can see everything all the time, and that is not the case with this digital version. This makes planning ahead more difficult.

I'm not saying "be patient" just explaining why the situation is different. For me, understanding "why" sometimes makes it easier to take unpleasant situations. Not everyone thinks the same way. Of course as always, play with those you enjoy playing with. I don't know of a good way to determine this characteristic ahead of time except to use tight timers to dissuade slow players.

[AronFJenks]

Originally posted by JagarKlato:

I am fine, if you think about your actions, its the essence of the game after all. But if I have to stare at the screen for 2 minutes and then see the "pass" action, thats beyond annoying.

I played couple of 3 or 4 players games. 30 minutes per player. At the end of the game, I had still 14 minutes left on time, while others had 2-4 minutes. Some games I won, some games I last. But timer was still as I described.

Games agains AI are not challenging at all

It's a strategy game with somewhat complex strategy. What's the rush? To say that a player should play an entire game on only 14 minutes of clock kind of delegitimizes it as a serious strategy game.

[JagarKlato]

Originally posted by AronFJenks:

Originally posted by JagarKlato:

I am fine, if you think about your actions, its the essence of the game after all. But if I have to stare at the screen for 2 minutes and then see the "pass" action, thats beyond annoying.

I played couple of 3 or 4 players games. 30 minutes per player. At the end of the game, I had still 14 minutes left on time, while others had 2-4 minutes. Some games I won, some games I last. But timer was still as I described.

Games agains AI are not challenging at all

It's a strategy game with somewhat complex strategy. What's the rush? To say that a player should play an entire game on only 14 minutes of clock kind of delegitimizes it as a serious strategy game.

if 5 people play 20 minutes per player, its a 100minutes long game. Game that takes around 10 generations ? so, there is plenty of time to think and then execute on your turn. You can have 2 or 3 plans ready, depends on what players will play, how the temperature/oxygen will move etc

[chaney]

When we play live with 3 or 4 players, we expect the game to run 3 +/-1 hours. We think a long time because the other players do, too, and a satisfying win over such players requires eliminating subtle mistakes. That's fine for us ... I understand many people would be bored with this. I would claim the decision tree is too broad to deeply evaluate as state is changing, although you can do a lot of pruning while it is not your turn.

There is nothing wrong with playing faster, nor playing with more thinking time, but it is important for compatible players to be in the group. Lots of my friends will not play certain games with each other, but happily play others together. Viva variety.

[Roderick]

Jagar, still need a somewhat faster player?

I have seen players not even doing something to finish the game, just building up point generatimg combos. I wonder why someone plays Terraforming Mars with no intention to terraform the Mars.

Since Prelude will come out I think of playing this game again and would be happy about some regular more fast paced players. :)

[chaney]

Originally posted by Roderick:

Jagar, still need a somewhat faster player?

I have seen players not even doing something to finish the game, just building up point generatimg combos. I wonder why someone plays Terraforming Mars with no intention to terraform the Mars.

Since Prelude will come out I think of playing this game again and would be happy about some regular more fast paced players. :)

Are you talking about "faster player" meaning players using strategies that make the game end in a smaller number of generations, which also tends to be fewer actions and less wall clock time? The OP seems to be frustrated with individual turn time being slow, which isn't the same thing.

Terraforming Mars is a game, not an ambition, priority, or virtue ... not even a requirement ... a VP generating strategy is perfectly valid, no?

[Roderick]

Originally posted by chaney:

Are you talking about "faster player" meaning players using strategies that make the game end in a smaller number of generations, which also tends to be fewer actions and less wall clock time? The OP seems to be frustrated with individual turn time being slow, which isn't the same thing.

Terraforming Mars is a game, not an ambition, priority, or virtue ... not even a requirement ... a VP generating strategy is perfectly valid, no?

No, imho it isn't. I think the game is intended to have players who want to see the Mars terraformed, thus playing each turn with this goal in mind. But some players build up excel sheets next to the game, trying to calculate what to do in order to sabotage other most or gain most points. They could literally play this game without end. I had players who build up points and build up points and build up points, counting on OTHER players to end the game some day. I literally (as a try to annoy someone) played something else next to the game, doing nothing to green the mars, and the game run for 4 hours. It was like playing against a bot, not a human. Eventually the other one had to do it themself (with points so high no chance of others to win). Hopefully it was at least a bit frustrating to green the mars - a goal obviously not in mind while playing this game.

In short: If you want to only rack up points to win, play some games which support this. At least I play this game in a way to terraform the Mars AND try to get as much point while doing so. Not to stall this purpose and sabotage other players to accumulate points without doing anythign for the games titled purpose.

[chaney]

I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience, but many games have a deliberate built-in tension between different strategies. If it is merely a race to do as much terraforming as you can as fast as possible, then it becomes luck of the draw with straightforward choices. The Solo version is basically that unless you try to maximize score while also finishing in 14 generations.

Cards like Tardigrades or Physics Lab that accumulate resources for end-game points are certainly incentive for those who play them to act to make the game last as many generations as possible, and their presence would seem intentional.

If you see another player building a VP engine, it really isn't up to them to end the game against their own relative advantage, is it? Even taking a thematic point of view, those in real life frontier development environments can work in different ways ... take to 1849 California Gold Rush as an example. A few prospectors got rich, but plenty of non-prospectors also got rich selling supplies to the hopeful prospectors, or by taking the gold away in exchange for entertainment, or building transportation ...

For most of the groups I play with, we relish TM precisely because it has good tension in this area with enough variety to make individual decisions a good fencing match where reaction to changing game state is required. If we see someone building a better points engine than our own, it's time to "crash the game" by pushing terraforming and game end. But if you start off with no terraforming ability beyond Standard Projects but some good ways to earn points otherwise, why would you want to let the player who can get less expensive terraforming points take the early lead and help them finish before you can catch up?

While some players tend to follow one strategy or the other, in TM you can't win your share of games against good players unless you adapt to your situation.

[JagarKlato]

Originally posted by chaney:

When we play live with 3 or 4 players, we expect the game to run 3 +/-1 hours. We think a long time because the other players do, too, and a satisfying win over such players requires eliminating subtle mistakes. That's fine for us ... I understand many people would be bored with this. I would claim the decision tree is too broad to deeply evaluate as state is changing, although you can do a lot of pruning while it is not your turn.

There is nothing wrong with playing faster, nor playing with more thinking time, but it is important for compatible players to be in the group. Lots of my friends will not play certain games with each other, but happily play others together. Viva variety.

actually yeah, when we play TM on table, its usually 3-4 hours, but thats with all the expansions/promo cards (usually without Turmoil, my group dont like that much, personaly I dont mind). Generaly, 1 hour per player is okay. But on Steam, all the calculations, resource collection is done automatically by computer. You dont even have to look for the right tile, when you want to play something else, beside city/ocean.
But just the base game it should be quicker and extra quick on Steam

[JagarKlato]

Originally posted by Roderick:

Originally posted by chaney:

Are you talking about "faster player" meaning players using strategies that make the game end in a smaller number of generations, which also tends to be fewer actions and less wall clock time? The OP seems to be frustrated with individual turn time being slow, which isn't the same thing.

Terraforming Mars is a game, not an ambition, priority, or virtue ... not even a requirement ... a VP generating strategy is perfectly valid, no?

No, imho it isn't. I think the game is intended to have players who want to see the Mars terraformed, thus playing each turn with this goal in mind. But some players build up excel sheets next to the game, trying to calculate what to do in order to sabotage other most or gain most points. They could literally play this game without end. I had players who build up points and build up points and build up points, counting on OTHER players to end the game some day. I literally (as a try to annoy someone) played something else next to the game, doing nothing to green the mars, and the game run for 4 hours. It was like playing against a bot, not a human. Eventually the other one had to do it themself (with points so high no chance of others to win). Hopefully it was at least a bit frustrating to green the mars - a goal obviously not in mind while playing this game.

In short: If you want to only rack up points to win, play some games which support this. At least I play this game in a way to terraform the Mars AND try to get as much point while doing so. Not to stall this purpose and sabotage other players to accumulate points without doing anythign for the games titled purpose.

Thats nothing unusual. There are certain groups, who like to to that, to collect all the VPs from cards and dont care much about Terraforming. You will win, if you finish the game faster then they expected.
I used to play similar strategy few years back, right after colonies expansion came out. It was easiest way to win - do not play the table, just to build engine. Most of the cities cards are not really worth the price. Since they will get most probably blocked by other tiles and will not fully capitalise on their potential

[AronFJenks]

Originally posted by Roderick:

No, imho it isn't. I think the game is intended to have players who want to see the Mars terraformed, thus playing each turn with this goal in mind.

Well, your humble opinion notwithstanding, the intent of a game is to win the game. If you're expecting anyone to play with any other goal, I think it is you who has gotten the wrong impression.

Originally posted by Roderick:

But some players build up excel sheets next to the game, trying to calculate what to do in order to sabotage other most or gain most points.

Yes. I refer to this as "trying to win the game." You play... to win.... the game! (Some football coach said that in a press conference).

Originally posted by Roderick:

They could literally play this game without end. I had players who build up points and build up points and build up points, counting on OTHER players to end the game some day. I literally (as a try to annoy someone) played something else next to the game, doing nothing to green the mars, and the game run for 4 hours. It was like playing against a bot, not a human. Eventually the other one had to do it themself (with points so high no chance of others to win). Hopefully it was at least a bit frustrating to green the mars - a goal obviously not in mind while playing this game.

Good players will counter this by ending the game a generation sooner than the "engine-builder" needs to maximize his points, leaving him stuck with a few dozen uncashed points in his hand. Strategize. Good players can do it and win consistently. Also, good players aren't specifically an engine builder or terraformer. They lean toward whichever strategy their cards and the situation calls for, sometimes adjusting mid game.

Originally posted by Roderick:

In short: If you want to only rack up points to win, play some games which support this. At least I play this game in a way to terraform the Mars AND try to get as much point while doing so. Not to stall this purpose and sabotage other players to accumulate points without doing anythign for the games titled purpose.

Dude. The rulebook clearly states that the person who scores the most points wins. That is how the game is played. Why would you expect your opponent to rush the terraforming if doing so will guarantee he loses? It sounds like you're the one playing the wrong game, not your opponents. They're playing to win, you're playing to perform as much terraforming as possible. TR is one of SIX components of the final score. Sounds like you'd prefer a game where the winner is simply the person with the highest TR, but that's not how terraforming mars is played.