Come on guys, you are doing these jokes wrong. It is so irritating. Why does this bother me so much?
I don't see Settlers as "voting on a winner". Early on, you can't really say who is the clearly winning (especially because of the dice rolling). Later in the game, I find that players just become a lot stingier about trading. Ways to actively hurt others are limited, so the politics is mostly in making the trade sweet enough that the other player can't pass on it. Usually it's more of a grind to the top and seeing who gets lucky with the dice rather than voting for a winner. YMMV though, of course.
I suppose it depends on the dynamics in your gaming group. Oftentimes when I play, every will decide to gang up on one person who "always wins" or who "won last time". It is very much possible for a couple players to collude against you in Settlers, trapping you in with roads and refusing the trade with you.
Ahh, well, we tended not to hold grudges. Sometimes people would band together within one game when one player's win seems to be inevitable, pooling resources into the second place player to see if they can unseat the clear leader. But if it succeeds, we recognize the previous leader as the symbolic victor.
We haven't played Settlers in many years though.
How do you retrieve the chat log? Do you just remember to copy and paste at the end of the game?
Why is it that when i host a pro match that half the times my own decks aren't chosen?.... Shouldn't the mtach host always have their decks chosen? I mean what is the point of putting in the title the sets that you own if half the times you don't even get to play your decks?
I don't think justifying the answer of: its to prevent people from gaining easy rating is fair since people can easily make booster accounts for free rating so rating should be really an issue
Boo : ( ok
No, neither deck is notably better for the opponent if both players trash their apprentices with Rats (as they should, for just the reason that it only helps the opponent). You don't get an 11-card hand without Apprentice. (Also, you can never buy card draw if the opponent doesn't get more than 2-3 Coppers at one time; Vault and Nobles cost $6.)
Your argumentmightwould apply if neither player had had a Rats at the time of the stalling, but hvb did have one.
Edit: hvb could have tried to force a stalemate by trashing his Rats before Rene could gain a Rats from it. But the game wasn't a stalemate at the time they stopped playing.
Huh. It's like the hypothetical stalemate post, except totally legit.
That was a really strange situation. I came to a point where i have to trash all my money, cause Rene Kuroi were able to play 2 possessions every turn. and due to the apprentices he was able to draw my whole deck every time. So it ended up with 2 decks without money and the guy who builds up some money again first will lose the game. So both checked through their turns. How to deal with such an situation?
I don't really see the problem here. Firstly, you both want to trash your Apprentices, which only help your opponent after turn 18. You (HvB) could only play a Possession about every second turn by then (you had 12 cards - 10 without Apprentices - and just one card draw; you don't want to hurt yourself with Apprentice). So Rene Kuroi only had to trash his useless Apprentices (by gaining a Rats from you) and then buy 2 or 3 Coppers to buy the remaining cheap VP cards, gaining twice as many as you would gain by possessing him. By the time he could play less than 1 Possession per turn (if this even happens), he would have enough of a lead to three-pile for a win.
If you're this much better than your opponent, open amb/Workers village, then outplay him on the flop.
(or find someone else to play)
Wand Minst
Here's a question. They would kind of like a medium bot - better than serf bot, not as good as all the rest. The non-serf bots are all pretty close in skill, which wasn't so much intended.
So the question is, what behavior would be good for a medium bot? In what ways should it intentionally be worse, that will leave the game as enjoyable as possible for the people at that skill level? The idea being to make the bot worse without making it so much look stupid.
I'll get the ball rolling.
- Ignore PPR.
- Buy one more terminal than is reasonable.
What if you took a page from online poker and added a checkbox for "don't play the reaction on Card X while this box is checked"? Then if you get into a situation where you might want the reaction, you can just uncheck the box.I don't know what you're copying from online poker. I am not seeing any benefits here so far. The box couldn't always be onscreen. Only experts would know how to call it up from offscreen.
I think "No for the rest of this turn" would work well.This sounds like an improvement. I don't think "no for the rest of the game" works. Hotkeys are uh too much for non-experts.
Oh, and because of the Goko interface, I hate Urchin. Because if you want to use it without trashing it for a Mercenary, Goko keeps annoying with questions about trashing it.You said it, although that's not inherently Urchin's fault. What's really annoying is when the game is decided by one person getting Mercenary considerably earlier than another player, considering that it's a counter to itself. I guess the solution to that is to do the Urchin/Urchin/Urchin opening that SCSN keeps hyping up.
Probably my least favourite card is Swindler. Two players open with it, but one keeps hitting Estates and Provinces while the other hits Coppers and turns Labs into Counting Houses. Swingler's saving grace is its ability to bring Scouts into play.
I don't care much for Peddler either. The cost reduction mechanic is compelling, but the freebie nature of Peddler makes it so that you'll pretty much always pick them up at 0 with extra buys, something that tends to happen in your engines anyway. It's not usually strategically deep unless getting the Peddlers still requires some investment, either due to lack of +buy or lack of +1 actions besides Peddler.
I don't understand the KC hate. I find that it's actually skippable more often than people give it credit for...
I also don't get the posession hate. I hardly ever have it actually come into play, and I like how it changes the way you have to think about the game. IRL though, I hate it, but only because I get confused about what happens in those weird situations it can cause (double posesisons and stuff) and mostly since I play with more than 2P IRL, it becomes slightly more annoying.
A possible plan with sage/remodel is keep buying and remodeling estates to sages till you could remodel to sage to witch. Then you will curse each turn.
Isn't Sage/Silver instead of Silver/Silver an alternative here ?
In the long run, the sage will also skip all the curses.
Perhaps you should've bought a Sage at Turn 4, so you can play the Witch more often...
It's probably worth noting that it's NOT a 5/5/2 opening, it's a mandarin/5/2 opening, so unless you're making good use of the mandarin, you might just as well have opened whatever/2.
We should probably stop talking about 5/5/2 openings, because Mandarin isn't one. It's a Mandarin/5/2 opening.
I wasn't sure the best place to post this, so I thought here would be fine.
Just played a game against someone by the username Jorgen: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140304/log.516f307ae4b082c74d7def63.1393966935210.txt
It may have only been against a bot, but I am so jazzed about this one. I nearly gave up early, but decided to stick it out.
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140221/log.50c7ef2fe4b01531d0686840.1393015092266.txt
We should probably stop talking about 5/5/2 openings, because Mandarin isn't one. It's a Mandarin/5/2 opening.
5/5/2 would obviously be amazing if you could open, say, Mountebank/Mountebank/nothing, but you can't, because the first card is Mandarin. Would you want to open Mine/5/2 if you could? Probably not.
When you buy Mandarin with your 5, your deck gains a Mandarin and in exchange you are a turn behind on everything else, because you just doubled Turn 1. So if you went first, you're now going second plus a Mandarin, and if you went second, you're now going a turn later than your opponent plus a Mandarin.
Even if you repeat it 20 times, it's still wrong. You're not one turn behind, what counts (ecept for IGG/Inn) is the shuffle. The correct point would be "one shuffle behind", but this doesn't happen.
The truth is: Mandarin helps you in getting exactly 5 or 6 on your turns 4-6 which helps you getting more of the $5-cards BEFORE your second shuffle.
And yes, in about 75% of all games, I would gladly open Mine/5/2. Even Mandarin/5/2 is good, if there is no serious trashing and at least one other $5 card, I would like to get two of.
the rating is supposed to reflect your skill. that means being competitive = wanting very much to win or have a higher rating than other people = caring about your rating
That doesn't follow. Wanting to win doesn't necessarily mean you care about your ranking on a stupid leaderboard, it just means you want to win. A competitive person will be more concerned that the leaderboard ACTUALLY measures skill, and if it does, then they will care about their position. If it can't be shown that the leaderboard accurately measures skill, competitive people will find some other way to track "who's the best".
that's true. it's just that i don't actually have any problem with the leaderbord, players who have higher rankings generally seem to be better. but i agree, if you thought that the leaderbord is arbitrary, you wouldn't care about it even if you're competitive
