An original game turn for example was like “what pick action can I take to get me closer to this recipe before someone else, and if i cant take the action i want bcs i cant repeat it then what pick action can i take that causes chaos for everyone else?” Additionally if the recipe i want is now gone, how can I spend what im left with to either pivot to something else OR make what i working on “better” for more point to make up for the points i “lost” out on. I need to cash these chips out to make room for more chips bcs im limited to 3 storage patterns. Thematically the chef is struggling to stay organized amongst all the chaos bcs the competition all share the same resources and the game clock is ticking down. Come to think of it, there was a kart off to the side btwn the jars and the trays where up to 4 of your leftovers went with no restrictions, but they just made the leftovers universal and stay out on the table. The tools let you “alchemy” and manipulate your ingredients but you had to spend your baking points (coins) to do so, which was the win condition, most points/coins after like 4-7 recipes or whatever. But you could still win with fewer recipes bcs you may not have spent any coins or spruced up your fewer recipes etc. Idk the player interaction is cut way way down and the decision space is much less consequential.

Hi, this is Yoma. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the game. As far as I understand, you are a playtester of the previous version, and I guess we don't know each other, right? For those who may not know, I was one of the co-designers of the original game and the artist of it. I really wished that the first version was so good that we could just release it as is and not do any extra work. Unfortunately, we had some serious problems with the things you mention here, and we saw this as an opportunity to fix them. To explain what I mean, please allow me to list the reasons behind these changes: 1) The previous storage system was much more restrictive and punitive. In many cases while targeting an difficult recipe with many ingredients, you were literally stuck and had to "clean your bench" to get new ingredients, meaning you had to discard some of your chips to get nothing back. This, combined with only 4 available recipes and the lack of gray ingredients, created an unfortunate experience where a player would start collecting ingredients for a specific recipe (spending 2-3 turns), only to be scored by another player along the way, leaving them with a full bench of resources they couldn't use. Also, changing strategy to target a new recipe was nearly impossible. You would have to discard ingredients to make room, and spend a few more turns to take new ingredients. Fun fact, while you were doing the above, the second recipe you were targeting could also be taken! These things are facts that happened during the playtests, and the player who experienced them wouldn't have a good time. 2)The tools were always available to you, so before you started the game you had to check all of their actions to be ready to activate any of them by spending coins. This caused a lot of downtime for players and a higher learning curve. Chef abilities were optional, which seemed like a missed opportunity for the Baking competition theme of this game to not be represented by a chef character. Lastly, there were no awards in the game at all, which made the final scoring pretty straightforward, with no dilemmas. 3) You mentioned that there was no reserve in the old version, but there was. There was an open tool you could use to reserve a recipe. The actual rules were "Reserve a recipe card and place it partially under your player tray. You can bake it during any of your turns during the game." We felt that this rule was pretty basic, so we tried to give players a twist by using this reserved recipe to get an immediate bench benefit, but at the same time strategize the specific time it takes to complete it. 4) Leftovers were created for two reasons. As a coin generator and as a source of ingredients that doesn't make a mess and therefore doesn't help other players. We understand that it might feel undervalued at first, but I would argue that it is not weak, but conditional. Regarding the tray system and the old picking actions, you were basically doing the same thing with 4 different variations. 1. Pick ingredients and make a mess 2. Take ingredients and make a double mess 3. Swap an ingredient from a neighboring bowl, then take ingredients and make a mess 4) Finally, pick 2 ingredients from 2 different bowls without making a mess, and it was mandatory to use them all (one per turn) in any order you wanted before they all recharged again. That felt pretty much the same, so we basically kept a basic pick ingredient action and tried to add more interesting action choices for players during their turn. 5) Regarding the timer, you did a good job of describing the problems with it. Baking isn't for all recipes (thematically, some don't need to go in the oven), so it's now prep time. Giving players the option to decide how much time they want to spend preparing a dessert feels much more rewarding and adds to the momentum of the game, rather than using fixed timers for each recipe that only gives you their rewards once they are prepared. 6) I explained how punishing making recipes used to be in Note 1. Having only 4 recipes available at all times, with no gray ingredients, caused a lot of unhappy moments when someone could easily reserve the recipe you wanted just to block you. I don't agree with the statement that the only things that are similar to the old version are the chips and the trays. We tried really hard to stay true to the aesthetics of the old version and be sure that if we had no restrictions, we would change even more things. That was the hardest thing for us. Keeping the balance between what was there and the new elements we wanted to implement. Sometimes it's just easier to build a new house than to renovate an old one. Even if the old version was somehow proven to be worse than the current one, some people might still be more emotionally attached to it without giving the new one a chance. I can sympathize with those feelings, but I would encourage those who have commented here that they will sell it without even trying it to give it a try and decide for themselves if they like it or not. Overall, we still believe that the version we will deliver to backers is much more fun, and enjoyable. The previous version would probably not get a Seal of Approval, and we are very happy that Tom enjoyed it so much. We really appreciated Chris and Wendy's comments, and overall we thought for a moment that they were enjoying the game more. Wearing my designer's hat, I personally just wish that their scores were closer to 7, as some of their criticisms are debatable in my humble opinion, but it is what it is :) The bottom line is that any productive criticism is appreciated, and we are eager for the backer to get their game on the table and start sharing their "sweet" thoughts about it!

I gave up on this game a while back. No idea if I will even be getting it or not. But I hope those that do enjoy it.

Hi there. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. A nice way to mitigate the effect you explain in your complain, is that whenever you are about to prepare a recipe, place the ingredients on the table above your player tray, aligned with each of the slot you picked them from. This way if you ever make a mistake, you can easily place them back in the correct slots of your player tray.

Hello there. This is Yoma. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and sorry if we did not meet your expectations. I have listed the reasons for the changes we made in a detailed comment below. You might want to take a look. Cheers.

I agree. It's very much a next level Splendor with a much better theme. I'm a little over Splendor, so this is a welcome addition, and I think my kids will enjoy it.

They obviously played more fiddly heavy euros, but they meant fiddly for a game this light. Every comment you post on dice Tower is so passive aggressive to drive engagement to your channel!

@@12345678abracadabra Despite all the praising of the game in question and no linking. You've tried that statement before, it really doesn't work at all. 🤦 @curious - yeah I reckon your kids will go for it, aesthetically it's already going to pull them in.

His name is a string of numbers and a magic saying, I wouldn't worry about the troll BM, keep up the great work! 😅 I've played it a few times, only one person struggled with picking it up but in fairness she struggles to pick up most games, even the simple ones but she still enjoyed it none the less. The rest of us didn't find it fiddly really.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Luke! It's great to know you liked it as much as Tom does :)

Nobody knew this guy was going to be "that guy" for you to believe that influences know how someone is going to operate with hundreds of thousands of dollars is absolutely ridiculous. Some company's are crooked period.

@@jhowd78 dude you did content for him while he had three bad KS projects outstanding

@theshogunstein6475 well I did not can you show me a video with my face? Especially qhen I joke on every video about that game. Nor would I knowing that. People back CMON and publishers like this all the time and no one bats an eye. It was a different time.

@@jhowd78 yes or no did you make a hype video of Manchuko when the KS campaign was going on?

@@jhowd78 yes or no did he, while he had taken money over at least three other KS projects, send you a copy of Manchuko which you did content for, possibly "influencing" people to back his project despite not delivering on Sweet Mess, Montana, and at least one other game?