@Gankatron 5000 he played more than the rest, who played once This is a game that experienced players discard after one game. But enjoy more after subsequent plays. I already saw 2 of my 5 usual players do this ;). But they don't love it, jut like it

💯

@@Polovene I recently (FINALLY) got this to the table, twice in a row even, and had a similar experience, where there was some floundering in the first game, then for the second I chose a more complex rogue and put the "boring" townsfolk back in the box, then it seemed like everyone enjoyed that second game so much more. Don't think I'll ever use the "basic" setup again.

I totally agree, Jenn. I've played all four characters from the base game and had a blast with them. This is a game to watch, especially with the variety to be had here. This design is so unique that it offers a number of mechanics but only focuses the players on one major mechanic at a time. For some that might be boring, but for others it might be just enough that it's not overwhelming.

Well there are definently bad games. If a board game had me chucking a rock at the other players to score points, think we can say its bad.

Candyland, but the theme is the Holocaust?

Mike just taking his rightful place at the head of the table.

So happy to hear feedback like this. Definitely was hoping that households and newer game groups could sit down and find their favorite merchants and have an accessible light weight euro experience, and something with a unique twist. Obviously the low scores from Tom and Zee sting a bit but we are so happy this is finding a warm reception with players. Thank you Mike for digging down a couple layers in to the more subtle main board / market strategy and fun factor of the “gimmick.” ;)

Agree. The boat mechanism and the strategy behind WHEN you dock, with which customer composition, and where you dock it, is generally what people love most. How you run your shop and produce goods is directly tethered to that strategy too. If other people dock, you need to adjust. And you’ve also got the townsfolk and guild halls to consider. So that was the most surprising negative feedback for me personally. We’ve been finding that 1st time players focus a lot on their personal shop and almost find the market strategy to be secondary or just “going through the motions” but that’s how you lose ;). Granted that’s a fair critique of the design too, if that’s what’s happening to first time players. So I am taking that in to my brain.

But what about after you have had a coupe of games with each "side"? Would you rate the different characters differently as a fun factor? I really dislike the idea of 3 people having fun but the 4th one being bored out of his mind.

@@zippystar well that can happen with any game with starting powers or goals. Scythe my favorite game of all time has them and there are two I prefer and a couple that are a hard pass. I of course enjoy the game more when I get the ones I prefer. That does not mean I like the game less because of it.

Agree hate Terra mystica

Absolutely. This game to me is anti Terra mystica: it's gorgeous, quick, light and fun Terra mystica is a game for those who feel that want to show they are 'smart players'.. Then when they play a lot, they do bidding for first player and ban races. That says plenty

I’d like this twice if I could. I love hearing all the stories of this being a hit with families. That was a big design goal, that it would be accessible for a wide range of players. I didn’t set out to design a “gimmick” of course, I wanted to provide a new experience for a broad base. Thank you 🙏.

This

They have to matter on a per game basis for it to make sense. Look at Root for instance. Otherwise they have to make sure each "mini-game" stands up on its own without player interaction and while being worth the much more difficult teach, and that's an extremely difficult task they're not likely to achieve.

@@corvus418 It is a more difficult game to teach, and maybe it's not a game for casual groups that want to play game once and be done with it. But for a group that plays the games multiple times this also give everyone a bit different way to play the game each time.

Indeed but I can see their point about the multiplayer solitaire problem. Having four very distinct factions that don't interact at all does dilute the necessity to have them be different in the first place. And if each faction is just essentially a mini version of a game that's already done it and possibly better, what else do you focus on?

@@TheBrokenMeeple The main market / boats / townsfolk / clock / guildhall are all points of interaction, of varying degrees. When you pull meeples (the clock), where you place them and how you dock them, reacting to others doing the same, building up your tableau and shop engine with the townsfolk, and unlocking sponsorships to best match the guild hall populations (both positive points and negative / corruption points). Much of the secret stash content will ramp this up, and also help adjust luck / agency factors to various tastes. The point of the mini games being different is because it's fun, not necessary. One of the unique elements that players like most about the game is exploring the various merchants, their mini games, and seeing who can win the most with each merchant within the main market. Some will say that's a gimmick (fair), but the intent was innovative fun. Personally I think excessive arbitrary minis are a gimmick, some love them. ;) No, it's not a heavy weight. It not a wargame, and the merchants can't ransack other shops or impact opposing shops directly (lots of people would find that unfun).

Since nobody has replied to you I’ll jump in. Thebes and Auztralia come to mind for games I like that have a time track.

Glen More is an excellent time track game.

Good comments. As someone who likes potion explosion and this, I would say, If you didn't like potion explosion, this wont change that. It's, like they said, a "mini game" version. I agree though, their expectations wrecked it for them. It was what I expected, and I loved it.

Yeah, but multiple plays within the exact same group of people, in this day and age, that's not an easy thing to manage. Frequently you'll have new players or have to take time between games and the inherent nature of a true assymetrical game is that if one player doesn't know what they're doing, the balance is thrown off. It's one I want to try, but I wasn't hyped for it.

Heh, certainly not true, or I would rate almost all games a very low score.

@@thedicetower 😂

Being blunt, if you are expecting a heavy game, or a wargame like Root, it may not be your cup of tea. The Innkeeper, Dragon Rancher, and Chronomancer will have the most agency but the "higher luck" characters will - as intended - often have lower floors and higher ceilings. The hope was to let players rotate, experiment, and find their "mercantile jam," while letting fun balance disputes percolate. ;) Whether or not you like the central interactions around the loading, docking, and adjustment to boats - I do not know, but in our experience lots of people do. When and where you dock, and how you adjust to other people loading and docking (by running your shop!) is the central game. You also need to grab the right Townsfolk to build a proper tableau, and adjust to the guildhalls populations. If the boat-loading feels too random for your tastes, or you want more boat manipulation, we've built lots of ways to adjust that in the Secret Stash. There are some good convos on BGG around that occurring too. Hope you end up liking.

It sounds like Tom was too focused on his mini-game and not paying attention to the timing of his actions on the main board. Your own actions dictate when you people on a boat. There are times you need to focus on when other players get ahead of you and might rigger the end of the round. That’s where the true interaction is.

The point of Merchants Cove =/= the point of Root. They are radically different approaches to asymmetry. I love Root, but we weren't trying to do what Root does. One of the goals of the design was to be able to play without knowing how your opponent works, but still being able to interact with them via a shared market dynamic. This game 100% cannot be played as an optimization game - you must adapt and respond to the shared market.

@@drakevillareal7772 Okay, makes sense! My first thought was that the asymmetry is sort of "wasted" if everyone is normalized before interacting at the market, but I get what you're saying and it would be quite a hurdle (like it is in Root) if you had to first learn how everyone else works. Thanks for the reply and sorry for sounding a bit rude.

@@pajander No worries! Thanks for the interest in the game :)

It does matter what the others are doing. Tom and Zee must have been playing poorly by letting their opponents control the ships, therefore the market. The central board is entirely player interaction. Timing your actions can absolutely halt what your opponents are trying to do and help your strategy.

Sure! But also, we are all vaccinated.

Tom has discussed this in a previous 4 Square comment. If Mike were to review this on his own and gave it a Seal of Excellence, you wouldn't know what everyone else's score was. We don't average any other reviews. I ga e On Mars a 9, everyone else doesn't even want to play it. What should that average out to? Haha

@@DTChrisYi Honestly, it comes down to the level of trust we have in the process. If we accept Mike as trustworthy of distinguishing what deserves a Seal of Approval vs a Seal of Excellence (and we do accept that), and Mike truly believes in his heart of hearts that this deserves the rare diasctintion of the Seal of Excellence, then so be it. But flip it around, what if you had three high scores and one really low one? The low score wouldn’t prevent the Seal being given. Why does the high score win in this case, but the low score doesn’t also stop it? Given this disparity, it’s hard to accept that outlier high scores be counted as such in this context (emphasis on “in this context”). I think given that you are four people who are doing a four-person review, it needs a four-person score. Or at the very least, the final slate on your video should be couched with the dice cartoon face of each person and their rating including any seals as applicable. That context would help.

@@DullDishwater The high score wins out in both of your cases, so that's how we've decided to make things consistent. I know it can't be consistent in all ways, but it still feels useful to the viewer. We do show the scores as each person gives them, so viewers can see who gives each score there. It's fairly close to your recommendation, so people can see who particularly gave it which score.

@@DullDishwater... its impossible to please everyone. If you think a game deserving of a SoE needs to have the majority of Dice Tower employees rating it high, when TDT is already a small group of people in a subsection of a niche of a hobby... I don't know what to tell you. Really in the grand scheme of things with millions of gamers, how much of a difference is it between 1 person saying "Excellent!" instead of 3 saying it?

@@keel1701 perhaps it’s just the disparity in the different rankings here that give me pause. Three quarters of them say it was ok at best and one says it’s amazing and therefore one of the most influential groups in the hobby label it amazing? Just…odd.

Yes, and people keep watching on smaller and smaller screens. We'd like to do 4K, but there isn't a huge outcry for it, and it would cause our upload and rendering time to be 5x as long.

If you ask me to play Red Rising, I would. If you ask me to play Merchant' Cove, I'd pass. No discrepancy.

As for me giving both a 6.5, I'd play both again. I've had amazingly fun games of Red Rising, and I've had real clunkers. The game could be really good, but it ebs between a great play and a really rough play. How do you exactly compare that to a game that is consistently good but not great? Both are 6.5s, but that number is not the end-all-be-all of the review. I'd hope the discussion throughout matters more :)

​@@DTChrisYi ​ Thank you for the responce and setting my mind at ease. As I said love the discussion and you all hit on the right subjects/objects and I wholeheartedly agree that is what matters more.

​@@thedicetower I can agree with that logic :D I just wanted both of these games to be so good... but both failing... Then again I want all games to be great :D. Thanks for taking time to respong to me. Can't wait fot the next 4 squares!

This is how it always works. Think if Mike had done the review by himself, and given it the seal. You wouldn't have thought twice about it. Just because three other people showed up doesn't negate his rating.

The seal is not an average of the scores.

Seals are always assigned based on the highest score given by any one of them. This has been brought up on multiple occasions. Not saying it’s 100% the right way but any game done as a multi person review would be affected differently than a review done by one of them.

It’s not an average, every person has their own opinion and one of them thought it deserved the seal.

Mike IS The Dice Tower.

The average of a set of opinions is not itself an opinion.