Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tables

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 317
General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: June 16, 2019, 04:19:38 pm »
In another side of Maths, today I tried to convert an annual inflation rate into a daily one by taking it's log base 365. I got chewed out pretty hard for that one.

Other Games / Re: Baba Is You
« on: April 30, 2019, 05:22:25 pm »
Hmmm... may look at that again tomorrow, this one is definitely a tough one despite its apparent simpleness.

Edit: I was lying in bed when an idea came to me on what could be done. Jumped out of bed, grabbed the switch and had the puzzle completed in about 2 minutes! God I hate this game. I love this game.

Other Games / Re: Baba Is You
« on: April 30, 2019, 04:33:53 pm »
It is Tiny Isle, yes. I'd actually more or less worked out all of those hints, but it's putting it together that's stumping me. Here's what I think is true:

1) I need to make the rule [Object] is You and Win, vertically
2) It is impossible to make a horizontal "is you" rule, because you can't move around the You rule.
3) You need two of the same object to move the vertical [Object is you] rule so you can push the "Is" and "You" at the same time.

It's where to go from there that's stumping me really. With only 5 blocks of space above the lake, I can't make "[Object] is you and open" to open the lake from above, and still be able to move the "Is You" part downwards without breaking that rule. Above is the only direction I can go because of having only the single Is. So clearly there is something clever to do here that I haven't yet worked out.

Other Games / Re: Baba Is You
« on: April 27, 2019, 05:51:18 pm »
So, I picked this up. Played through all the tutorial puzzles, and was like "wow this game is awesome, though the puzzles don't seem like they can get THAT hard".

Now gotten up to about the fourth or fifth area and have been stuck on single puzzles for 30+ minutes at times. Bloody hell, this game gets crazy difficult and I kind of love it because the puzzles feel so satisfying when you finish them. The solutions are often pretty simple in many ways as well but require you to really understand the game mechanics and rules. Like "Broken Playground" was a really creative puzzle to solve.

I'm currently stuck on one of the bonus puzzles in I think the 2nd section. Small Pond or something it was called. I'm sure there's a creative answer here but damn, I just can't make that Win block into a rule. I'm pretty sure if I could turn all of Baba, Flag and Key into the same thing (any of the three, they're interchangeable) I could solve the puzzle, but that doesn't seem possible without breaking the "is You" part of the rules...

Other Games / Re: Pandemic Legacy (probably will have spoilers)
« on: April 08, 2019, 05:17:59 pm »
I think going into the first April or May game, I looked over the card with the co-ordinates on it and was like "we need to search Buenos Aries ASAP, there's a lab there. Don't know what that is but it must be important and good." I was right, so we got that fairly quickly. When we connected Africa we made a point of getting to Johannesburg ASAP to search that, think we did it using the "pick up card from discard to search" ability on someone so we got that done very quickly. Wellington was added in November game 1, seemed worthwhile. We ended up picking actually pretty bad characters for November game 1, bad planning on our part but managed to complete part of the plan at least, while doing the two remaining recons.

I ended up not making a spreadsheet for box 6 but did build two hand written tables. I don't have a (consistently working) laptop any more, so hand written seemed better. Tracked total player/infection cards, how many we had, notes on what had happened to them and notes on improvements.

Since I'm on the topic of box 6 though, I did build a few quick excel sheets to look at epidemic density vs. cards in deck - with that we decided to stay at 51 player cards. Looking at the numbers was interesting - yes, keeping it at just 6 or even 5 epidemics is WAY better epidemic density wise, but it requires some work to achieve. And if you miss out slightly and are just over the line instead, that's really bad. Not to mention trying to stay at e.g. 5 epidemics would require some planning around the box filling up. Maybe being at 6 epidemics would as well, but less so. The other advantage with thinning is you get to utilise your upgraded cards and companions far more often. With only 44 cards instead of 51, that's 7 less dud cards, which is a fairly reasonable improvement to how often you draw your good cards. With just 36 it's even better. A weird alternative that I saw some people try online is to do the opposite and completely ignore innoculating player cards. Not a fan personally - you need something like 80-85 player cards in the deck before the density ends up better than keeping it neat at 51, and that's pretty close to all of the player cards in the game I believe. So you suffer for a long time, to maybe get a benefit right at the end - and even then, with your really low density of those critical red cards, and card upgrades and companions being rare, I still have doubts about the strategies value.

We briefly considered aiming to cut down to 44, I do wonder if we should have aggressively pursued doing that, actually - we had several unused unrationed events and didn't rip up any produce supplies (though quite a few ended up at only one system wide production left) so cutting a few more cards out of the deck would probably have been helpful for us. We didn't actually innoculate infection cards as much as we probably should have. We cleared almost all of South America, which gave us a lot of breathing room, and then hit a few other sporadic cities, but I think by the time "It's wearing off" came into play we only had about 6-9 infection cards in box 6, while we probably should have put more like 20-25 into in by then. I think the best thing to do would have probably been to pick a few regions of the board - likely Africa after we saw it was infested and somewhere else like South America - and just dunked every infection card we came across from those areas. We didn't, and well we also didn't lose any of those midgame months so I guess I shouldn't criticise our performance too much.

One final thought: I had noticed the rulebook space for replacing step 2 of epidemics and wondered what it was. Initially I expected something like Virulent Strains to replace our epidemics, but what we got was very cool and I immediately realised this is a mechanic that heavily reduces the luck element of epidemics, and therefore this is an element we can control and exploit to make epidemics less of a threat. With our box 6 emptying quickly at this point, we then made a point to put just single cities cards in (or cards for cities we stocked up a bit), and suddenly add in Jade and Epidemics went from "oh crap, what now" to "lol remove one of Cairo's 4 cubes thanks"

I do agree that 4 player is very likely harder. I think that's because firstly, the reason you just said that you have to spread bonuses across more characters (although we did end up with four moderately well upgraded characters in the end anyway) - I actually don't think this is a massive deal, you get a lot of production units to spend even if you win a lot. I think the bigger deal is gameplay itself. With four players exposure becomes a considerably bigger risk. As a really simplified explanation: Twice as many pawns on the board = twice as many places where unexpected exposure could appear. It doesn't quite work like that in reality, of course - but I think the idea is still there. By the end of the campaign I think we took a grand total of 3 exposure across all of our characters, excluding that from the carrier. Only two scars were ever placed, and on different characters. Do you remember roughly how much exposure your group had across your team? I suspect it's a lot more than just three, playing with four people!

There were so many really cool and fun mechanics. A lot of them I think are not obvious in how you can exploit them, but a smart group can find some really clever ways to do so. I'm pretty sure the designers knew them and heck, I'd go so far as to say most or even all were intended - why else would the Monitor action be so heavily limited, if they weren't aware you could use it to start avoiding epidemics consistently? Speaking of which we got lots of mileage out of ours, scratching off the final box to dodge an epidemic in the final game, pretty much perfect resource management if I do say so myself. If you're the kind of person who enjoys optimising and thinking of cool ideas to try in your games while not playing the games, you'll love many aspects of Pandemic Legacy Season 2.

Other Games / Re: Pandemic Legacy (probably will have spoilers)
« on: April 07, 2019, 05:14:17 pm »
Me and my partner just finished Pandemic Legacy: Season 2. We never played Season 1. Non-spoiler thoughts first, then some minor spoiler thoughts, then full major spoiler thoughts:

Non-spoiler: The game is really fun. As one would expect with legacy games, it does a great job twisting things around at various points and throwing curveballs that shake up how you play and what you want to do. We played two player, and I think that makes things a fair bit easier - with two people you can co-ordinate cards more easily, focus on just building up a small number of characters and thus saving production units, and it's easier to avoid exposure. But regardless, we won! The game was moderately challenging and I can definitely see poor or good luck making the game far harder or easier than intended, although over a campaign of 12 to 24 games it's likely to balance out at least a bit.

The game weaves its story and gameplay together pretty well, we thought. The way the narrative is often used to give clues about what might be worth doing was pretty cool, as well as explain a few subtle questions that cropped up. We didn't always pick up on these hints, and sometimes we just couldn't do what they were suggesting due to poor card draw.

Minor spoilers (talking about mostly non-specific things, might give a little bit of information if you haven't played. Won't spoil story or exact new rules):
We finished with a score of 806 IIRC, which put us in the 2nd highest score band (highest is 850+). We won 8 months on game 1, 3 months on game 2 and lost only 1 month completely. We had a rough time somewhere in the early game, due to a combination of not paying enough attention to hints and bad card draws. We got to 3 losses in a row before finally pulling off a win, and then won back to back for a while again.

The game really picks up in pacing and story during the second half. The first half of the game is mostly exploring the nearby area, making your grid as some story starts being set up for you. The second half of the game is much more intense, focusing the story more directly on the goal.

I feel like the game heavily utilises a design philosophy that goes something like this:
Step 1: create a new "problem". For example, adding cities to the grid means more places you need cubes.
Step 2: Let players struggle against this problem for 1-3 months (or until performing specific tasks). For example, throughout the first 2-3 months you'll likely add 2-3 new cities per month, give or take, quickly increasing the size of the grid and places needing cubes
Step 3: Give players a new tool that heavily mitigates or solves problems. For example, box 6 - which if you haven't played, is a really cool new mechanic and very interesting to plan around. It also helps solve the above problem as well as other problems in a really cool, neat way.

Sometimes, these problems come simultaneously and are solved separately, or come separately and are solved together, or just stagger a bit with each other. Normally you have a few such problems at once, because they're what makes the game fun. If you had nothing causing you problems, you'd have no tension and no challenge. But if you had too many problems you'd get stretched too thin with things to do, and the game could become overwhelming both to process and to win. So this is a neat way of keeping things balanced - once a mechanic has been challenging for a bit, give the player a way to solve it and start introducing new challenges to deal with. And this is done in a non-explicit way as well, which is really neat. You don't get told "Hey, the grid is bloated and you're stretched too thin", but you feel it as you play and quickly start dealing with it once you gain the new tools to do so.

If you've finished season 2, have a think back through the game and see how many times this kind of mechanic comes up. You'll probably be surprised at how many you can count.

Major spoilers (specific objectives, months, cards etc. talked about here - not recommended to read until you finish the campaign)
I think the game was at its most fun around July to October. Reconning into Central Asia is where the game really starts picking up and throwing new, cool twists at you and they keep coming for a while. Incidentally, this is another example of the design philosophy I mentioned above - Hollow Men get added after reconning Central Asia, and they're an unstoppable nusiance. Get placed in a key city? Sorry but you're taking exposure, nothing you can do about it. They can really make things tricky, especially if your grid is not well connected. But then after reconning East Asia you get Shelters, a tool to solve that problem. And in October you gain the ability to move them at Radio Towers which another tool that solves the problem, plus some character abilities, and suddenly the unavoidable surge of incoming Hollow Men is not an unstoppable problem you have to manoeuvre around but a speed bump you can tackle.

November and December were fun, but I feel like a little bit of the tension and excitement had gone by that point since we had unlocked almost everything there was. Now there were only a few things left to find and to discover. That said, the final objective was really cool. The idea of injecting 1000x the safe dose of a vaccine into someone to smuggle it is more than a little questionable, I feel (I'm sure they could think of a better way, like wearing a Hollow Man backpack maybe), but then the mechanics from then on were pretty cool. We were pretty lucky with the hand my partner had, plus the cards she had - I had made a path from Johannesburg to Dar Es Salaam and then New Mumbai earlier this game when we saw we'd need to transport the cure there, along with building the supply centre, and that meant the shortest path we had needed 3 red, 2 black, 1 yellow and 1 blue. She had almost all of those in hand already, and had the ability to swap any card for another in the discard pile, meaning she could get back in just two turns. But I can imagine in a 4 player game this could be a really tense and exciting finish, with a heroic sacrifice in the final moments to win - or a costly failure if you don't.

The early-mid game was very enjoyable for different reasons. Exploring new regions and getting new powers and things from them was really cool, and some of the rewards were very enjoyable and helped with that make problem/solve problem thing I mentioned above. Shuttle Flight and Towers made collecting cards much easier, along with getting to distant parts of the grid. Box 6, the innoculation mechanics were SUPER fun to play around with. There's a lot of strategic and tactical choices you can make with that, especially later in the game when you add the It's Wearing Off stickers to Epidemics. Removing infection cards to clean up total areas, removing player cards to basically do brinkmanship with the epidemic count (we kept ourselves almost constantly at exactly 51 player cards in the deck. Connect a new city with 2 cards? We made it a priority to box two city cards. I kind of wonder what other people did player card wise.

Our two strongest characters ended up being the Opal lab character (when you make supplies you can make them from the reserve), Alejandro, who we gave the one free drive/ferry per turn, deliver supplies to adjacent regions, and discard a card to deliver a supply there. He ended up being hugely valuable for many different things - he could treat cities with Hollow Men without exposure, bought lots of extra supplies into the game - when we found the east Indian Haven we didn't even really need the +15, at least at that point since we could get so many onto the board already. In fact it wasn't unusual for us to empty the reserve. The other, perhaps surprisingly, was the Scientist from Jade, Zoe. She has the once per turn destroy an infection card for your city for free ability. I was going to completely ignore her - we had a few other decently built characters at this point but my partner convinced me she would be worth it, and we tried her out and boy was she right. We probably destroyed 10-15 infection cards with her, making several cities completely safe and thus making far more places we could save on cubes and avoid needing to visit again. She also had the abilities to recon with one less card (added in November, used once, worth it), swap a player card for another and spend a card to destroy a hollow man in that colour, which I think we used like twice ever. She was our very fitting heroine who delivered the cure safely back to her own lab, before passing on.

Looking forward to season 3, and she's looking forward to season 1!

Other Games / Re: Baba Is You
« on: March 31, 2019, 06:03:50 am »
Woah, it's out? Note to self, buy this soon

[Misery] is the top-ranked Hex in the stats by a comfortable margin.

I think this is enough to make me question how useful these "stats" are. Unlike the other hexes, it's trivial to know whether Misery caused you to lose. I've only had one game where that has happened, and I play online a lot.

I disagree. I assume when you say it's trivial it's because you're thinking, you can just look at how often you got Miserable/Twice Miserable and compare to how often you lost by less than 2/4 points respectively? But that isn't the case. The goal in Dominion is not to have the most points when the game ends but rather, to end the game when you have the most points. That's probably my most famous quote I've ever made on this site, and I think it applies here - while sometimes, yes you will lose DIRECTLY because of Misery losing you the 2/4 points to be behind your opponent, there will also be times you lose INDIRECTLY, because you could have ended the game ahead without it, but now can't because those -2/-4 points prevent you from taking the lead. And then maybe your opponent goes on to lead by more than 2/4 points and it looks like Miserable didn't factor in, when really it did. Similarly, if a game is less engine based (e.g. only one buy/gain per turn), how far ahead/behind you are can affect how you optimise which victory point cards you buy. 5 points behind? Getting the ante-penultimate Province is probably a good move, as you will be ahead with just 2 provinces left, your opponent is risking a direct loss picking up the penultimate Province. But 7 points behind because of Misery? Buying that province might be a bigger risk, your opponent can pick up the penultimate Province and maintain a dangerous lead. This small difference in points can lead to big strategy swings that aren't necessarily reflected in a close final score.

How often is that a factor? I don't know. Probably not hugely often, but I don't think it's trivial to check either. And I think it might be slightly more than you give credit for. Then again, I've never played this expansion so I don't know for certain - I'm just arguing what I know to be the case from Dominion in general.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: March 01, 2019, 02:33:36 pm »
Recently I went to a talk about the Flat Earth phenomenon and what's causing such an easily disproven myth to gain traction. It was pretty interesting. I'll just share a few highlight points in case anyone here ends up talking with one of these kind of people.

1) Often they are not flat earthers because of a complete lack of scientific knowledge, but because of being misled by poorly executed science and experiments. Often on Youtube - people doing flawed experiments or reaching the wrong conclusion from the experiments they have done (such as seeing if a spirit level remains flat while on a plane and similar).

2) Flat earthers often - very often - link in with many other conspiracy theories. This can range from "the Moon landing is fake" - which makes sense if you think space is fake - right up to much more sinister things such as Holocaust denial and similar. Be careful.

3) Perhaps most important (which is why I buried it as number 3, go me) there isn't just a single "flat earth" model that's agreed on. Talk to 10 different flat earthers* and you'll get 10 different ideas on what the Flat Earth is, how it works and why it works. In fact there are schisms in the community, with some sides basically claiming the other are government shills designed to mislead people and discredit the theory. Yup, it's an, uh, interesting community.

4) When interacting with this kind of people, it is very easy and tempting to act smug and conceited since you know you're right and they're wrong. And of course, you are - but bear in mind from their point of view, they're right and have realised something you've not, and so this attitude often only further serves to reinforce. Don't take an aggressive or superior approach.

5) Similar to the above, but how often do you interact with Flat Earthers and hear their arguments? Probably never, right. They interact with us every day, and hear the same arguments constantly. They have answers to them. If you come out all guns blazing and argue points, they will usually have an answer to you because they already thought of it, and unless you are a serious expert at physics (usually) there's a high chance you'll get caught out in being unable to answer them eventually - you're dropping down to their level and they beat you through experience. Instead you're generally better off talking with them and getting them to try and explain their views. You don't have to lie and pretend to agree, just try and follow their line of thought, as though it might hold some merit - and ask them to clarify and explain points that you feel are incompatible with what you've seen/know from reality, rather than directly challenging them. This won't get you an instant "win" but that's because you stop it feeling like you vs. them. Instead you can act almost like a guide to them, making them question it for themselves. Remember what I said - a lot of these people aren't completely ignorant of science, they've just been deceived by bad science. If you can guide them into doing things right, there's a good chance they'll work out their mistakes.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 24, 2019, 03:07:02 pm »
One of the Maths teachers I work with doesn't like teaching BIDMAS (aka PEDMAS) because of exactly that confusion. Instead he mentions that BIDMAS is a way some people remember it but then explains better ways, namely how the more powerful things happen first with brackets forcing priority. Obviously he explains it better than I'm doing in 2 lines of text but whatever. I feel like BIDMAS ends up confusing some people because it feels like an arbitrary rule, few people really have any idea of WHY it's there.

« on: February 16, 2019, 02:01:50 pm »
I ended up getting Civ 6 on PC and also got Gathering Storm. It's very fun. Unfortunately my first game ended just as I was about to hit the Future Era, which is a shame but not super unexpected.

I still feel like the way AI is handled, along with the relative lack of good catch up mechanics, is the game's biggest weakness. Once you get to a point where you're decently strong compared to the AI, that's it, you've won. The remaining ~100 turns are just you fulfilling the victory condition.

« on: January 31, 2019, 02:17:36 pm »
Today seems to have been the day that those with preview copies of the expansion can start posting videos. Several LPs have just started today - I've seen PotatoMcWhiskey is doing a Maori playthrough, Quill18 is doing a Canada playthrough and several others.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 24, 2019, 04:53:28 pm »
Yeah, TC is an acronym for topic creator.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 24, 2019, 02:03:56 am »
That's going to the correct thread. I don't know who the TC was, he's a user I've not seen before.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 23, 2019, 05:24:06 pm »
This is perhaps one of the strangest and most petty attempts at humble bragging about a false achievement that I've ever seen. Every post TC makes sounds more and more desperate to convince people it's true and that it's a big deal.

« on: January 14, 2019, 02:18:08 am »
I have played some more and gotten better at the game. I wish I'd kept a save on turn 1 from my game as Rome on Emperor (difficulty 6) as I kinda want to give it another go. But alas, it's gone now. I have won a game on Emperor as England, cultural victory. And more recently I won one on Immortal (difficulty 7) as Scythia, science victory - though considering I conquered a lot of territory it may have been quicker to win conquest.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 12, 2019, 05:29:57 am »
Of course, you can also just get an actual d100.

I'm generally not fond of the d100, but that's because I'm impatient. I'm happier with rolling two dice without waiting for dice to stop.

But I cannot argue its fairness. It is technically the simplest way to roll 1-100. It's just not my favorite.

Someone asked me if rolling d10000 would blow my theory out of the water. After evaluating the dice, it looks like it still works—provided the smallest die goes from 1 to 10 while the others go rom 0* to 9*. So you get 10k by adding 9000+900+90+10.

But I don't play any games that require a d10000. Not sure I'd want something with that degree of granularity, but I could be persuaded.

I've never heard of any game that requires a d10000, and I doubt I could be persuaded that that degree of granularity could be good.

May I introduce you to the world's greatest RPG, FATAL?

I don't remember the details, but I know during setup you are instructed to roll a d1,000,000 among other things.

« on: December 16, 2018, 05:59:45 pm »
Yeah, the way Civ games handle difficulty is one of the main weak points of the series, unfortunately. Note that there are other ways to adjust difficulty, like the kind of map you play in. King-Pangea is closer to Emperor-Small Islands, for example, than both difficulties in Continents. The AI is really bad at water warfare. Or you could choose rival Civs that are more peaceful for your first games at the new difficulty level.

That makes a lot of sense. I've been leaving the AI on random in general, and the map I was playing that game on was fractal, but ended up being basically Pangaea - it was one massive island with a few small inland seas. I was surrounded by Russia (east, their only neighbour off of a peninsula), Alexander (Southeast, though a city state acted as a buffer for long enough that he never bothered me), Gilgamesh (Southwest, eventually I befriended him but before that he hated me), Cleopatra (West, she declared war on me twice). North of me was the ocean.

I eventually decided I could maybe make up a bit of my deficit by using spies to steal tech boosts and great works - and then proceeded to apparently recruit the most incompetent spies money can buy. Collectively my spies failed their first 5 missions, all at 74% success rates (two got captured, three escaped without anything happing) putting me behind maybe 75 turns or so on actually levelling my spies up and doing useful things with them. That sucked. But eventually my spies pulled through, I caught up on tech/civics, starting pushing tourism hard, stealing great works from Russia and England and disrupting Rocketry on Alexander and Gilgamesh (my two allies, lol) who had completed 2 steps of a science victory at this point, and was actually in a position where, if those two weren't on the verge of science victory, I might have won. But eventually Gilgamesh repaired his spaceports and finished his final project. So I was surprised how close I got it in the end.

Amusingly, after this I decided to play a small islands game on King, as something to be a little more relaxing, and got a totally awful start. Persia about 8 tiles south of me, Egypt about the same to my west, no city states anywhere near. And to make it worse I had a really bad starting location - no river, not a whole lot of bonus resources, and by the time I got my second settler out, Persia had already settled the only good location near me- then he decided to declare a surprise war, with something like 5 warriors and 2 archers while I had 3 warriors and a slinger.

I restarted at that point. Same settings next game though I forgot to adjust the difficulty up, and ended up with a hilariously easier start. On my own decent sized island, while every other civ was on this massive S bend shaped island. And much nicer civs as well. At one point, I was declared friends with everyone. Just recently Poland and Persia decided to declare a joint surprise war on me, which seemed like a bizarre move given my army was like two tech levels ahead of them and they had lots of small settlements they couldn't defend. I'm now 5 cities bigger than I was 10 turns ago and getting a ton of stuff from Poland for their trouble. Persia will come soon after, once I take over their capital and use it for a bit.

« on: December 12, 2018, 02:12:30 am »
Got to say I'm not overly impressed with the way the game handles higher difficulty. I started a game on Emperor (difficulty 6) since King (5) was managable. The enemy gets lots of bonuses, but a lot of them are very front loaded - on Emperor the enemies start with 2 settlers and 3 warriors, two technologies, two civics, they get a +40% production and gold income boost, +16% faith/culture/science, +2 in combat against you (including Barbarians) and probably a few other minor things.

That would be fine if you weren't likely to have any early battles or anything - they start more quickly but you can catch up and stuff - but what happened to me was I ran into Cleopatra early, who denounced me because I had a weak military (no, really, when you start with 3 times as much as me and I've barely had time to build a single thing?) and low production (wow, you have 2.8x the production as me at the start of the game, I'm so surprised it's higher after 20 turns). Then I ran into Peter, same thing for science/culture. And Gilgamesh denounced me after one turn for no reason whatsoever, and also tells me he hates me for low production. So everyone around me hated me right from the start, and Cleopatra invaded pretty early as well. Lovely.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 11, 2018, 02:28:44 am »
S2E1 was definitely weak. I feel like it ended fairly well though, after being pretty dull for about an hour, and the early parts of season 2 picked up a fair bit compared to season 1, actually. But the whole plot immunity for all main characters definitely does ruin some of the tension.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 10, 2018, 02:44:39 pm »
I, personally, could have done without ending with a rainbow strap-on still glistening from recent use.

Honestly, I think it more or less sums up the show well: far too much in your face sexual content.

I don't have a problem with sex in TV shows, where appropriate, but Sens8 took it to a ludicrous level. A 20 second sex scene as they start and/or end gets the point across. A 5 minute sex orgy montage though? Why not just go to pornhub?

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 08, 2018, 06:51:00 pm »
My girlfriend and I just finished season 2 of Sens8. It was... something. We didn't find out until after finishing season 2 that the "finale" as Netflix shows it, was actually a concluding episode release a year or two after season 2. It wasn't especially obvious, since the penultimate episode ends on a cliffhanger that feels like it's building up to a season finale, when in fact it was meant to be a cliffhanger for the season I suppose.

Anyway, that aside, we have... many issues with how things turned out.

The ending is ridiculously happy. Like, literally everything ends up as happy as possible - everything works out for everyone, everyone recovers from their fatal gunshot wounds, everyone ends up with a romantic partner, Kala never has to actually choose between Wolfgang and Rajan, they're both just like "threesome is fine" - and speaking of which, why was she bought back from flatline with A BLOODY TASER? Even with defibrillation that obviously doesn't work - the clue is kinda in the name, it stops fibrillation, it doesn't start a flatlined heart. And a taser is even dumber. We both agreed that if Kala had died at that point, it would have made the end of the series a lot more potent.

Regardless, the series left with a lot of unresolved plot:

Will's whole plotline of seeing Sara is never really resolved. It got built up a bit early in season 2 and then kinda disappeared.

Reily... I think mostly was resolved. Reily honestly mostly becomes Will's sidekick for most of season 2, only occasionally doing things independently of him.

With Kala, well there's the above issues but also, Rajan's whole investigation and fearing for his life are never concluded in any way.

Capheus's political success or failure is never mentioned. Also, everything relating to his mothers relationship with Silas, everything to do with Githu and the Superpower, and even the extra sensates Capheus sees like one time and then never again.

Wolfgang mostly gets tied up, except for Lila and her cluster (though that affects everyone).

Sun's plot end is stupid. Yeah we'll pardon her for embezzlement, and while we're at it, we can forgive the attempted murder, the (presumably) manslaughter for others involved, the huge amounts of damage caused by dangerous driving in a high speed chase, identity fraud and everything else. And Sun not disposing of a burner phone is beyond stupid. Nomi even mentioned that she knew she had to dispose of it.

Nomi and Amanita's wedding was incredibly cheesy. Nomi's mother suddenly accepting Nomi is completely out of character for her (if her dad had built up to it a little I'd have bought it, given he did call Nomi his daughter in season 2), and just further drives home the point that it's absurdly happy as an ending.

Lito's film status is clearly in jepoardy during the finale, but I guess the implication is that it worked out?

Anyway, the finale also started introducing new concepts that it never really explained further. Presumably things they wanted to bring in for season 3 but shoehorned in now they knew it was ending. Which is weird, you'd think they'd be more focused on tying up loose ends and delivering a full final story, not suddenly opening a new mystery.

Considering the above, and how much they did leave unresolved, we thought they might still be vying for a third series, or at least giving themselves a plot threads they could use to go forward, while neatly wrapping up the big main things. But it was such a weird mixture of "let's rush this thing through in 30 seconds because everything is ending" (Sun being absolved, shutting down everything bad with BPO etc." and "let's open this new thing because everything might not be ending" like the Lacuna.

As you can probably tell, we found the end a little unsatisfying. Sens8 overall had a lot going for it, but a lot going against it. It was far too fond of overly long montage scenes (many sexual), heck it even ended on one, and there are so many unresolved plot points. Plus it suffers pretty badly from good guys who are seemingly invulnerable and unreasonably skilled at many things, though that's moderately common I suppose. But the stories were mostly well written and engaging, the characters interesting and way characters stories come together was well written. The action sequences are somewhat ridiculous at times but thrilling to watch at least.

Overall, if you're considering watching it... maybe. It wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch, but it was entertaining enough. Just make sure you're ready for a lot of sex, a few bad tv tropes and some plotlines to just fade into the background and not be resolved.

« on: December 04, 2018, 11:51:59 am »
I recently bought Civ 6 on the Switch. Been really enjoying it so far.

I've played two games so far, started my first with the quick start options. I got Brazil, on my own landmass so lots of space to explore and expand. Was a nice introduction to the game, I filled my island, found France to my east, befriended them, found Arabia and Japan to my west, didn't get along so well with them. Went for a culture victory and won fairly easily.

Second game I put on Marathon length, 12 players, Pangaea style map and most other settings random. Was good fun. This time I got Aztecs and decided to start aggressive, wiped my neighbour out fairly quickly and expanded a ton. Ended up with a civ that was more wide than tall (think I had about 30 cities by the end of the game) and went for a conquest victory. I wiped out a few more players along the way, had like -300+ relationships with everyone except Alexander due to warmongering, about a +15 attack bonus from Luxury Resources along with being in the Information Era in the 16th century, and basically just went to town on everyone else.

Now on my third game, I've picked the world map real start locations setting, seemed like a fun gimmick. I put this one on quick, but also upped the difficulty to 5 (was on the default 4 for the first two, and that's clearly pretty easy even to start on). Rolled France, but can definitely see the difference in difficulty straight away. Real start locations world map is a bit of a silly gimmick - if you get several European civs, many will be so hard pressed for space that they just die immediately. I wiped out Germany by capturing their starting settler on turn ~5 (lol). I want to achieve a Religious victory even though France is more geared for Culture, just because I feel like it. I've taken over most of Western Europe, met all but one other player in the local area (Germany, Poland, Egypt, Russia, Persia, whichever Tomyris is) and with space running out, decided to head across the ocean to America. It looks like the final player is probably Brazil but I haven't met them just yet, but I see a city state here influenced by an unknown player and nobody else in North America.

General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: November 16, 2018, 11:29:58 am »
Yep, that's the correct answer. Much easier than most of this thread, definitely - you can solve it and prove your answer is correct with nothing above AS level Maths (16-17 year old level), though it's a slightly more complex way to put together than they would normally see.

The fact I quite like from the answer is it means every possible arrangement of balls is equally likely. Which is quite unexpected from the problem, I feel.

General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:03:51 pm »
I was thinking about a weird probability scenario today, and after figuring out how it worked I was pleasantly surprised with the answer. So I'll present it to all of you to puzzle and see if you enjoy it (and its answer) as much as I did.

A bag contains 1 red and 1 green ball. A ball is taken at random from the bag. Another ball of the same colour is then added to the bag, and the original ball replaced (for example if a red ball is taken, you would end up with 2 red and 1 green balls in the bag). This process is repeated indefinitely.

When the bag contains n balls, find the chance that exactly r balls are red, and (n-r) balls are green, in terms of n and r (n>=2, 1<=r<n, both natural numbers).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 317

Page created in 0.115 seconds with 18 queries.