17 hours ago, falveryn said:

Heard somewhere else that they were hiring more digital experts. Also, the game is in BGG's top 20, so it would be a really bad idea to throw out such a game.

My guess is that their digital team is spread out very thin, and since this game requires digital content, the releases are spread far apart.

I'm more optimistic and hope a big box expansion is on the way (a ~$50 one). It would be better to base predictions on previous Arkham board games, like AH and EH. Those games introduce a little bit of everything and a big new mechanic in their big boxes, and just a little bit of everything in the small ones. I'd like to see major wounded conditions.

I love how the 'small' beyond the threshold expansion adds to the first scenario. I would like to see most expansions adding a little bit of content to previous scenarios, to slowly but surely add replayability or even twists to the existing content.

So, my wish list is:

-Big box expansion priced at around $50.

-A handful of investigators, monsters and tiles

-A ton of cards

-A brand new, major mechanic: major wound condition or great old one fight, along with a big scary mini. The great old ones could also manifest themselves as an effect to the game rather than a fight.

-More difficulty options for the same scenario: more monsters spawn, you have less time, and what not.

-More alternate endings. If you have more evidence and less people died you could unlock a better ending.

-Cutscenes. Eugene could have his own cutscene, same for meeting Vanderbilt.

If we follow existing content, a small box brings a bit of everything plus about a half to a quarter of the core content (2 investigators, 2 scenarios). The core has 8/4 but is more expensive. A big box could bring 4/3.

Holy crap. Totally predicted the expansion, investigators, scenarios, price, new mechanic.

43 minutes ago, falveryn said:

Holy crap. Totally predicted the expansion, investigators, scenarios, price, new mechanic.

Yeah, I was laughing my *** off while reading how accurate some predictions were. Hope all the miscreants are happy

Just now, Julia said:

Yeah, I was laughing my *** off while reading how accurate some predictions were. Hope all the miscreants are happy

BGG's top 20, many prints in a year, no way FFG would drop it

On 6/19/2017 at 4:17 PM, KBlumhardt said:

I'm at the point where I think MoM2E is basically dead as well. No new content or announced content for over 6 months for a game that was built to NEED a steady stream of new scenarios to keep people interested feels like FFG has given up to me. My plan right now is to play a few of the scenarios a couple more times each, and then to sell the game off to clear up some space in my collection.

And then this happened!

I'm happy to see the expansion, but for me, it might be too little, too late. If one expansion with a few new toys and 3 scenarios is all we're going to get every 10-12 months (considering SoA is a Q4 release)... I'm out. That said, I'll try one or two of the new scenarios at Arkham Nights this year (as I'm guessing they'll debut one or two there), and then decide whether to get this expansion and think about sticking with the game.

This expansion looks awesome! However, I hope we get another DLC before then.

4 hours ago, KBlumhardt said:

I'm happy to see the expansion, but for me, it might be too little, too late. If one expansion with a few new toys and 3 scenarios is all we're going to get every 10-12 months (considering SoA is a Q4 release)... I'm out. That said, I'll try one or two of the new scenarios at Arkham Nights this year (as I'm guessing they'll debut one or two there), and then decide whether to get this expansion and think about sticking with the game.

I'd rather look at the game in a different way: in the last 11 months we had 9 scenarios published, and 3 more announced, so, it doesn't look like the game is getting not so much attention. We know for sure that in the remainder of the year we'll be getting at least 3 more scenarios, which will bring the total to 12 scenarios published (minimum) over 18 months. If we take an average coop LCG, over 18 months we get something around 18 new scenarios (sometimes less - see LotR, which had pauses and months were nightmare decks only were released and nightmare ain't exactly everyone's cup of tea). And LCG have devoted designers / developers and a lot of testers, so, they are another kettle of fish regardless.

I'd like to stress that developing Mansions is not so easy: it's not only a question of software coding (which requires time), but it's also a question that the public wouldn't be wanting to see stories repeating over and over all the time. So, it can't be a mass production. Testing Mansions is also quite a task, because each scenario needs to be played several times to adjust the story, the clocks, the difficulty with variable number of investigators; and then you have to work on different maps and trying to debug it as much as possible. So, it's long, but in the end, the product's rather solid.

So, I think it's better quality over quantity, since both don't seem likely to happen. But clearly I understand if people want something different (more scenario, alternate stories and so on); then, clearly, for them, probably Mansions 2nd isn't the right game.

Just my 0.2, of course

33 minutes ago, Julia said:

I'd rather look at the game in a different way: in the last 11 months we had 9 scenarios published, and 3 more announced, so, it doesn't look like the game is getting not so much attention. We know for sure that in the remainder of the year we'll be getting at least 3 more scenarios, which will bring the total to 12 scenarios published (minimum) over 18 months. If we take an average coop LCG, over 18 months we get something around 18 new scenarios (sometimes less - see LotR, which had pauses and months were nightmare decks only were released and nightmare ain't exactly everyone's cup of tea). And LCG have devoted designers / developers and a lot of testers, so, they are another kettle of fish regardless.

I'd like to stress that developing Mansions is not so easy: it's not only a question of software coding (which requires time), but it's also a question that the public wouldn't be wanting to see stories repeating over and over all the time. So, it can't be a mass production. Testing Mansions is also quite a task, because each scenario needs to be played several times to adjust the story, the clocks, the difficulty with variable number of investigators; and then you have to work on different maps and trying to debug it as much as possible. So, it's long, but in the end, the product's rather solid.

So, I think it's better quality over quantity, since both don't seem likely to happen. But clearly I understand if people want something different (more scenario, alternate stories and so on); then, clearly, for them, probably Mansions 2nd isn't the right game.

Just my 0.2, of course

So a scenario about every 45 days. That's a good way of looking at it.

1 hour ago, Julia said:

I'd rather look at the game in a different way: in the last 11 months we had 9 scenarios published, and 3 more announced, so, it doesn't look like the game is getting not so much attention. We know for sure that in the remainder of the year we'll be getting at least 3 more scenarios, which will bring the total to 12 scenarios published (minimum) over 18 months. If we take an average coop LCG, over 18 months we get something around 18 new scenarios (sometimes less - see LotR, which had pauses and months were nightmare decks only were released and nightmare ain't exactly everyone's cup of tea). And LCG have devoted designers / developers and a lot of testers, so, they are another kettle of fish regardless.

I'd like to stress that developing Mansions is not so easy: it's not only a question of software coding (which requires time), but it's also a question that the public wouldn't be wanting to see stories repeating over and over all the time. So, it can't be a mass production. Testing Mansions is also quite a task, because each scenario needs to be played several times to adjust the story, the clocks, the difficulty with variable number of investigators; and then you have to work on different maps and trying to debug it as much as possible. So, it's long, but in the end, the product's rather solid.

So, I think it's better quality over quantity, since both don't seem likely to happen. But clearly I understand if people want something different (more scenario, alternate stories and so on); then, clearly, for them, probably Mansions 2nd isn't the right game.

Just my 0.2, of course

That would be fine... if FFG maintained the average somewhere around there. However, the game releases were heavily front-loaded, and if the 10-12 month gap between BtT and SoA is going to be typical, that average is going to drop really quickly. In my opinion, the quality necessary to make up for that kind of lack of quantity would have to be far beyond what we've seen with the expansion content thus far.

The main (if not the only) reason we got more at the start is the "import" from the first edition. Without it, this would be a whole different story altogether, apparently.

Your problem is now the quality? - Didn't you say the quantity was your main gripe?

What exactly is this quality issue we are talking about now?

10 minutes ago, Lorinor said:

The main (if not the only) reason we got more at the start is the "import" from the first edition. Without it, this would be a whole different story altogether, apparently.

Your problem is now the quality? - Didn't you say the quantity was your main gripe?

What exactly is this quality issue we are talking about now?

Assuming you're talking to me... I never said I had a problem with the quality of what we've gotten so far. I was simply responding to Julia's "quality over quantity" argument by say that in my opinion the quality of the expansion content would have to be insanely amazing to make up for the lack of quantity if we're only going to get a new release with a small number of scenarios for the game every 10-12 months.

2 hours ago, KBlumhardt said:

Assuming you're talking to me... I never said I had a problem with the quality of what we've gotten so far. I was simply responding to Julia's "quality over quantity" argument by say that in my opinion the quality of the expansion content would have to be insanely amazing to make up for the lack of quantity if we're only going to get a new release with a small number of scenarios for the game every 10-12 months.

Yep, on this we agree. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, and the prolonged pause before SoA is quite curious. I was just trying to look at the overall balance of the game in terms of releases. Even with such a long hiatus in announcements, Mansions is one of the lines receiving more love from the company (Descent for example has not been receiving news for quite a long time).

Also: the way we enjoy a game is very subjective. I'd not be able to play Mansions consistently for more than 3-4 weeks straight, for example, while on the other hand I've played 200 games of LotR in less than 10 months, so, I don't see paucity of releases as an issue. But it's 100% fine if some would like to play a lot more, and have a greater variety in a game. I think the release frequency and the way the game changes and mantains its entertaining functions in relation to our needs are key parameters in how we enjoy a game.

9 minutes ago, Julia said:

Yep, on this we agree. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, and the prolonged pause before SoA is quite curious. I was just trying to look at the overall balance of the game in terms of releases. Even with such a long hiatus in announcements, Mansions is one of the lines receiving more love from the company (Descent for example has not been receiving news for quite a long time).

Also: the way we enjoy a game is very subjective. I'd not be able to play Mansions consistently for more than 3-4 weeks straight, for example, while on the other hand I've played 200 games of LotR in less than 10 months, so, I don't see paucity of releases as an issue. But it's 100% fine if some would like to play a lot more, and have a greater variety in a game. I think the release frequency and the way the game changes and mantains its entertaining functions in relation to our needs are key parameters in how we enjoy a game.

You make a great point with Descent. It has been a very long time since we've gotten much news there.

9 hours ago, Julia said:

I'd rather look at the game in a different way: in the last 11 months we had 9 scenarios published, and 3 more announced, so, it doesn't look like the game is getting not so much attention. We know for sure that in the remainder of the year we'll be getting at least 3 more scenarios, which will bring the total to 12 scenarios published (minimum) over 18 months. If we take an average coop LCG, over 18 months we get something around 18 new scenarios (sometimes less - see LotR, which had pauses and months were nightmare decks only were released and nightmare ain't exactly everyone's cup of tea). And LCG have devoted designers / developers and a lot of testers, so, they are another kettle of fish regardless.

I'd like to stress that developing Mansions is not so easy: it's not only a question of software coding (which requires time), but it's also a question that the public wouldn't be wanting to see stories repeating over and over all the time. So, it can't be a mass production. Testing Mansions is also quite a task, because each scenario needs to be played several times to adjust the story, the clocks, the difficulty with variable number of investigators; and then you have to work on different maps and trying to debug it as much as possible. So, it's long, but in the end, the product's rather solid.

So, I think it's better quality over quantity, since both don't seem likely to happen. But clearly I understand if people want something different (more scenario, alternate stories and so on); then, clearly, for them, probably Mansions 2nd isn't the right game.

Just my 0.2, of course

I think FFG would benefit from a compromise between long releases. Minor updates and tweaks to scenarios don't have massive requirements yet bring a bit more replayability. That being said, right now they are short handed in the digital realm. If they were to implement this, or more frequent digital only DLC releases, or even more frequent physical products (since they also require software development), it will be from 2018 onwards. Clairvoyant has spoken.

On 6/22/2017 at 0:39 PM, Julia said:

Yep, on this we agree. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, and the prolonged pause before SoA is quite curious. I was just trying to look at the overall balance of the game in terms of releases. Even with such a long hiatus in announcements, Mansions is one of the lines receiving more love from the company (Descent for example has not been receiving news for quite a long time).

Also: the way we enjoy a game is very subjective. I'd not be able to play Mansions consistently for more than 3-4 weeks straight, for example, while on the other hand I've played 200 games of LotR in less than 10 months, so, I don't see paucity of releases as an issue. But it's 100% fine if some would like to play a lot more, and have a greater variety in a game. I think the release frequency and the way the game changes and mantains its entertaining functions in relation to our needs are key parameters in how we enjoy a game.

I'm the same way. I view mansions as a very heavy story experience. I love the game, and though there is definitely replayability there, I almost want to wait long enough between plays that I sort of forget what challenges the adventure lays out on the table.

The break I take from Mansions between new content releases is easily filled by Arkham Horror The Card Game, Eldritch Horror, Gloomhaven, Dead of Winter, and a lot of other games that focus a little more on strategy and less on story beats.

I would love to see more scenarios for Mansions for sure, but I have a feeling that the atmosphere of the game itself doesn't hold up to intense repeated plays. Just my opinion, of course. Still love the game (and it's one of the games that has such a short set-up and straight-forward mechanics, that occasionally I can even get my aging parents to play. They love the exploration/investigation/whodunnit mystery aspect of the game).

For me MOM is ok but just I pretty sure is still? Not use all possibilities of the game . what do I mean ?

Lets look on Time Story. This is 2 quite similar game but deep and story of Tstory quest is much more better then MOM. With apo with all this beautiful tiles and miniatures MOM quest mostly boring as hell!

5 hours ago, Glaurung said:

For me MOM is ok but just I pretty sure is still? Not use all possibilities of the game . what do I mean ?

Lets look on Time Story. This is 2 quite similar game but deep and story of Tstory quest is much more better then MOM. With apo with all this beautiful tiles and miniatures MOM quest mostly boring as hell!

I think MoM is still quite immersive, particularly if you read all the events, attacks, etc. Also, TS is designed for one or two times play only, so they can spend their time cramming more stuff into one story. MoM has every scenario with a bit of replayability, also has branching choices that matter for the playthrough, so those small details add up to dev time. Also, the stories and mechanics have to be programmed into the app. Take that into consideration when comparing them.

Scenarios is the lifeblood of this game, but seemigly also the part that is most arduous to develop. Espceially when FFG is understaffed in their digital department at the moment.

But still, that is what I want to see more of, both as DLC and as part of the boxed expansions. Also more variation within excisting scenarios, using the new monster, spells and items is a good start, but i would like to see the expansions tiles be used more. 1-2 more permutations of the maps based on what expansions you own for each scenario, would very welcome as a DLC packet or as part of a boxed expansion.

New tiles investigators, cards and monsters are fo course always welcome, but for me they are secondary to new scenarios and replayability for those.

That being said a campaign game of some sort would be great. Masks of Nyarlathotep and Horror on the Orient Express are both good candidates for those, but may not be possible since I think they are technically IP owned by Chaosium. Mountains of Madness may be a better option since I am pretty sure that is in the public domain now. That of course would stop FFG from doing a scenario based on a long train ride or even the Oient Express itself, they just can just stay away from specific elements used in that campaign.
I imagine having a map based on three or more small tiles with a train motif in a long row, then each new location is built out from that. It would be an opportunity to use a lot of varied tiles, from across all expansions.

4 hours ago, Barl said:

i would like to see the expansions tiles be used more. 1-2 more permutations of the maps based on what expansions you own for each scenario, would very welcome as a DLC packet or as part of a boxed expansion.

Recurring Nightmares has mansions tiles used in Cycle of Eternity and Shattered Bonds. I would also like to see Suppressed Memories tiles used in variations of other scenarios.

4 hours ago, Barl said:

That being said a campaign game of some sort would be great.

The 4-6 hour scenario is a mini-campaign of 2 sessions, and people I play with regularly mansions still won't play that scenario. I don't know if being marketed specifically as a campaign would make a long scenario more palatable, but I think scenarios should be capped at 180 minutes to have a chance of getting played.

4 hours ago, Barl said:

I imagine having a map based on three or more small tiles with a train motif in a long row, then each new location is built out from that. It would be an opportunity to use a lot of varied tiles, from across all expansions.

What they did in Arkham Horror LCG is a good idea that could work here for more replayability: have the train wagons be individual tiles representing different sections like restaurant, passengers, engine room, etc. Then order them randomly, which should add a bit of variety at little dev cost. Since each section would only have entries from the sides, it is as easy as putting them one after the other.

As for nature based scenarios, such if a mountain one would come, having tiles be compatible to all four directions anchored to a central tile would make it easier to swap them between north, south, east, west without issues, again increasing a bit of tile variety at little cost. This would be similar to the third scenario in Arkham LCG.