That means the game doesn't have that much luck. But the ranking for RFTG *is* problematic. I've seen this issue bandied around in these forums since months ago, and maybe this issue has been talked to death, I don't know. They are contributing negative FUN-ness to an otherwise great game, and games, even competitive ones, should be FUN, at least in any format for semi-casual play like BGA provides. Sure, I'm frustrated and have got ego on the line. Go ahead, laugh, but I'm 50 and I've been playing table games, CCG's, and online games for 35 years. You might as well have the rankings be Unlucky, Middlin' Luck, Lucky, etc. E.g., if you don't get the right 6-point developments or consume-ability engine cards, and a player of roughly equal skill does, you will lose, period. I don't know if the system takes into account how high your individual score was, but I doubt it, and it's a shame because why should you lose as many points for a strong, very close finish as for a puny one? And all of this is topped off with a nice dollop of special sauce in how much luck is involved in the game. Then, even when you do have a series of wins, you are getting 9-15 points typically per win, but may well lose double that per loss (there are exceptions, yes, but those are the trends). A large percentage of games are for Good or higher only, so it's hard to find games. I have been trying to eke my way up to 1600 (Good) for a couple weeks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |