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 - blueblimp

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89
1
How fast can a pure Menagerie kingdom buy out all the Provinces? I'm reasonably confident it's possible in 6 turns, maybe even in 5. I haven't worked out the details, but getting the key ideas is the fun part.

You're allowed kingdoms that Dominion Online allows (meaning up to 4 landscapes).

Here's my idea:

The optimistic plan:

Turn 1: Buy Stampede.
Turn 2: Play the Horses using Way of the Chameleon. Buy Populate. Because of Cavalry, clean-up triggers a reshuffle.
Turn 3: Buy 2 Populates.
Turn 4: Buy 4 Populates.
Turn 5: Buy all Provinces.

I'm not sure buying 2 Populates on turn 3 is actually possible, so maybe it takes 6 turns to do it. Shouldn't take longer than that though.

The 10 action cards (tentative):
Wayfarer, Livery, Displace, Barge, Hunting Lodge, Hostelry, Village Green, Animal Fair, Scrap, Cavalry

Include also Way of the Horse.

On Dominion Online, I used these action cards (except Cavalry was Supplies) to try exponential growth of Populate later in the game. So either this works as-is or should work with some tweaking.

2
General Discussion / Re: Most played board games of the past 30 years
« on: January 18, 2020, 08:36:28 pm »
That it's using accumulated plays (instead of rate of plays) makes the field seem more stagnant than it really is.
I wonder this particularly in the case of Codenames. Presented differently, its entry might actually look more impressive than the Dominion/RftG entry. It doesn't crack the top 3 in this visualization but that seems to be because the top 3 have so many accumulated plays.

3
General Discussion / Re: Most played board games of the past 30 years
« on: January 18, 2020, 08:03:28 pm »
That it's using accumulated plays (instead of rate of plays) makes the field seem more stagnant than it really is. But it also that makes the entry of Dominion and RftG that much more impressive.

I ended up watching in 2x though because 1x speed is way too slow.

4
General Discussion / Re: STAR WARS
« on: January 03, 2020, 03:29:54 pm »
There were so many great things about all the movies, but taken as a trilogy, they really feel like a joke to me.
They really do feel more like three unrelated movies than a coherent trilogy. That the 3rd movie is frantically retconning elements of the 2nd movie, when they knew _before making the 1st_ that they would be making a trilogy, is pretty unforgivable. Though, to be fair, the OT was a little guilty of this too. (AFAIK, Leia being Luke's sister wasn't decided until writing ROTJ, and that revelation creates some internal consistency problems.)

5
General Discussion / Re: STAR WARS
« on: January 02, 2020, 01:15:55 am »
I think I was saddened the most was the squandering of some great ideas. Rey having to choose between letting the Final Order kill the Resistance, or killing Palpatine and becoming a Sith... that was quite the conundrum. Then, of course, it doesn’t matter, and Rey beats Palpatine by... using two lightsabers.
The way that scene resolved was so weird. In the first part, like you, I thought they were setting up a puzzle, where the rule is: if Rey kills Palpatine, she loses. The obvious way out is for Ben to somehow kill Palpatine instead. The writers could have found a clever way to do that, or could have found a way for someone else entirely to do it. But instead the setup is basically just forgotten once Ben shows up.

6
General Discussion / Re: STAR WARS
« on: December 31, 2019, 03:45:20 pm »
It's just a sequence of plot points the author wanted to get to connected by meaningless action scenes, and the resulting story looks like swiss cheese.
One of the many examples of this was


The scene from the teaser trailer where Rey fights a TIE fighter. It's a good teaser, because it makes you wonder how she got into that situation. Then, in the movie, it turns out that it happens for no reason and has no impact on the plot. Argh.

7
General Discussion / Re: STAR WARS
« on: December 31, 2019, 02:26:43 pm »
TROS is for me perhaps the worst of the new trilogy because it's the only one where I at times felt bored while watching it in the theater. The combination of nonsensical plot plus relentless action is pretty dull. TLJ was for me the most enjoyable of the three, but it was also a mess that made the badness of the third movie almost inevitable. I guess I'd rank TLJ>TFA>TROS, but really they all played a part in convincing me that I'm done with Star Wars forever.

8
General Discussion / Re: Maths thread.
« on: December 05, 2019, 03:38:32 am »
I wrote the Putnam the maximum 4 times. It was fun. I enjoyed it more than the other math contests I've tried. I'd suggest practicing specifically past Putnam questions to get used to its particular style if you haven't, though it's a little late to do that now.

Quote
Tip-wise, scoring on the Putnam is very bimodal, it's basically 10/9/8 if you get it or 0/1 if you don't get it.

I've been told this too, but somehow, my first time writing, I managed to get a 6 (I think it was).

9
Hearthstone / Re: Semi-interesting Hearthstone moments
« on: October 02, 2019, 11:29:06 pm »
Even just giving a random golden epic at the end of every wing on top of what we already get would have likely been enough to get me to buy them.

If they think I will pay a premium to get access to extra single player content, they are mistaken.
To be honest, I don't understand this mentality. Golden cards in general are useless bling, and a random golden epic is unplayable useless bling. You'll pay for that and not for hours of high-quality PvE content? I mean, Hearthstone PvE is better than many standalone singleplayer games.

10
Hearthstone / Re: Semi-interesting Hearthstone moments
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:10:38 am »
after a few turns of fatigue, he gets a new deck. wth?
The plague lords get a new deck whenever they change phase.

So, 4th wing is out, plus the final boss. The 4th plague lord was the easiest by far, for me. I brought a Hearthstone with me and didn't need to use it, and my deck wasn't that great (though it did have quite a bit of value).

The final boss is somewhat similar to the Monster Hunt final boss, which I enjoyed a lot, but it feels meh here. I think that's because the hero powers aren't very interesting. Monster Hunt had some very complex hero powers.

Overall, the adventure was alright but the format feels stale. The biggest change, the 300-HP plague lords, I don't like much. If the next adventure is like this one then I might not buy it.

11
Hearthstone / Re: Semi-interesting Hearthstone moments
« on: September 25, 2019, 09:37:39 pm »
The third plague lord is my favorite so far, because you have a lot more control over what's on your board compared to the others. The only thing I found dumb about the encounter is the insane amount of self-healing he runs. In particular, when he plays an Obsidian Statue in phase 2, the amount of healing he gets from it is massive.

I managed to take him down in one run (on Normal) but only because I had an OP deck and a Hearthstone to do it in two parts. I had the passive that makes your spells summon a minion from your deck, lots of huge minions (4x Kel'Thuzad), lots of cheap spells (6x Raven Idol, 2x Worthy Expedition), and also the passive that triplicates your discovers with a cost discount. My best-ever turn 1 (on an earlier boss, not the plague lord) was something like Worthy Expedition into triple Power of the Wild, which put a bunch of stuff on the board, including two Kel'Thuzads.

I'm currently thinking that Hearthstone is by far the best treasure, if you're trying to take out the plague lord in one run.

12
General Discussion / Re: roguelike games
« on: September 25, 2019, 09:30:16 pm »
Has anyone tried Noita yet? It sounds interesting, I can't justify buying it yet but it's on my radar.
I'm intrigued by the per-pixel simulation. Reminds me a bit of games like Liquid War, Lemmings, Worms, etc.

The reviews make it sound like it's in a pretty early state though. So I might wait a while.

BTW I thought they might use the GPU to do the simulation, but the system requirements make it seem more like they're doing it on the CPU.

13
Other Games / Re: Celeste
« on: September 23, 2019, 10:59:26 pm »
I think the average quality of B-sides and C-sides is higher than the average quality of Chapter 9. I wouldn't bother playing Chapter 9 until trying some of those. In particular, 1B and 2B aren't super hard. (Might actually be easier than Core A... I don't remember.)

14
Hearthstone / Re: Semi-interesting Hearthstone moments
« on: September 20, 2019, 05:19:02 am »
OK so an actual strategy involving that near-infinite trick is to cast a lot of Gnomebliterators. When starting the plague lord fight, it takes 10 damage per Gnomebliterator you cast ever during the run.

I had Elixir of Vim plus the passive that makes playing odd-cost cards discount your whole hand, so I could get Jr. Tomb Diver out reasonably early. I only bothered to grind it long enough to get 8 Gnomebliterators, though. (That was more than enough, since K'zrath was at 13 health from my previous run.)

15
Hearthstone / Re: Semi-interesting Hearthstone moments
« on: September 20, 2019, 03:28:14 am »
Here's something degenerate but useless: if you activate Jr. Tomb Diver and stall until you discover Hearthstone, you get a visit to the tavern, without advancing through the adventure. This lets you go near-infinite.

The amount you can actually modify your deck in a single visit is pretty limited, though, so the amount of time you'd need to spend to actually do much is... a lot.

16
Hearthstone / Re: Semi-interesting Hearthstone moments
« on: September 18, 2019, 11:05:20 pm »
I managed to beat the first Plague Lord in the Uldum single player content on my first run. Khadgar/Jan'alai and a bunch of crazy treasures helped a lot.
I found (on both normal and heroic) that on my first time reaching the plague lord, the board flood in phase 3 was just too much to keep up with. I'd run out of ways to clear the board, run out of cards in my deck, and meanwhile he seems to have unlimited ability to spam the board. His options to clear are also crazy strong (hero power of course, which he doesn't even need much because of Plague of Murlocs).

I can't say I like this style of boss design much. It's mostly his ability to clear and transform my board that I find annoying. It makes what I do for board development almost irrelevant.

17
Other Games / Re: Greed
« on: September 17, 2019, 02:16:37 am »

18
Other Games / Re: Celeste
« on: September 13, 2019, 05:12:48 am »
I'm glad for assist mode. I finished it by using 50% speed for the parts after the fake ending. That makes the execution difficulty more comparable with the planning difficulty, for me.

19
Other Games / Re: Celeste
« on: September 10, 2019, 05:47:39 pm »
I'm guessing that's a thing I can't access since I couldn't find all the berries.
Chapter 9 is a free DLC that just came out. At least for the parts I've played through so far, it doesn't require berries. (Maybe you need to finish Chapter 8 to see it?)

I haven't played through all of it yet (because I'm really bad at advanced techniques) but it's pretty good. It's essentially a B-side. I enjoyed the B-sides, although I prefer A-sides. (I like having a relatively easy main path with optional berry challenges.)

20
Other Games / Re: Dicey Dungeons
« on: August 25, 2019, 01:15:16 am »
I've given this a try to see whether it resolved my problems with the alpha. It doesn't, though it is much improved in other ways. Caveat: all I've done so far is beat Ep1 with the first three classes, so maybe things get better later on.

My key complaint is lack of variety. Enemies feel about the same, and turns feel about the same. For context, my favorite entry in the board-game-ish roguelike genre is Hearthstone's roguelike PvE content (much of which is free--not F2P, actually free). There, the turns vary a lot: your hand changes, the board changes, you're gaining mana, etc. The bosses tend to encourage somewhat different approaches, too.

In Dicey Dungeons, there's very little difference turn to turn. Typically, you're just trying to maximize the effect of your equipment, whether that's damage, poison, block, etc., and the way you do it is the same each turn. The enemies usually just do over-complicated stuff that results in you taking damage. There are some attempts to break this tedium, like how shocked equipment forces you to decide whether to unlock it, but to me it just doesn't feel different enough.

I also feel that the turns are too brain-burning, which is weird because I like think-y games. But here, you're calculating as much as you would to pull off a cool combo turn in Hearthstone (or Dominion, for that matter), except instead off pulling off a cool combo, you're just doing a normal amount of damage. And you gotta do this every turn. It just feels like way too much calculation for what you're getting from it.

There are some other minor things that bug me:
  • There are too many situations where dragging out a fight for farming purposes is optimal (like the situation singletee mentions). This is tedious, plus it doesn't make sense from a game universe perspective: why can't I use Bandage to recover health outside a fight? It's OK to have farming in corner cases, but it feels too common in this game.
  • So far, gold feels a bit pointless. I haven't yet failed to have money for something I wanted to buy.
  • It bugs me that you can't inspect what resistances an enemy has from the map. e.g. It sucks to enter a fight with a poison build and find out that the enemy is poison-resistant. Obviously you're eventually going to remember who is poison-resistant, so there would be no loss of strategy to tell you in-game.
  • This is probably a bug, but my equipment doesn't consistently stay in the slots where I put it.

21
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 06, 2019, 04:25:05 pm »
Your question comes off like "Is there a reason why my neighbor's bratty kid gets tiny little wheels on the rear wheel of his bike so that he can never fall off, doesn't he know Lance Armstrong would NEVER use those?!!?"
The extra hardcore way to write division is with multiplicative inverse. ab-1 instead of a/b.

22
Hearthstone / Re: Tracking could easily be a Dominion card
« on: July 26, 2019, 11:51:35 pm »
<Border Guard>
Thanks for posting, since I haven't played recent Dominion expansions. The secret history says that the initial design had no artifacts, so it might've originally been a pure draw 1 of 3, like Tracking.

23
General Discussion / Re: roguelike games
« on: June 29, 2019, 07:56:55 am »
If items were more focused on passive effects early on and more focused on actives later on that'd help with being able to access the loot box joy of a roguelike even with poor rhythm skills.
This is a bit of a digression but: in ND, passive items are often less forgiving than active items. The reason is that if you forget you have an item and it's passive, that can get you killed (because of mispredicting the result of an input). If you forget you have an active item, the worst thing that can happen is you lose the opportunity to use it to bail yourself out of a tough situation.

I suspect that might be why CoH shifted emphasis a bit to abilities and active items. ND has 7 passive slots: Shovel, Weapon, Armor, Headwear, Footwear, Torch, Ring. (8 if you count Pack.) Plus it has lots of slotless passives with combat-relevant effects. CoH cuts this down to 5 slots: Shovel, Weapon, Footwear, Torch, Ring. The only(?) slotless passive that has a combat-relevant effect is Goron Locket, and that only matters when you would have taken damage otherwise.

On the active side, ND has 2 spells slots and 1-2 slots for other active items. CoH has 2 ability slots (comparable to spells) and 4 slots for other active items. Altogether, it's sort of like CoH shifted 2-3 slots from passives to actives, and almost entirely eliminated slotless passive combat effects.

24
General Discussion / Re: roguelike games
« on: June 26, 2019, 12:33:11 am »
Well it may be true that people experience the basic mechanics as more challenging than bullet hell, but I think that's just because they're unique to Necrodancer. Bullet hell isn't easy (and I'm bad at it... I bounced off Undertale early, and that's easy bullet hell!), but there are a lot of bullet hell games so gamers are going to have some proficiency at them. Necrodancer mechanics are in my opinion fundamentally easier (just press an arrow twice each second, within a very tolerant window... how hard can it be? ;) ), but until now there was no other game that controlled that way.

I believe this may also be why you think items are low-relevance in ND. If you haven't got a hang of the basic mechanics, then, yes, you have no mental room left over to make efficient use of items. This was true for me also when I started the game. Items are challenging to use effectively and therefore increase the skill ceiling a lot, so if you haven't approached the skill ceiling of base equipment, you may find additional items don't feel useful. In my view, the purpose of items is to add additional depth to the game after you have mastered base equipment. Most people never get to the point of having mastered base equipment, so this could be fairly called a flaw in ND w.r.t. accessibility.

I think there are lots of other games that could be made with the ND combat mechanics, and CoH gives a glimpse at how that might be done. A tricky issue with ND movement is that it takes a long time to cover distance when there's nothing going on, and CoH solves that by putting you in fixed beat mode outside of combat. I don't see any particular reason that ND combat mechanics need to be within a procedurally-generated permadeath context... that just happens to be how they were invented. (The required elements for ND combat mechanics are less-often-mentioned properties of roguelikes, specifically being grid-based and turn-based.)

25
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 25, 2019, 08:23:44 am »
Turns out the Windows calculator issue wasn't because of floating point error, it was because the calculator internally represents all numbers as the quotient of really big integers.

http://daviddeley.com/profdeley/math/windows_calculator/index.htm

That's an interesting page, although my takeaway is different: the problem is that the calculator computes square root using multiple operations and the intermediate values can't be exactly represented. The reason they can't be exactly represented is that they're irrational (actually maybe even transcendental), so floating-point should have the same problem if you calculate sqrt that way. I went to try it in Python, and, funnily enough, math.exp(0.5 * math.log(4)) produces exactly 2. I think this is just luck though, because math.exp(0.5 * math.log(9)) does not produce exactly 3. (The "luck" being that the inexactness in the log and exp happen to cancel each other out.)

A more typical sqrt implementation is guaranteed to produce the exact result if it can be represented: https://stackoverflow.com/a/22260439.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 18 queries.