6301
Goko Dominion Online / Re: bug with tunnel / rebuild
« on: February 05, 2013, 10:53:00 pm »
I reported this bug a while ago. They claimed it had been fixed and would work in the next push. Whoops.
It's really easy to re-size 2D graphics and change placement of graphics in a 2D plane.Said like a programmer, not a UI designer. I'm sure it's not technical difficulty that's blocking interface redesign, but the lack of an acceptable design to change to. Keep in mind that it will need to work for tablets too, since Goko as a company ("Goko is games that go anywhere") have locked themselves into using the same interface for all platforms. Shrinking tappable regions is a big no-no on tablets.
Hey now, I did my share of UI work when I was finishing my Game and Simulation programming curriculum. Actually, considering I was one of the few people who understood what was going on, I did 3 or 4 people's share of UI work.
I guess my problem is the whole mentality of wanting to do something that will work on any platform. Build to your target, make sure that environment works properly, then think about the tweaks necessary to port to a new one. Call me old school, but I think I'd rather wait a while for each new platform then have the mess they are in now, where it functions well on some PCs and other users report spotty performance at best, and the best we've heard out of the tablet scene is 'yeah I can get through a game or two'.
I don't mean to keep dumping on Goko, I know I got a rep for being negative, but man, I like things that are done well, and it hasn't really hit my standard yet.
NoIf you look on my CR page, you will see that I have never bought Scout once.General rule of thumb: Never buy Scout. Ever.
That's the obvious answer...and for a reason I guess. I don't think I've ever bought scout and not regretted it.
Well, not to nitpick, but that means you have no basis for comparison, at least drawing from your own decks.
On the other hand, if you refused to buy Mountebank and kept losing all your Mountebank games because of that, you'd probably figure out pretty fast that it's not usually a good idea. If that's never happened for Scout, I suppose that says something right there.
Out of curiosity, have you ever lost to an opponent who did buy (and play) Scout? I'm just curious. Wouldn't surprise me if it's never happened.
If you look on my CR page, you will see that I have never bought Scout once.General rule of thumb: Never buy Scout. Ever.
That's the obvious answer...and for a reason I guess. I don't think I've ever bought scout and not regretted it.
dondon, I'm surprised you don't have more to say on this topic. I seem to remember you saying in no uncertain terms that the purpose of opening Develop/$4 was NOT to have them collide. I'm not claiming you're right or wrong, but as someone who holds a view diametrically opposed to the OP, you'd make an excellent devil's advocate for this article.
Well, I didn't understand the OP very clearly (but now I do), and my point was that your plan should not bank on a 30% chance of success if you're opening Develop. Or if it is, then you were really far up a creek without a paddle in the first place. Typically I do not open Develop to get a 5/3 topdecked during the first reshuffle; I get it to turn my Estates into something good, and then maybe later on I can use it to do other cool stuff.
Yes, and you cycle -1 card.
Somebody should mention that if your opponent has a horse traders or tunnel in their deck, you really shouldn't play a dead sea hag.
Go ahead and take that last bit out of context.
Well, except if you're leading and there's only one gold left with 2 piles empty.
Cool! But I don't understand why you're saying a Develop play is costing you tempo. Is it because the cards go on your deck, delaying shuffle? Cause that seems to me like it's gaining tempo.
I mean, imagine if, on turn 3, you Develop a Militia into a Stables and a Scheme. Describing this play as any kind of loss of tempo, let alone "giving a free ghost ship play to your opponent," seems counterintuitive to me.
General rule of thumb: Never buy Scout. Ever.
Fairgrounds. Or, all your Tournaments were Swindled into Scouts, and there's one left for a 3-pile ending.
Is this inspired by "Grifter"?Yeah, the title is at least. I haven't looked at the Grifter topic, but I saw its title in the unread topics list.
It's probably fine.
I can pick a poster child for each set though.
Main: Laboratory
Intrigue: Nobles
Seaside: Wharf
Alchemy: Golem
Prosperity: Bank
Cornucopia: Fairgrounds
Hinterlands: Haggler
Dark Ages: Graverobber
Very cool idea, but unfortunately this does create some rule resolution issues.
The problem with an on-buy ability that moves a card is that the card hasn't been gained yet. So after the card moves to the top of the player's deck, it would then be gained and move to the discard pile. Either that or it makes on-gain effects lose track of the card. It's messy, regardless.
I'm not convinced that this problem exists. The rules read as though buying is a different form of gaining, and that the purchase and placement are part of one process. The effect of my card replaces the placement altogether; it's not stepping in between, it's rewriting.What if you could reveal the card when a player gained a card during the buy phase? Or just during their buy phase, if you don't want it to work for the Curses that Ill-Gotten Gains gives out?
That would mirror conventional wording more. And offer up a few cute interactions. Looking through the sets, both the "gained during a buy phase" version and my version only have questionable interactions with Possession and Watchtower. (Everything else is rather straight-forward on how it should play out.) Possession would fortunately work the same as with Royal Seal... except I'm not entirely sure how that interaction works. If you've Possessed someone with Royal Seal and you, say, want to buy a Curse and put it on top of their deck, can you? I'd usually think no, but they're both trying to replace where the card ends up which leads me to think the possessing player would have a choice in the matter. Watchtower has a similar issue of which replacement takes precedence. If a player buys a Curse then reveals Watchtower to trash it, then I reveal Tower to top it, whose wins? Furthermore, who has precedence over reacting first?
That last issue might be cause for change. Possibly something like "Whenever a bought card is put into a discard pile..."
It just doesn't feel right putting Looter on the card without having Ruins in the wording somewhere.
When you put Fortress in hand, are you gaining it? Does it visit the trash pile?
You can buy Nomad camp early on for use as a Woodcutter, and that's fine. But one of the things you can do with Nomad Camp that you can't do with Woodcutter is to buy it opportunistically. If you're in full-on greening mode and you're trying to delay reshuffles, Nomad Camp can be useful. If I've spent most of the shuffle buying Victory cards and I've got $4 this hand, I'm almost certainly going to want a Nomad Camp over an Estate.
Problem here is that buying a Nomad Camp will only cause a delay in the shuffle about 1/5 of the time...
What happens if I gain a Nomad Camp using Exchange? Where does it go? Exchange says that the gained card goes to my hand, while Nomad Camp says that it goes to the top of my deck.
Edit: As a related issue, if you gain an Inn directly to your hand, does that mean you cannot shuffle it into your deck? It's a little ambiguous in Inn's text, since it says to look through your discard pile for actions "(including this)", since ordinarily when you gain the Inn it will be in your discard pile. It seems like if Exchange gains directly to your hand, then when you gain an Inn you'd be able to shuffle in your other actions, but not this new Inn, since it's an action in your hand, and not in fact an action in your discard pile.
When placing it "anywhere" in your deck, does that mean you get to see your deck?
This one seems to be taking quite a long time to release. Given all the other sets that have been implemented, one would think the Alchemy cards would be super easy to implement (except Possession), unless the Goko programmers did something silly like not planning ahead for potions as part of the card cost when they implemented all of the other cards.