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 - Donald X.

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 185 186 [187] 188 189 ... 247
4651
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What Card Am I?
« on: March 31, 2014, 10:23:17 pm »
And how about a hard mode one?
I am not a Base Card,
But I am always in the game.

- Hermit. Don't just spend all day at your computer dude. Get some sunlight.
- Masterpiece. Thank you, thank you.
- Governor. And that game is Puerto Rico.
- Moat. People are just scared of attacks I guess.
- The placeholder card for the Copper pile.
- Province, but not the one with art from Base Cards.
- Nobles. The players themselves are nobles, and not "base."
- Minion, it's in the title, obv.


4652
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 31, 2014, 05:07:31 pm »
Just out of curiosity, was Governor intended to self-combo, or is that just coincidence? "Gain a Gold" combos very well with "trash a card and gain one costing $2 more" and of course "+3 Cards" just helps you get them all together. The result is often a mad rush on Governors.

I used to really dislike Governor for this reason. Lately I've come around on it, realizing that Governor games are often about getting the most out of the stuff you get handed for free. But I'm curious about its development.
It was no secret that that combo was there. But the point was really just to provide three good options that worked when it wasn't your turn. The card is imitating Puerto Rico (and has art from Puerto Rico), and came out for some anniversary of Puerto Rico. So it's got that "we all get it but it's better for me" mechanic and then had to do things that actually worked. Drawing cards and gaining silver/gold were automatic, they were terse and compelling. And then what else was there? I hadn't done Remodel yet and it sounded better than Bishop or Duchess.

Jay originally asked for a Power Grid tie-in, which also had an anniversary, but I didn't have any good ideas there. Plus it had to be a victory card, because of Friese's green theme. Puerto Rico was easy.

4653
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 31, 2014, 04:06:51 pm »
This seems contradictory with this:
Minion is a combo with another Minion, because otherwise the "discard your hand draw 4" ability would be bad way too often, and that ability can't be thrown in for free on something already worth having. You can argue that it should have been the Counting House of the set; that isn't the way I went. In Magic of course it's different because you pick what cards to play with out of a larger pool. Anyway yes, I broke any rules I had whenever I either didn't know better or had a good reason.

I also count myself as one of the guys that do not agree with definitions of games as ranking. For me, building things with Lego or geomags are definitely games without structure or a proper way of ranking, and make-believe indians and cowboys, or playing house, or doctor, or doctor house, are definitely games. But, whatever, I do not mind disagreeing here at all and probably nobody else minds as well.
I don't see the beauty of having all playing count as gaming. To me it is getting less use from the words.

But, I do have a problem with your definition: it seems to encompass formal studies (high school, university) as games, since they are structured and provide a way to rank performance. Also medicine does that, and I do not think that dieting or exercising for health are nice to be qualified as games just because you can rank their performance.
Well if we compare performances, that's a competition. I guess it's fair to say that attitude is relevant; sometimes "race you to that tree" is a game, and sometimes there is a bear after us.

4654
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 31, 2014, 02:18:14 am »
Mark Rosewater has had more to say about game design (focused on Magic of course) than you will find the time to read/listen to.
His (weekly Magic) article for today (well Monday) is a good example. This one is about "lenticular" design - making cards that seem simple to new players but have strategic complexity for advanced players.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/293

4655
General Discussion / Re: Writing a novel! (The Broken Globe)
« on: March 31, 2014, 01:54:04 am »
Just remembered there are younger members on the forum: as a warning, this story is definitely for 16+.  There is harsh language, dangerous situations, and sexuality throughout.
"Your poem was awful," said Joe, a male, as he stared at an eclipse.

4656
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 31, 2014, 01:11:13 am »
Hmm, that's interesting. That suggests that something like, say, Telephone Pictionary isn't a game (draw a picture, the next person writes a caption for the picture, the next person draws a new picture for that same caption, etc.), since there's no ranking of performance that takes place. But I think most people would describe that as a game.
I think in that Richard Garfield speech I linked to, he defines "orthogames" at the start. The idea is that he wants to talk about games and doesn't want to be making statements that depend on what you think of as games - are you counting solitaire games, roleplaying games, etc. So he narrows his focus and goes with a specific subcategory (which of course is extremely broad).

Anyway if you want to know what most people think, ask most people. That's how I define games. Telephone Pictionary is just an activity, except to the degree that we rank performance. Which we certainly do some, even though it's just social. In recent months Amazon's top 25 board games (as seen on the US site) has included a commercial version of Telephone Pictionary (how does that exist), plus Rory's Story Cubes, which also isn't a game.

4657
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 11:58:04 pm »
I wasn't specifically avoiding "has a when-trashed ability, also has a way to trash itself," but it's only natural that there isn't one of those. It makes the whole thing less interesting. There is a classic thing they sometimes do in Magic, where they put both pieces of a combo on the same card. It's just much less fun than when you piece the combo together yourself.

I was referring to a card with a when-trash ability that can also trash other cards, including other copies of itself. The only card with a "when-trash" ability that can trash is Rats, and Rats can't trash Rats. Why aren't there any cards like that? Wouldn't it be easier to balance the effect knowing there's guaranteed to be a trasher in the kingdom?
It kind of looks like I answered that in the bit you quoted. Only natural... less interesting... Magic... pieces of a combo... Yeah I think I covered it.

4658
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 11:55:59 pm »
What, in your opinion, separates a game from something-that-is-not-a-game? Have you ever set out to design a game, only to discover that you'd designed something else?
A game is a structured activity with a way to rank performance. It can be one player; you can compare your performance to someone else's or to yours at a different time. You don't need to be able to win, just to be ranked, although winning is a way to be ranked. If there's no way to rank performance then it's just something to do, and not a game.

I've never had the experience of a game of mine turning out not to be a game. But then, I'm a pro. I've designed things that aren't games, that weren't intended to be games, but only as a hobby.

4659
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 09:04:15 pm »
Is there material (articles, lectures, etc.) you've found useful for designing games? Either for inspiration, or nuts and bolts process, or something else?
Uh probably. I've written a bunch of essays myself, and have actually gone back and re-read them and remembered something useful (I do not wish to put in the work fixing them up to be unembarrassed enough to post them). But I've also read plenty of stuff that qualifies, Richard Garfield's essays from the Duelist, Mark Rosewater's articles and blog, wait it won't all be Magic. Knizia's dice book? I don't know if I learned anything from it but I did read it. Richard has a good essay on luck that you can find on youtube. I guess he's done it multiple times, here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSg408i-eKw

Mark Rosewater has had more to say about game design (focused on Magic of course) than you will find the time to read/listen to. Like, he has a podcast called Drive to Work; he realized that he wasn't getting good use out of his time in the car, so he records a podcast sometimes then. He was putting up one a week and built up a backlog and so switched to two a week. Anyway you can endlessly read/listen to his stuff. I don't agree with absolutely everything but he certainly has tons of good advice.

I've gotten a lot out of games themselves, both what to do and what not to do. Like, in a typical game of mine, there are cards with rules, and on a typical card with rules, there is a line at the bottom giving the card types. That is from Magic (I don't know if Magic got it from somewhere else). It doesn't always survive in published versions because you can also identify cards from the backs, if there are types but they aren't mixed and you don't have multiple types per card. So for example in Gauntlet of Fools, the prototype says "Weapon" at the bottom of Weapon cards, and the published version doesn't. But both versions label Encounters, since there were more possibilities there in the same deck.

Anyway play some games, learn what you like and what you hate, that's a good start for anyone.

Prior to reading William Poundstone's book Prisoner's Dilemma, I didn't know about dilemmas. Probably that book and Magic have inspired me the most. I made all these games that either had dilemmas, or Magic's interacting rules-on-cards, or both. Cosmic Encounter would be a big influence except I first got that stuff filtered through Magic. D&D has probably had an effect, even though in my day beyond "it's rules for swords & sorcery make-believe" it was a mess. Being a math guy and a computer programmer has had an effect.

4660
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 08:22:01 pm »
I was very pleasantly surprised when Dark Ages contained a lot of simple cards like Junk Dealer, Altar and Armory so here's hoping you can do similar things in the future :).

Hunting Grounds is very close to being vanilla - was "+4 Cards" at $6 on its own ever considered?

On that note, none of the Dark Ages cards can trigger their own on-trash effects (except Sir Vander with the Knights deck), and seem about right in terms of power when you can't use them (except Rats and Sir Vander of course). Was this deliberate?
I too was pleasantly surprised by Junk Dealer; Altar and Armory had been in the set for a long time.

Sure I considered doing a vanilla +4 Cards. One issue is that vanilla cards limit what you can do, the "vanilla card problem." See http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=121.0. Another is that there are things to do that need to be attached to something else - "when-trashed" abilities for example need to go on cards that do something else. And those things want to be simple, because space is being used on the when-trashed or whatever.

I'm not sure I get the last part. The cards are deliberately trying to be balanced. That necessarily means not just being awful in games where you can't trash them. It was a significant issue with Squire for a while; the various related cards weren't compelling enough when you couldn't trash the Squire. In the end of course it is super-compelling.

I wasn't specifically avoiding "has a when-trashed ability, also has a way to trash itself," but it's only natural that there isn't one of those. It makes the whole thing less interesting. There is a classic thing they sometimes do in Magic, where they put both pieces of a combo on the same card. It's just much less fun than when you piece the combo together yourself.

4661
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 06:27:11 pm »
Very interesting that Candlestick Maker was once a vanilla card. Would you ever make another card that's just a combination of +Card, +Action, +$ and +Buy without any other effects, or do you think that there's nothing more to be done in that space?
"+1 Action +1 Buy +$1" started out in the Herbalist slot, as Herbalist; you can see it in the outtakes article (http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/06/24/dominion-outtakes/). Note that it did not survive; it seemed fine to me, but some people found it too boring. It's hard to evaluate these things because the playtesters have played a lot more Dominion than a normal person.

There isn't much you can do with a vanilla card that wouldn't just seem too redundant with existing things, but maybe there's something. Figuring this out isn't great; if there's something left and I end up making another expansion, I'd just as soon the amazing vanilla card is a surprise.

4662
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 06:19:40 pm »
How do you come up with cards?
Lots of ways. When I'm making a new game, there's all the basic stuff to do, I do all that stuff (at least at first). I make cards that interact with all of the things that are special about the game, since those cards won't feel like I've done them a million times. You know, you have say a deck of cards, and can have "draw 3 cards;" that comes up in game after game. But +1 Buy, that's very specific to the rules for Dominion, so that feels more new. I don't shy away from the good basic things that you can always do though, I do some of them. I just try to lean towards what makes this game different.

Once I have a bunch of cards, to make new ones, I look for what I haven't done yet, I try to explore themes more deeply.

Sometimes I make top-down cards (flavor first); not so much in most games though. Sometimes the flavor is first but I just pair up flavor and functionality from separate lists. Generally I don't have "complexity points" to spend on "trinket text" (you people who read Blogatog know these terms). Sometimes I go for it though.

Cards are like little computer programs. You can approach them from this perspective; you consider basic kinds of program flow. I could have an if/else card, a repeat/until card.

And of course I've made tons of games, so I've been over this ground a lot, so I know some of the things I will think of, and can just jump to those things.

You have said that you always think fan cards are unbalanced or boring, but have you seen any that are good?
What I said was, that if I sit down and read a bunch of fan cards, I don't expect to find new worthwhile ideas. Here let's have a quote, people love this one.

Quote from: Donald X.
I don't usually look at them, because 1) I don't want people feeling like I'm taking their ideas, which probably I had years ago, not because I am amazing but because the obvious ideas are obvious and I had a big head start; and 2) the cards that aren't in sets already are usually awful, nonstop things I wouldn't do that are boring and redundant or else obviously bad for the game in some way, and if it's not obvious then I already tried them and found out the hard way. At best they are things I'm already doing; none of it is good reading.
That's not me saying that they're always awful, it's me saying that I don't read them because they're usually awful. It's not good enough entertainment wading through them to try to find good ones. And I don't want to find good ones; I don't want someone thinking I stole their idea, even though their idea, like all of mine, is nowhere near as hard to think of as say calculus, which two guys thought of.

In the post I'm quoting there I cite a fan card I liked. It's on page two of this thread.

How has the Dominion community (not DominionStrategy in particular) contributed to Dominion?
DominionStrategy in particular has not contributed much to the published sets. theory suggested the name Counterfeit (although I had used that name on other earlier cards). But uh there was no time, the site isn't old enough relative to the expansions.

The biggest thing the Dominion community, mostly meaning BGG, which did include some of the people here before they came here, has contributed to is my understanding of what cards players will like or not. I found out that "attacks that just attack" would be hated, so I didn't do more of them (I snuck in Sir Michael). I found out that complexity was even more of an issue than I'd thought, that flipping over good cards to things like Loan was not enjoyed, that Tribute feels like an attack. I found out that people always really wanted more reactions / treasures / VP cards, and didn't so much like attacks. The game needed to be a little more interactive (for people who don't get much from the built-in interaction) while being less attacky. The German community (http://forum.dominionblog.de/) compiled a big list of translation errors that I expect to be fixed in the new German versions.

From sales and the community it seems like players would rather all sets were large. If there's ever another set, I will try to make it large. They were all large originally. HiG wanted like 5-card sets and the lowest I would go was 12 (I wanted it to be that when you mixed a bunch of random sets, you didn't have the special villageless mix or whatever).

The Dominion community including this site has contributed to online Dominion; wanting stuff, complaining about stuff.

How do you come up with card names.
Mostly there is no special trick, I use brain stuff. Sometimes I use a thesaurus, and at one point I got a list of medieval professions. Sometimes other people help.

And finally, what was with that blue dog comment? It sure didn't make any sense to me...
The text on Ironworks is not as precise as say a computer program. There was a question as to what it was really saying, and to try to explain it I tried to use similar words to say other things. The dog is blue so that it's been qualified in some way. As it happens I blew it and didn't notice that an "a" was "the" or vice-versa, I'm not checking. Anyway it all worked out and now we know what happens when you Ironworks a card and then use Trader to take Silver instead.

4663
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 30, 2014, 05:46:43 pm »
What about Treasure/Attack, or Treasure/Duration for Seaside?

Related, were any of the cards that emerged as Kingdom Treasures tried as Action cards? There's been a suggestion on the fan cards forum that a Kingdom card should be an Action unless it is much more elegant or functional as a Treasure (eg Bank, Counterfeit, Horn of Plenty). Would you agree with this?
Without checking I think treasure-attack would technically work, but I'm not sure it would be worth doing; it's not as confusing as treasure-action but still confusing enough to not do just to do. My memory is that treasure-duration has rules issues.

Treasures that started out as actions:
- Horn of Plenty: +$1 per action you have in play.
- Philosopher's Stone: +1 Buy, +$1 per 4 cards in your deck.
- Quarry: +$2, actions cost $1 less this turn.
- Diadem: +$2, return this to your hand.

The original Feast looks like an action Spoils but that isn't where Spoils comes from really.

Treasures should make money; I made an exception for a card that wanted to be played in the buy phase. They should feel like treasures - they make money, or, there's Horn of Plenty again, gain cards. They don't use an action, which affects power level.

I would lean towards making an action with "+1 Action, +some coins" a treasure, if it didn't have reasons to not make it one, like "+1 Card" or another +1 Action. Candlestick Maker is an action though, and so was the version that gave +$1 instead of a coin token.

4664
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff
« on: March 29, 2014, 05:03:25 pm »
{insert random subject here}
Now the pressure's off, and you can post your Bone Flute joke without the weight of it being your first post.

4665
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection
« on: March 29, 2014, 04:07:52 pm »
I sent a proposal to Jeff last night. I erred on the sides of simplicity over flexibility, less hate over more love. So, pro mode with no hate-list, casual with union 3-card expansions-only hate-list. I didn't mention promos in classic. I strongly suspect that if this thing is actually implemented someday, there will be another chance to discuss specifics. I put quit% on the blocked-list page rather than in matchmaking. And I explained all the terms and the way the lobby works but the overview is:

Matchmaking options (* is default):
- leaderboard: pro / *casual / unrated / don't care [if neither cares, uses casual]
- card selection type: *random, random from two sets, random recommended set, don't care [if neither cares, uses random]
- minimum number of players: *2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
- maximum number of players: 2 / 3 / *4 / 5 / 6
- find an opponent of similar skill (+/-1000 rating): *yes / no
- find opponents from friend-list only: yes / *no
- ignore games where host knows any cards in advance: yes / *no [can't know in pro]

Special options for hosting:
- request particular opponents (they get a window inviting them) and indicate who goes first (or leave unchosen)
- for the 10 card slots, each slot is either: random / random from chosen expansion / specific card
- select a specific recommended set (filled into the 10 slots)
- visible card list: yes / *no

I also sent him the "medium bot" proposal - no PPR, overbuy one terminal, prefer spending all money when buying actions.

4666
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection
« on: March 28, 2014, 11:11:29 pm »
So Donald, do you prefer the "5-from-2 with weighted set selection" or the "weighted card ratio with even set selection"? I think they both seem fine.
Possibly it's more fun to play with 4 Alchemy cards than 5. There's a certain something to keeping it even too though.

The promos could possibly be associated with expansions for this, just treated like cards in a certain expansion. Yes you might own the promos but not the expansions and be using this mode. Something like

Envoy - Intrigue
Black Market - Seaside
Stash - Prosperity
Walled Village - Hinterlands
Governor - Dark Ages

4667
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection
« on: March 28, 2014, 04:49:16 pm »
The main thrust of the Alchemy example was to show that there isn't an algorithm that can be generalized that picks exactly 2 sets and keeps an approximately equal frequency of cards. But despite the fact that you used to be a computer programmer, you seem to be studiously avoiding considering any specific set-picking method. For some reason.
I haven't devoted any work to it because it's an unimpressive problem and working on it isn't getting me anything. I have games to work on; this is something for a programmer on this project to do. I have zero worries that something good is impossible, and you are not making me write code.

Fine, how about this as a compromise? 2 sets are picked from an unweighted random list of sets you own. But instead of exactly 5 cards from each, the number of cards is slightly weighted by set size. So if the 2 sets are the same order of magnitude, 5 cards from each. If one is larger than the other, 6 cards from the larger set and 4 from the smaller set. Finally, if one is all of Dark Ages and the other is small (like Guilds or the half of Intrigue you own or whatever), 7 cards from Dark Ages and 3 from the small set.
That sounds fine.

EDIT: Unless "Promo" counts as a set for these purposes. Then I'm all good.
Or if promos can show up in any expansion slot. Counting promos as a set seems problematic for people who have fewer than I don't know five of them.

4668
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 28, 2014, 04:09:02 pm »
Have you ever considered doing an action/treasure dual card? Did you consider that it wasn't interesting enough to justify the ensuing rules confusions?
It doesn't have a lot to offer beyond "wow there wasn't one of those before," and yes, would be confusing.

4669
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection
« on: March 28, 2014, 04:12:14 am »
I think you and I just see this differently. I'm getting the feeling that you see this mode as "novel thing to try once and then go back to full random". Whereas I want to use it to play all my games, so an approximately even distribution is important to me. If this mode doesn't have that, I'll just never use it.
No, I see it as something some people might often do. IRL a significant impetus is not having to cart everything around, but by playing with multiple cards from a set, you get more of a functional theme to your game, and some cards play better. It might seem less intimidating too.

I also like having an option for generating the set-of-10 in some pre-established way that isn't pure random. I wouldn't want two but one seems good. I don't want it to have options, it's quick and easy. Sure it would have some novelty but you might stick with it.

I'm not trying to pick something that maximizes the pleasure of one individual, you or me or whoever. It seems easier to grok as "5 cards from each of two sets," even with a catchy name. It doesn't need to include "maybe 10 from the same set" in the same way it doesn't need "sometimes it's 5 treasures or 5 attacks or 5 whatever."

The case where someone just has base and Alchemy isn't too interesting here. Yes this mode won't be so exciting for them (when they host / provide the sets); they are already always () seeing a random mix from those two sets.

Man, all this other stuff is also "there for me via hosting". It all just depends on whether people leave the checkbox for "I'm OK with others choosing the exact table" checked. I have no idea how that will go.
Again I would flag "they picked a card for the 1st slot" but not "they wanted the 1st slot to be from a particular expansion."

4670
Rules Questions / Re: Overgrown estate + market square
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:03:08 pm »
Oops, I accidentally deleted your post while intending to click "quote." Sorry about that. I don't see how to undo it. Anyway we won't forget your post, this is what it said:

Quote from: jl8e
“Interact” was a poor choice of words on my part. Reactions can trigger each other, but there aren’t any reactions that cancel other reactions, for instance. Trader is the only reaction that effectively alters the way another reaction behaves, and that just isn’t enough to need a complex timing structure.
Counterspell works fine as a "reaction." That's how it worked in Portal even (the for-beginners Magic expansion with simpler rules).

The main trick is you have cards called "reactions" (not like Dominion ones, but like Dominion's were originally) that tell you when you can play them. You can only play them then. Counterspell says "Play only when a spell is played. Counter that spell."

4671
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Alchemy lvl 15 Help
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:57:53 pm »
when was dominion invented anyways
2006, came out in 2008


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i have been enlightened!
that's what she said

4672
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Alchemy lvl 15 Help
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:55:02 pm »
when was dominion invented anyways
2006, came out in 2008

4673
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:54:23 pm »
Not that I'm suggesting you get into it now. If you'd been born a decade or two later, though, it's likely that it would be one of your favorite games.
I don't play Magic much anymore, but you know, I've got the cards, I could whip out a cube. CCG after CCG died because it turns out people pretty much just want to play one CCG; they require so much time/money and you need opponents. Pokémon succeeded by going after a different audience than Magic, that was the key thing to do.

Anyway yes, I am not so interested in getting into Pokémon at this point.

4674
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:49:09 pm »
In my original proposal, the idea is that when you choose "Classic" mode (equal cards from [up to] 2 sets), you'd be able to force one or both expansions if you chose and still have it ranked casual. This takes care of "I just bought Guilds and want to play it" and has the further advantage that you can match together multiple such requests that don't conflict. Like one player says, "half Guilds", and another says, "half Hinterlands" (or even "half Guilds and half Hinterlands"). You can match those two together as long as one of them owns both. That's complex, but it's all behind-the-scenes complexity.
I see. Well it's more options in this window - optionally pick the expansions for "classic." That does handle it though, I think it's more likely that someone wants to play with their new set than it is that they want to pick some specific weird cocktail. OTOH I don't need to punish cocktails for casual; I remain unscared of the worst case for picking expansions for slots.

I guess I don't consider ownership-agnostic matchmaking to be "unfriendly". It's not like it's malevolently matching up haves with haves and have-nots with have-nots.
If matchmaking is appealing for haves over hosting, then the new system would reduce how often have-nots see expansions vs. the current system. The matchmaking could just give you what you get now, but in this scenario would not. That is the unfriendly thing - taking something away (via how the system gets used).

The advantage of having it scale automatically and default to some reasonable range like ±1000 is that players never even have to touch it and their opponents' skills will automatically adjust to them.
I think/agree that for most players the best thing would just be an on/off button for "match me with someone +/- 1000" (or whatever is good). Obv. some players would want more control, and then the question is, how bad is it for them not to have it, what % of players is that.

Please do not wave your hand and say, "It'll be some good way." My whole point is that there likely isn't "some good way".
Your point is that there's no good way to get the cards to show up precisely even amounts when picking to play 5 cards each from two expansions. I don't value that goal though, I do not remotely need them to show up precisely even amounts.

I don't want it to be "sometimes it's all one set" because that is not "5 cards each from two expansions." The mode becomes "sometimes 5 cards each from two sets, sometimes 10 cards from one set."

And if you want 10 cards from one set, it's there for you, via hosting.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you weren't concerned about the people who wanted to see oft-hated cards the usual amount.
I am concerned about everybody, and am there for them.

I still think the easiest way to do hate-list is have it be the union in Casual and either the intersection or not used at all in Pro. That way you can leave it off the automatch options screen.
It still seems like some pros would actually hate the intersection, would feel like other pros either had an unfair advantage over them in games they weren't in (if they didn't hate-list stuff) or else like they weren't getting to play with all the cards (if they did). So uh dunno there.

The intersection for casual wouldn't need to be an option, because you could just not hate-list. The union for casual, it sounds reasonable but I dunno.

If the system had the intersection for casual and nothing for pro, I think the only complaint could be "I want more veto-ing than this dammit." It's a straight improvement over the current "no-vetoing at all" system. If someone is going to quit any game with Tournament though, we are confining them to hosting games, picking the expansions, and not buying Cornucopia. If casual has either the union or it's an option, we are confining them to casual but maybe they can feel like "if you want to be a pro you have to be able to stomach Tournament." It's a harsh world out there.

So then, if union is mandatory for casual and pro has no hate-list, then if you want a hate-list you play casual and if you want no hate-list you play pro, those options are there for you without an uh option. Because you hate Tournament, you never get to play with Possession; Possession will be there for you if you can stomach some Tournaments. I dunno it doesn't seem so unreasonable.

The intersection is very friendly. If pros mostly liked it then for sure I would have it there. Again there are the noted potential problems. I don't know how many pros care that much but obv. a nonzero number. For casual, the point of an option rather than always-union would be, to see hated cards more often, which would include your own. Maybe it's not that great.

Any hate-list I think should be small. If it were intersection only then man it could be as many cards as you wanted. Once it's union I don't want it to be, "wow I hate Possession but if I play casual I will never see a single attack."

4675
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Alchemy lvl 15 Help
« on: March 27, 2014, 04:25:02 pm »
It is my opinion. I said it. I don't see any problem. The main point is even playing bots is better then playing adventures. They are not the same thing. And like, nearly everyone agrees. Yes DXV plays bots, but I doubt its because its more fun. It more out of convenience. Its faster and no waiting for a game needed.
Well I am in the unique position of being me, which changes how non-bot games go.

The bots have some advantages for new players - they're good enough to beat you, you aren't making somebody angry at how long you're thinking. For experienced players, if you just want to spend a few minutes playing, they play quickly, are there immediately, and won't mind if you quit (though they need to fix the quit% thing). It doesn't need to be about learning.

As people have said, the adventures will be overhauled, I have been promised that this will happen soon. The biggest thing is that you won't be expected to zap your way to competitiveness vs. a bot that starts with 3 Provinces. There will be rules twists spicing up act 3's (4 for Dark Ages). Some individual levels will vary things in whatever mildly interesting way. Most of the actual sets of 10 cards are unchanged.

In the meantime, if you are hungry for adventure levels, Dark Ages Act 3 does not ramp up to needing more than the 2 zaps they give you. Prosperity Act 1 ramps up, but you can beat most of it by being better with Goons than the bots are. And otherwise you can play the early levels of act 1's.

Pages: 1 ... 185 186 [187] 188 189 ... 247

Page created in 0.117 seconds with 19 queries.