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 - Taco Lobster

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
51
Game Reports / Re: A lesson in watching your piles.
« on: August 14, 2012, 06:33:01 pm »
Why the three copper buys at the end?

52
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: What if Possession worked on your own deck?
« on: August 14, 2012, 03:28:36 pm »
Pretty sure that you'll go blind if you possess yourself too much.

53
Dominion Isotropic / Re: The Doug Z/Isotropic Appreciation Thread
« on: August 14, 2012, 01:51:04 pm »
Chicken chicken chicken!

WHY did I thumbs up this!?
Chicken chicken chicken: Chicken chicken.

http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf



Oh sure, it's funny if someone types the same word/phrase over and over again, but then people get outraged when you chase your spouse and child through a hotel trying to kill them with an axe. 

54
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion uh...misconceptions
« on: August 14, 2012, 11:39:52 am »
I wish I could look at the ending deck composition of my first ever game of dominion. It was with intrigues and I think most of my decks was a terrible hodge-podge consisting of the majority of scouts and probably very little silver, no gold.

Fun times.

You should pat yourself on the back for not going the village idiot route.  I remember my first deck fondly - it was cellers, villages and markets.  I could draw the whole deck and generate up to $7 on a regular basis!

55
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Alternative VP - "Dominion"
« on: August 09, 2012, 05:03:19 pm »
This card is like having a victory card based on a die roll, or the number of cards costing $6, or any other arbitrary measure that isn't part of gameplay.
Tangent: How is 'number of cards costing 6' more arbitrary than 'number of cards with different names'?

Because there's an extra hoop to jump through to get your victory points - you need to buy a wide variety of cards, including victory cards, to make a card like Fairgrounds worth purchasing.  That means your deck will need to be built to accomodate these cards.  Most of the variable VP cards work this way - part of the cost of purchasing those is creating a deck that plays to those variables.  Fairgrounds is probably the least restrictive of these types of victory cards because you can often splash some cantrips to push up its value, but, conversely, it competes with Gold for your buy, which is also a significant cost.  Most importantly, the player has a lot of control over the value of the victory cards.

Contrast that with "VP = number of $6 cards in the supply".  The player has no control over how many $6 cards are and the variance is very high.  It's hard to price that VP card because it could be worth 1 VP (and will be in most games), but in some games it'll be worth 4+ VP.  You've hit a good way to address that problem with a variable cost, but that variable cost also means that there are several inflection points where the card is too good. 

I dunno, maybe playtest it a little and see how it works.  It doesn't quite pass the smell test for me yet.

56
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Alternative VP - "Dominion"
« on: August 09, 2012, 02:42:04 pm »
Plus, Fairgrounds has a lot more consistency - you're going to have at least 17 different cards to work in every board. 

57
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Alternative VP - "Dominion"
« on: August 09, 2012, 02:39:08 pm »
It's not that I think Estate is good, but making a card that's flat out better than Estate (which is the case in 1 or 2 Kingdom expansions) doesn't strike me as a good design.  Plus, the card cares about an element that isn't related to the game itself - the expansion symbol doesn't reflect anything about the card itself and, to the extent it is a proxy for having a wide variety of cards in your deck, Fairgrounds already hits those notes and in a more elegant way.  This card is like having a victory card based on a die roll, or the number of cards costing $6, or any other arbitrary measure that isn't part of gameplay. 

58
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Alternative VP - "Dominion"
« on: August 09, 2012, 02:10:10 pm »
Interesting, though it seems like it would be too good if the Kingdom consists of only one or two expansions (if it's only a single expansion, this could be purchased for $1 and would grant 1 VP because it is a card from a kingdom supply), at two expansions, it cost $2 and you only need one other kingdom card to get it to 2 VP.

Do Walled Village, Governor, Black Market, etc. count as being from a single promo expansion or are they each considered their own expansions?

I think it needs a bump in price and/or a VP to expansion symbol ratio other than 1 to 1. 

59
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 04:58:37 pm »
The discussion is much more relevant in Magic, where strictly better cards exist (and are being added all the time).

Even in Magic, you can find the same edge cases if you are pedantic enough. You have a 2/1 creature that costs 1 red, and I have a 1/1 creature that costs 1 red? Well, I play this card that kills all creatures with power power 2 or greater.

This card deals 3 damage for 1 red, while this other card deals 3 damage for 2 red? Well I play something that discards a card from my hand and gains me x life, where x is the converted mana cost of the card I discarded.

Yes, and you also have Magic's version of Possession to contend with (Mindslaver).  Any card that let's your opponent control your cards/actions contradicts a pedantic interpretation of strictly better. 

60
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 04:15:22 pm »
The discussion is much more relevant in Magic, where strictly better cards exist (and are being added all the time).

61
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 04:14:36 pm »
But I guess maybe we should come up with a community definition of "strictly better" that is useful to use, so that we can be consistent in discussions.

But that's the rub - there aren't any Dominion cards that are "strictly better" as that term is typically used.  So, to a large extent, this is us being hyper-technical terminology nerds for the sake of being hyper-technical terminology nerds.   8)

62
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 02:24:55 pm »
We have yet to see a discard Attack where the attacker chooses what card to discard rather than the victim; I'd love to see one but suspect it's too nasty to balance.

That seems like it'd likely run afoul of the no politics rule, but I suppose no more so than something like Swindler ("Why'd you replace his Copper with another Copper and my Copper with a Curse?!?")

63
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 02:10:06 pm »
Agreed.  Strictly better is a useful concept for discussing card games, and the corner cases in which an inferior card would be better than a superior card aren't particularly useful or relevant to that discussion. 

64
Introductions / Re: Why You Should Get To Know Robz888
« on: August 08, 2012, 01:43:53 pm »
Another former Michigander representing.  I've been in San Diego for over a dozen years now, but I grew up in Greenville, MI (northeast of Grand Rapids).

65
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:47:38 pm »
Heh.  I think the way "strictly better" is traditionally defined, all characteristics of the card need to be the same, which means that, despite what I posted above, Copper probably isn't strictly better than Curse because the quality of being a treasure and of being a Curse each have separate and distinct rules associated with them. 

Or something like that.  People love to argue strictly better because it's such an absolute term. 

Swindler is another good card to break strictly better arguments.  If there was a treasure that cost $0 and produced $3, you'd still get people arguing that it is not strictly better because Swindler turns the former into a Curse, whereas it would turn Gold into (usually) another Gold.

66
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:27:49 pm »
I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

This is the point at which, if we were discussing Magic, and a strictly better card actually existed, some asshat would point to Possession and say "nuh-uh, it's not strictly better because if you were possesed, you'd rather have the worse version."

But, yeah, there has yet to be a Dominion card that's strictly better than another Dominion card.  Well, except Scout, which is strictly better than Smithy because you can draw 4 cards with it and get +1 Action.

I'd say Copper is strictly better than Curse.

Not if you're being possessed!

(Fair point - I was thinking kingdom cards)

67
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:14:08 pm »
I'm sorry - which of those is strictly better than the other? Council room gives you more cards. Margrave has the attack. So, the attack is USUALLY better, but not always.
Hence, the word STRICTLY is important here.

This is the point at which, if we were discussing Magic, and a strictly better card actually existed, some asshat would point to Possession and say "nuh-uh, it's not strictly better because if you were possesed, you'd rather have the worse version."

But, yeah, there has yet to be a Dominion card that's strictly better than another Dominion card.  Well, except Scout, which is strictly better than Smithy because you can draw 4 cards with it and get +1 Action.

68
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Wish List - Just for fun
« on: August 01, 2012, 11:03:38 am »
Yup.  I am no great player myself, but I've come to understand that one of the key differences between where I'm at and the next plateau is understanding the value in "bad" cards and when "good" cards aren't.  Chapel is the a good example because most people make the first big jump with that card.  Then, it becomes an auto-pick, and you start to think "who's this noob" when they don't buy Chapel in the first buy or two. 

And then, you encounter the 30+ player who wipes the floor with you and doesn't take Chapel because it's too slow, or doesn't support the big money strategy that is the best available on the board, and you start to think "huh, maybe Chapel isn't a brainless autopick after all."

I assume after this point, additional skill develops. But, the point remains, Chapel doesn't need to be fixed, it's not too powerful.  It's power is relative to the skill of the players involved.  If you only encounter the noobs who have no idea how good Chapel is in the right deck or are still playing it in Big Money, it may seem like an overpowered card.  If that was the deepest Dominion could go, then, yes, Chapel might need a tweak.  But Dominion goes far deeper, and eventually, Chapel isn't an auto-buy because it's "good" in the abstract, but a conditional buy when and if it's good in that particular board.

69
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Wish List - Just for fun
« on: July 31, 2012, 09:24:31 pm »
I agree with rinkworks as well.  There's a small subset of cards that could use a tweak or two in retrospect (Adventurer, Thief, Scout), but the tweaks in the initial post change the cards from "requires thought to play correctly" to "win more, lots more."

The Secret History, referenced above already, has lots of info and analysis on the pricing decisions made by Donald X.

70
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Easing Casual Players into Intrigue
« on: July 31, 2012, 04:20:02 pm »
I used Intrigue with some relatively new players (they'd each played 2-3 games), and they loved it.  Intrigue really shines if you have 3-4 players due to all the interactions.

71
General Discussion / Re: Stoners
« on: July 31, 2012, 03:09:50 pm »
Why can't people crap in the streets?

Because we have a designated place for crapping, and the street is not that place.  Nor are places like toilets (say, any body of water) that aren't actually toilets.  People who need to crap, can crap in the toilet in peace.  People who don't need to crap at that particular moment, can live a relatively crap free life.  No one's asking you not to crap, just that you do it in the appropriate place.

72
General Discussion / Re: Stoners
« on: July 31, 2012, 02:32:16 pm »
Yeah, that basically proves the point about why it's not talked about.  People get upset and lose their tempers, and we get a bunch of "they" based accusations.  Assume whatever you'd like about me, but, for the record, I am the #3 person in teh Great Evil Liberal Conspiracy.  Tomorrow we have a meeting to discuss how much we hate god and want to pass laws requiring teenagers to have gay sex and get an abortion (we're still ironing out the details on how those two things will work together).

73
General Discussion / Re: Stoners
« on: July 31, 2012, 02:15:09 pm »
There is an interesting article on Slate that wonders what full legalization in America of marijuana would look like -- unlike, say, Netherlands, where growing and wholesale distribution is still illegal.  The conclusion is that it would be so incredibly, unbelievably cheap, that it would be priced around the same as ketchup packets and would be given away basically for free.

Whether you consider this an argument for or against legalization is up to you, but it is something that I had never considered before.

Interesting.  I wonder what the natural consumption rate/price of tobacco would be if it were not regulated/taxed/etc.  I imagine it wouldn't be lower (than mj) given that tobacco is more difficult to grow and harvest, and has a smaller growing range, but it'd still be a useful piece of data given the above.

74
General Discussion / Re: Stoners
« on: July 31, 2012, 02:07:51 pm »
Because we aren't even going to agree on the basics, so it's a conversation destined to not end well.  I'm not sure who "they" are that try to make it sound like the bible is inserted into politics or how the statement about the bible not being built into (and extended by) a political party could even approach being true. 

So, rather than bring it up and debate it, just let the bible jokes wash like water over the duck's back.  Save us all the trouble of a digression about politics (or its cousin, religion) in a forum not dedicated to politics (or religion) in a thread that's not about that particular political (or religious) issue.

75
General Discussion / Re: Stoners
« on: July 31, 2012, 01:58:28 pm »
I think he meant in the context of normally non-political message boards.  Isn't there like a whole board on BGG dedicated to religion/politics flame wars just to keep it separate from everything else?
I mean it in that context too. I don't know why people think that the bible is significantly more political than most anything else.

Um... because politicians in the US think it's as important and sometimes more important than the Constitution and the US Code, and keep trying to insert it into the lives of those who have a different or no religion?  But this is only applicable to the US and a few other countries.  (Obviously the Qu'ran has a similar status in some Middle Eastern countries.)
That people think it's more important than the constitution/legal code in no way makes it political; I care about my mother far more than those pieces of paper, and that hardly makes her political. As for inserting it into other peoples' lives, this is not prima facie different than those other people trying to insert the lack of it into those peoples' lives - and by this argument, absolutely everything is political.

But really, that this is the politically controversial topic is incredibly ironic in a thread about stoners.

You skipped the second part of the statement about the Bible being imposed by the gov't.  If a political party built it's platform around your mother's wisdom and how we should all do what she says, she would indeed be political.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 19 queries.