What a nice little polished title. Purchased and reviewed. You guys have amazing scores, my best is 2625. I guess I need to practice more. Edit: Just made it to 7224 Points. Was fun getting my first 384 Card. Woooo
Want to buy this game eventually. What's about the ratio between players skills and luck? Don't want to buy a game that's decide itself, if i play well, or not. Greetz
Have you ever played Drop7 or Tripple Town? Same amount of luck. Your scores will vary quite a bit from game to game, but that doesn't mean that its luck heavy. There is some luck, but its a skill game.
Skill vs Luck So now that two people have brushed on the topic of skill vs luck in Threes I feel the need to jump in. My take-away message will be: Single player games need some randomness in order to not be completely predictable and boring. To pick up Scorpion008's example of Super Hexagon. As far as I know the game, the patterns you have to navigate through are not fixed in order to make every game unique and more importantly: to challenge your quick-thinking ability and your reflexes. That's the skill that Super Hexagon involves. Now in the case of Threes, the luck both of you refer to comes in with the new cards. Which color are they and where will they appear? As I said before, you as the player have quite a lot of control over the new cards. Working around that which you cannot predict is the skill factor of Threes. It involves planning ahead and sometimes taking your chances and dealing with the outcomes. One of the nice things about Threes is the lack of time pressure. You can mull over a move for as long as you like and the game does not penalize you for it. So to sum up: Threes is a skill based game (as are most games if you think about it). The question you need to ask yourself: does it involve skills I like to be challenged at?
The randomness of games and scores is what makes Threes so great. After I finally got that 384 tile and broke 7000 my next few games were 1000 point games. Took me 4 more games to get 7000 plus. It's extremely gratifying to get that next tile but also extremely frustrating when you don't. It's also fun to play around and try different techniques. Corner vs middle. All in all if you enjoy gaming at all Threes is a must own title. My household is entrenched in an all out Threes battle at the moment.
I gave the game another chance, and the next thing you know my children starved. I don't feel particularly 'good' at the game, but even a score of 2500 is enough to make me fist pump. I haven't read through this whole thread, but I will go ahead and assume that people who never played 'Triple Town' have been advised to go grab that as they are identical in genre. That was a great game but had been re-tuned for IAP in a clumsy way, where as this game is the purest form of flawless premium money can buy. I admit it, the game really did deserve a 5 star review. There, I said it. Oh, and the game needs a 'rolling average' in smaller font on the high score screen, something you can reset if you want. Everyone can get lucky, but what would your average score be over the last 50 games?
Thanks for confirming it. Because that's exactly what I think is not great about the game. The randomness can screw you big-time. Or totally help you out. It doesn't really say anything about your skill if you get a huge score one time or a very low one another time. It shouldn't be about getting high scores to begin with. It should probably be about some system of average scores or better yet some form of win/loss statistics with a given point goal each time (dynamically adjusting difficulty as you actually get more skilled).
Its the same as Tetris in some way. Yes, sometimes bad blocks can screw you up, but with enough experience, you can work around it. Its not entirely based on luck at all, because you gain skill as you play. Same with Threes! The more you play, the more skilled you will get. In my opinion its a great game with a clever concept, you just need to give it a chance. Keep on playing and I´m sure it will soon grow on you. Patience, my friends.
The game is very skill based, but definitely has some luck, especially at the later stages... though not if you're just going for 384. In my case, lately I can get to 384 (aka ~7000+ points) nearly every game, but I've only been able to get 768 once so far (I've probably played 20-30 games since I got my first 384). I have no doubt that as I keep playing, my ratio of 768s-per-game-played will go up.
Agree that it is definitely skill based. Seems every time I am able to get a higher card, the next 2-5 plays I just miss getting it again, then I get it consistently until I get the next highest card and repeat. First day I was averaging below 1000 points, then over 2000, then 3000 and now I think over 7000 is becoming more the norm. I think the developer nailed the correct sense of achievement and progresion. I think the highest complement I can give at this time is that this game has kept me away from Flappy Bird, 3DS and the watching the Olympics.
Very interesting thread for a great game. Kudos to kamikaze28 for his mathematical insight I've added a bunch of you guys in GC to populate the leaderboards. Feel free to add me GC : Vic Sark My best score so far is 9108. I'm spreading the word around me Anyone enjoying puzzle game/ numbers/ magnificent design should download Threes!
Yes. This. I have the same exact scores here too. I think those that are so focused on the fear this is all luck based are discarding the actual skill you must have. If it WERE all luck based then someone would have reached the top tile already and more would have the higher ones. It's the same with the methods of playing. Go for the corner or go for the middle or.... I really don't play that way other than try and shift based on the next tile. In other words I really try to make my own luck as much as I can.
Wooo went from 7 games around 3k, to breaking 10k Stinks cause i had all the pieces to a 768 and just couldnt connect then but im happy to finally get a 384
Regarding the skill vs. luck debate, I posted just yesterday a review of Threes on my blog, and while I love the game, my opinion is that the randomisation is slightly overdone. In my review I draw comparisons with Stickets, another strategy game that gives you random pieces to put on the board; but in Stickets once you see which pieces you have available you are in total control of your destiny, while in Threes even if you had a perfect strategy you would still lose when the random generator turns against you. The thing I find most irritating is that the game will occasionally serve you high numbered tiles instead of a 3. This will often royally screw up an otherwise good game, for no good reason. Having to deal with the randomness of the position where the tile is inserted is already complicated enough, but it's something that you can work around with some attention (often you can simply move horizontally instead of vertically to make sure the tile is inserted in a specific place). Also having to handle being dealt a 48 instead of a 3 is just unfair in my opinion. If the game was updated to never give tiles above 3, I think it would be an improvement and become more skill based.
If you lose like this then your strategy was not perfect. It can just as well save you in a tight situation. I had a 48 slide in next to another 48. If it had been a 3 I would have had that nearby as well. You can either count on your luck for the cards to align or you can align them yourself.
Even if there isn't a hard limit at 6144, there is the physical limit of the board dimensions, so it wouldn't be possible to make a card higher than 3*2^15=98304.
No, there actually is no such limit. If the cards sliding in are just right you can theoretically go on forever. Then again, nobody (not even the devs) have created a 6144 legitimately.
Well, the problem is that in your strategy you can probably account for the possibility of getting e.g. either a 3 or a 6, but it can't be possible to allow for any value between 3 and 48 and deal equally with every one of them. The frequency of higher numbers is too small to seriously take it into account when planning your moves. You just assume you'll get a 3 and deal with the higher numbers only the moment you get them. What if you had gotten a 12? A 24? A 6? If at least the game told you exactly what tile you'll get, you could plan accordingly, but this way it's unfair. Yes sometimes you can be lucky and get exactly the card you needed, but frankly I'd prefer to not have the occasional lucky strike than to have good games arbitrarily ruined.
This discussion reminds me of the difference between the original Drop7 vs 7bomb which came after. (I think those are the names of the games). What 7bomb added was to show the next 5ish numbers that were coming in. It made for a similar but totally different experience. I enjoyed both games and had them on my phone for quite awhile. It would be awesome if the devs made 2 other play style modes. One that showed what number was on the next white card that was coming and one that showed the next 3 cards that were coming. As is, this game is still a 5 star game IMHO.
