- This topic has 245 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just like the “Hijack this thread” at Miniature Trading, this is a place for on-topic Pirates CSG discussion that is random in nature, short in discussion potential, and/or simply doesn’t deserve its own thread.
As lord_denton said:
I just want to put some spark back into the community as we sit around without any community-building-type things going on. So, respond to people’s posts but go on tangents and tangents of tangents, post about random things but do have it somewhat related to the Pirates CSG realm, and have fun! 😀
I’ll start! Why do people think that Wizkids even bothered with a cards-only version of the game back in 2012? Did they really think it would be successful?
As a random note: if you hit the “Subscribe” button in the forum directory chain of links near the top of the forum pages, you should get emails about new topics being created. (I just did for old_man’s new topic) 🙂
I think I’ll repost the above question as a thread sometime soon.
Interesting post from 2005 on the US/UK pack difference.
“We actually made different versions for the two countries. Neither game style is better – the English one is only set up to have two players, but because it’s on a map, they have limited space and are basically forced into fighting each other more. The game is slightly more complicated because of the increased number of dice. The American version is great because you can have tons of players, it’s not as complicated, and the game can be played for a long length of time because the space is not limited.
WizKids, Inc.
Beth Kirschbaum
Customer Service
Front Desk & Supported Conventions Coordinator”
Has anyone in the Pirating community played a PC game titled East India Company? It’s a decent game in the age of sail.
Has anyone in the Pirating community played a PC game titled East India Company? It’s a decent game in the age of sail.
No, but like the dozens of naval and empire video and board games I’d love to play someday, it looks very cool. If Pirates ever comes back or categorically can never come back for some reason, I hope to someday in the distant future have time to play some of them. (Naval Action, Age of Empires, 4X games, etc)
I’ve been watching lots of Sea of Thieves vids lately. I’m sorely wishing I could play that. Alas, my poor laptop would not be able to support it, and getting a PC that does will be EXPENSIVE.
Huzzah! Finally a quick and easy fix! Looking at this solution, all I had to do to enable pagination of thread topics was to disable the threaded/nested reply feature, which I didn’t really like anyway. Right now I’ve set things to have up to 100 threads per forum page, with 30 replies per page. (twice MT’s limit of 15; I may increase the latter a bit if nobody complains about slow load times) Already the Custom Ships thread is loading faster for me. 😀
I’ve been watching lots of Sea of Thieves vids lately. I’m sorely wishing I could play that. Alas, my poor laptop would not be able to support it, and getting a PC that does will be EXPENSIVE.
Yup. You could use the time you use watching the videos to do something to make money instead. But then you might not have time to play the game, or you might have better things to do with the money. 🙂
Some neat things I’ve finally commented on: custom 5 master, customs by cannonfury, French review, another post, another, OmegaTraf on a different forum. Also found some Pirates videos on youtube from WAY back in the day, like 2006-2009. 🙂
Another must-watch video by the great Joseph Vincent. Tom Brady is the Lord of the Rings! Full screen and high volume recommended!
So I remember back on MT there was a discussion (mentioned by Ben I believe) about formulating an “updated” pirates code based upon the the experience and opinions of the present fan base.
There are some examples of modified rule sets form other players http://www.miniaturetrading.com/im/forum/viewtopic/t=5893/highlight=Ruleset//
http://www.miniaturetrading.com/im/forum/viewtopic/t=5449/highlight=Ruleset//
From what I have seen so far there has not been an attempt to modify the existing pirate code in a way that maintains the framework of the games rules but addresses various issues we as fans have come to identify and fix via house rules.
Here is a list of examples of areas in pirates that I continue to see identified as potential issues or lead to problems. (not a comprehensive list)
-Turtle ship keyword and no protection from ramming
-Cargo masters and limit on effect
– A multitude of keywords likely way over( or under) priced
– Fear, SAC, ghost, possession, massacre, …. ect
– Unique ship types often crippled by overpriced abilities (scorpion, switchblade, subs,-“sea monsters” (encompassing all creatures of the ocean, even sharks) and lack of captain ability and price issues
– Ships and the multitude of over/ under price on abilities. (especially for the cursed)
-Events….What are your thoughts on creating an alternative Pirate CSG code that only seeks to balance out and address some of the key issues we routinely see? This would mean alternative point costs for ships and crew (not every piece just the most egregious pieces) as well as modifications of some keywords.
The goal would be to have the community (those present and willing to voice an opinion) vote and discuss how to best change parts of the code and then have Woelf (should he be willing and available) ratify the changes ensuring they improve game play and do not break the game. Ben has already done excellent work surveying the community about the rules and what opinions people have. This will be incredible valuable when attempting to identify key of the code to work on.
This of course would not be official changes to the Wizkids game nor required to be observed by anyone. It would however, provide players (both on vassal and at home) an improved pirates code helping to shore up strategic holes in the game and improve gameplay. I foresee an improvement in factions such as the Cursed where their general tournament weakness may be improved by cheaper point-costs and more realistic keywords.
So I remember back on MT there was a discussion (mentioned by Ben I believe) about formulating an “updated” pirates code based upon the the experience and opinions of the present fan base.
What are your thoughts on creating an alternative Pirate CSG code that only seeks to balance out and address some of the key issues we routinely see?
I like the idea of a “community ruleset” (not so much FAQ, although maybe I said something about that?), but it’s impossible to please everyone. If all somewhat experienced players took the following surveys, it would help towards determining a consensus of sorts.
Rules Survey: https://goo.gl/forms/dDV50a3yVQHVrNG03
Ability Costs Survey: https://goo.gl/forms/MS4gufdXBBSRbqX43
I don’t think the Pirate Code is the problem, the problem is that Wizkids NEEDED a massive FAQ to explain their rules and to even make the game playable on a reasonably complex or competitive level for fairness. I have disagreed with a few things in the PC, but for the most part it makes a lot of sense and has helped me countless times when playing.
It sounds like you’re talking more about a massive rules/game overhaul than just changing how a few specific things work.
This would mean alternative point costs for ships and crew (not every piece just the most egregious pieces) as well as modifications of some keywords.
I still feel that this opens up a can of worms and is difficult to stop. If you make the Banshee’s Cry 10 points, maybe Bloody Jewel is suddenly the best Pirate gold runner. Should she go up in cost too? It might help curb some of the blatantly OP game pieces, but it would probably just make others replace them. I’m more in favor of simply banning events, and then discussing with your opponents prior to the game whether it will be more towards competitive or casual. (so the fleets aren’t unbalanced to an extreme)
I foresee an improvement in factions such as the Cursed where their general tournament weakness may be improved by cheaper point-costs and more realistic keywords.
I can’t speak for Woelf of course, but him and I would both agree that the Cursed don’t need to suddenly be viable for competitive tournaments. They just kinda stink in small games, and I’m fine with that. It’s good to have unique factions, and the Cursed are arguably the most unique in a lot of ways. I wouldn’t want to lose that by basically giving them steroids like some custom creators have done. 🙂 (I know I have a lot of crazy Cursed customs, but they’re mostly gimmicky or ludicrously expensive, not so much competitive/cheap stuff)
I’m fine with making the keywords have more realistic costs when making customs (Fear at 2 instead of 6 for example), but trying to retcon existing WK stuff gets confusing in a hurry, and starts to invalidate all sorts of stuff like fleets at MT, the database/Master Spreadsheet, etc etc. Also, the Cursed are more viable in large/campaign games, and giving them cheap gold runners and whatnot would make them much more like other factions in those games in addition to tournament relevance. Outside of (in my opinion) France and Spain, the factions are all quite different with their own strengths and weaknesses, and I’m just one of those people in the camp that is fine with things staying that way. I never really hear about people playing competitive tournaments anymore either, so unless there was a restart, I think fun and engaging customs are more important than boosting underpowered stuff that Wizkids made. 🙂
I like my Basic Rules, and at this point it’s hard to see myself purposely going away from that to conform to a “community ruleset” that I might never use if people don’t want to or can’t play on VASSAL anyway. At this point it seems like everyone has their own rulesets or preferred house rules, so a lot of things would be hard to iron out. Even if something was “finalized”, people coming back to the community in a year or an influx of new players might completely disagree with a lot of the changes made. You’d also have serious confusion for new players not knowing what to look at, and there’s already more than one rules document to look at when trying to play a game. (I tried to improve that somewhat by combining the best of the Start Here rules with the Complete Game rules, but the Code is important too)
Sorry to kinda be debbie downer or whatever it’s called. I think it’s an idea worth discussing, just one that may not result in much of a consensus or participation rate. I do think it warrants its own thread, so if you want I could perhaps work some kind of forum magic to make it appear that way.
This project would be a massive undertaking so I don’t take your hesitation as a debbie downer or anything. You make some good points and many of them I agree with. I don’t think the factions should all be balanced or similar. Their uniqueness is something I greatly enjoy and at times wish was even more pronounced. Nor do the cursed require a face lift to make them stand equal to the other factions.
I’ve been re-listening to several of the review podcasts where one of the most common complaints said about ships or keywords are their illogical point costs. (that is why this idea came to mind) I do find the idea of balancing a few of the keywords enticing just for the potential to unlock strategies that are hamstrung (and therefore never used really) for regular or campaign gameplay. You have said yourself that the cost of musketeers and marines should be changed and would make their use more tenable. This is just one of the many example I can think of where certain strategies could become a more realistic option and others (thinking cargo masters, trade currents, UPS, ect) made harder to exploit.
As I finish this post I am coming to terms with what you already mentioned and agree this is not likely to be the best approach. <span style=”background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #000000; font-family: ‘Helvetica Neue’, Helvetica, Arial, ‘Lucida Grande’, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;”> </span>
<span style=”background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #000000; font-family: ‘Helvetica Neue’, Helvetica, Arial, ‘Lucida Grande’, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;”>At this point it seems like everyone has their own rulesets or preferred house rules, so a lot of things would be hard to iron out. Even if something was “finalized”, people coming back to the community in a year or an influx of new players might completely disagree with a lot of the changes made.</span>
People who want these changes already have made them house rules. Perhaps a forum page should be dedicated to rule change suggestions? (this then goes against your policy of preferring personal database archiving and not relying on WordPress, photobucket, MT, ect which I am definitely coming around to)
In conclusion a forum discussing people’s opinions on suggested pointcosts, rule tweaks, and other such questions would be useful for new players and veterans alike. (the facebook group has had several questions posted already so it might be a good forum for both to have)
I’ve been re-listening to several of the review podcasts where one of the most common complaints said about ships or keywords are their illogical point costs.
Thanks for that! It’s flattering to hear that anyone has gotten through some of the longer podcasts more than once.
Perhaps a forum page should be dedicated to rule change suggestions?
Sounds good. I might have time to start that today. Sometimes it just gets complicated to determine what is being talked about – rule changes vs. point cost changes vs. Pirate Code/etc changes (changes to how the original official rules are interpreted without changing the original rules).
Also, I forgot to mention in my initial reply two others things that make me hesitant. For one, I’ve got a lot of other big long-term Pirates CSG projects I’m already working on or would prefer to work on. Second, between the rules of CG4, the Caribbean game, and Game Ideas, I already have a lot of alternative rules things to test out and find what I like best/etc. I’d rather play (and have fun testing various rules/rulesets) than come up with even more rules alternatives (the World/Caribbean game rulesets was already a massive undertaking in that regard, and is still basically untested…), but finding time and players for campaign games has only gotten more difficult. If a potential relaunch was more possible or imminent, my tone would be a bit different I think.
I think it is important when talking about these things to distinguish between community rules and “official” rules (Pirates Code is for all intents and purposes, official). Oftentimes when a game goes out of print, is discontinued, or loses support, the player community (if it survives discontinuation of the game) will group together to create and maintain a community rule set. This was the case for many Games Workshop games (Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Battlefleet Gothic, etc) before a recent company push to bring some of these games back.
A community ruleset is nice because it allows the active player community to make necessary balance changes/rulings for games where the company failed to do so. This could attract players to the game as it shows that the playerbase is active enough to keep playing and improving the game. And as long as the community ruleset is kept entirely separate and distinguishable from the original ruleset, there should be no confusion for new/current players.
I know this isn’t technically Pirates CSG, but I can’t help but share 3D printing/etc news occasionally because of how it could relate to bringing back the game in some form in the future. Interesting to think about the possibilities if the production costs weren’t such a big hurdle to overcome.
https://www.diamandis.com/blog/convergence-catalyzer-3d-printing
(Not to mention Peter Diamandis and his projects could use more attention in general.)
I’m excited to say that I am planning to finally play a few physical games again. As of now my plan is to play one physical solo game per month for the next 3 months (no promises though). Might not sound like much, but I’m planning to put a potentially inordinate amount of effort into each game and its associated battle report. Hoping to debut a new thing or two and possibly mark a personal “first” in the BR realm of it.
First game will probably be 5-7 fleets at 60 points, another game with 4 fleets at 100 points (in a possibly futile attempt to recreate magic), and possibly a game at over 100 points with 4 or more fleets.
PS: The Zeus will be loose. XD
Post by Holofernes at MT quoting Tiffany O’Brien saying there was a 15th set planned for after Return to Savage Shores, predicted to be released around September 2009.
Random underrated ship – Centurion from PotC.
Never hear anyone talk about this ship, but she’s a great budget hybrid. Reasonably strong in all areas except speed.
Got this tip on repairing mast breaks from one of the players I taught. The closer the break is to the bottom of the mast, the better this method works. You can simply snip off a little piece on each side of the remaining large part of the mast until it fits into the slot. In some cases the end result can look like nothing happened, with the mast just a negligible amount lower.
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>
Random underrated ship – Centurion from PotC.
Never hear anyone talk about this ship, but she’s a great budget hybrid. Reasonably strong in all areas except speed.
I think my Pirates used he briefly in last yeas CoEC, she was part of a battle squadron that the Pirates put together to attack either the Cursed or the Spanish.
I agree, she’s reasonably good in all areas, but I don’t think I’d use he as a hybrid. With the offensive ability and decent cannons, I’d go full gunship with her, captain, helmsman, musketeer, cannoneer, use all 4 cargo spots.
</div>
I agree, she’s reasonably good in all areas, but I don’t think I’d use he as a hybrid. With the offensive ability and decent cannons, I’d go full gunship with her, captain, helmsman, musketeer, cannoneer, use all 4 cargo spots.
Hmm. I just find that really impractical for the points, at least in most games. Outside of a campaign game, I’d much rather have the 5 points from the musketeer and cannoneer on a different ship so I could have captain+helmsman on another ship. To me it’s more practical to keep some cargo open for gold, while also saving points.
It would be interesting if Wizkids had priced things more accurately around the captain and helmsman abilities. In terms of relative value, I think musketeers and cannoneers would have to be 1 point each. That would make it a harder decision when on some kind of budget.
Ever since my group saw the unique crew trevor(spacing on his full name) we decided to make musketeers 2 points not 3
Ever since my group saw the unique crew trevor(spacing on his full name) we decided to make musketeers 2 points not 3
That’s a good house rule. It also makes it a harder choice between a musketeer and cannoneer. I suppose if the game was restarted it could be made better with a complete costing overhaul. (generic crew, ships, etc)
Here is a random question… Have any of you been crazy enough to play against sleigh/whitebeard on Christmas Eve? XD?
Here is a random question… Have any of you been crazy enough to play against sleigh/whitebeard on Christmas Eve?
Haha no! I did play a game on Christmas Eve 2017, but I don’t even have the Sleigh and Whitebeard. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of at least one other Pirates CSG community member doing that in the past though.
Former Wizkids Communication Manager Jason Mical’s LinkedIn profile says:
Developed and executed a traditional and new media PR campaign for a new game with expected lifetime sales of $400,000; the game became an evergreen product that grossed $3,000,000 per year.
Can’t help but wonder if that’s about Pirates…. O_O Certainly interesting to do some serious “digging” around the internet for info about stuff. Would be cool to somehow get some financial data about the game. (not that it’s referencing Pirates CSG, but at $3.99/pack that comes out to 750,000+ packs in a year! 2 ships/pack=1.5million, x~4.5 years of production=6.5+ million ships produced? XD)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.