Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 18  All

Author Topic: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]  (Read 164729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #250 on: July 04, 2012, 03:17:36 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

joel88s

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #251 on: July 04, 2012, 03:18:53 am »
+1

I'm finding this whole discussion way off balance. Dominion is a game. The taking part is more important than the winning. It's meant to be a fun experience with friendly people.
Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
My actual response is that games are different from life.[....]
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet.

It seems to me these thoughts get to the heart, or at least the root, of this sort of conflict. Isotropic and the community that has sprung up around it have been basically friendly, relaxed and relatively informal, and this has mostly worked fine since nothing much was at stake beyond levels on the almightly leaderboard, which of course ultimately, except for a wonderful ego boost, mean squat.

As soon as a prize worth a decent amount of actual cash money comes into play however, suddenly attitudes can become very different. Maybe not for all, but inevitably for some. Suddenly our enchanting little hobby has become a 'game with stakes'. As it would seem neither Isotropic nor Dominion Strategy, to their credit, was set up with a legalistic standard of regulation and enforcement in place, it's totally predictable that despite their best efforts to make a clear set of rules, their systems, both technical and conceptual, would not be altogether equipped to handle this level of squabble.

It reminds me of why my whole life whenever I go to play chess in the park, I will never play a game for money. I know for some playing for stakes makes games much more exciting. But whatever your taste, it immediately makes it, most assuredly, a different animal. 
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #252 on: July 04, 2012, 03:34:39 am »
+3

Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Saying what you can't do does not need to be said (but can be said if it's a FAQ); see previous speeches, already linked to in this thread.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #253 on: July 04, 2012, 03:54:55 am »
0

Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Saying what you can't do does not need to be said (but can be said if it's a FAQ); see previous speeches, already linked to in this thread.


My argument there was simply that it wasn't "clear" from that quote alone.

I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #254 on: July 04, 2012, 04:03:55 am »
0

I'm with Personman on this one.

The quote from Theory doesn't specify that you are not allowed to use pen and paper or some offline software which is basically the same thing. By extension, this allows the PCE to be used. Even if there were a clause that the PCE shouldn't be used, players could agree to that and still use some offline software. Then a clause may be entered: You are not allowed to use any software of any kind. Ok, firstly, how are you going to enforce this (you can't) and secondly, players will resort to pen and paper. New clause: You aren't allowed to use any tools in tournaments. Good luck with that.

I mean, it's obvious that hacking your opponents and looking at their screens to check whether they have Moats or something so you can decide whether or not to play Sea Hag is cheating. I don't think using tools to help you remember the scores (and the cards) is.

Moreover, using a counter doesn't add 10% to someone's skill. It adds 1%, at best. Using a PCE may make players better though as they will pay more attention to what they are buying and what other players are buying. If you take that away, the players who are used to checking what they have on screen will easily be able to do it without the PCE.

Still I believe that Personman could have simply turned off the PCE and used something else to postpone the debate till after the tournament was completed.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #255 on: July 04, 2012, 04:17:36 am »
+3

My actual response is that games are different from life.[....]
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet.
I think "games are different from life" is a very misleading way to look at it. Yes, in a game of Diplomacy, maybe you will backstab somebody who you would not backstab outside of a game. That's not relevant though. The issue of cheating is an issue of what people do in life. Choosing to take notes is not something you do inside the game.

If I know someone who backstabs in Diplomacy, I will be suspicious of them in Diplomacy, but not any more suspicious than usual of them outside of games. If I know someone who breaks the rules in a game, I will suspect them of breaking society's rules also. Moreso if they talk themselves into a pat on the back for what a great guy they are while they do it.

It is fair to say that you don't enjoy playing in online tournaments with significant prizes, because you expect to be up against cheaters. To me this just suggests that online tournaments should not have significant prizes, rather than somehow meaning that the game should be changed so that all is permissible. People will cheat online even with no prize, but I think there we just provide a way to block people, and don't rank games where the card mix was picked out, and then there's the issue of how you handle time-outs.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #256 on: July 04, 2012, 04:20:03 am »
+1

I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.
You are making a poor assumption and justifying it poorly.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #257 on: July 04, 2012, 04:23:02 am »
0

Still I believe that Personman could have simply turned off the PCE and used something else to postpone the debate till after the tournament was completed.

While being conciliatory is a valuable trait in many contexts, in a competitive gaming environment it is a great way to get taken advantage of. So yes, while I could have done that, I chose to instead stand up for what is right. I've taken an incredible amount of heat for it, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat, both because it is a firm principle of mine to stand up for the truth whenever I can, and because I think it is important that the community educate themselves and face these issues head on, rather than vaguely dancing around the issue as they have in past events, leading to players not understanding what advantages their opponents actually had, and other varieties of unfairness.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #258 on: July 04, 2012, 04:32:23 am »
0

I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.
You are making a poor assumption and justifying it poorly.

You are making a poor assessment and justifying it not even a little bit.

EDIT: I read that again and realized that I was participating in a flame war. Really sorry about that, and I'm going to stop now. I will continue to respond to novel arguments, should any be posted.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 04:34:00 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #259 on: July 04, 2012, 08:34:48 am »
0

Quote from: Personman
It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
As I and nopawnsintended pointed out earlier, the official rules cannot point out every possible thing in the universe that can be proscribed. The rules explicitly mention every possible option you could make using the standard Isotropic platform alone, and the spirit of the tournament games was, through the use of the standard Isotropic platform, to make the games ex ante identical and to find the best player to play an in person 4 player game. It's a very strange reading of the tournament rules to assume that using aids not part of the standard Isotropic platform is okay. In addition, theory should have ruled that not only is it a strange reading of the rules, it is incorrect. Regardless of how theory ruled, it's his tournament, and ultimately his decision on how the rules are applied.

Unfortunately, changing some things after the first day (e.g. seating order and points allocated for placement) may have given the impression that the rules were malleable by anyone with a complaint. Once rules are agreed to and you sign up for the tournament, abide by those rules and argue for changes in the next tournament, unless something is obviously wrong and everyone agrees to a change.

Personman, your argument that the rule is unenforceable and unfair is weak because you signed up for the tournament and agreed to play by the rules (that includes how they are interpreted and enforced by the organizer).
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #260 on: July 04, 2012, 08:45:30 am »
+1

The official rules also do not say you can hunt down where your opponent lives, break into his house and use his computer to make his moves while pretending to be him....is that acceptable?

The official rules also do not say you cannot bribe the Dougz to give you favourable draws on your Iso hands...would that be acceptable?

Repeat until fade...
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #261 on: July 04, 2012, 09:15:59 am »
+3

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Source: http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/06/22/dominionstrategy-qualifier-for-2012-us-national-championships/

Each group of players will play four games among itself.  We will post the seating arrangement for the first game, and then in each subsequent game, the players will rotate seating order (P1-P2-P3-P4, then P2-P3-P4-P1, then P3-P4-P1-P2, then P4-P1-P2-P3).  Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.

Edit: From what I understand, I do not think WW agreed with how Personman wanted the games played...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 09:17:19 am by RisingJaguar »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #262 on: July 04, 2012, 09:34:38 am »
+2

But that brings us back to the start.

Usage of the Iso point counter doesn't strictly exclude usage of any external tools, one of which is the highly debated extension.
And no, the rules don't state that you can't hack someone's computer and make moves for him, but the rules only deal with what's relevant and can only cover so much.

Hacking someone's computer doesn't need to be covered although it's certainly cheating, but everything not covered by the rules should be subject to ruling by a tournament official. Like in a poker game where you have floor managers who make rulings.

Why didn't the rules say: Everything not directly covered by the rules is subject to ruling by a tournament official. His ruling is binding.

Who was the tournament official in this tourney? Theory?

I mean, whenever the players can't find some agreement, an official should step in and rule one way or the other. Did Theory actually rule in Personman's favor? Theory said that they discussed while he was asleep and when he woke up, WW wanted to withdraw.

I don't fault Personman for trying to push his luck, but there's accountability on all parts:
- Theory as the tournament official
- Personman as he was forcing the issue
- WanderingWinder as the opposer and finally withdrawer

A simple ruling could have made it clear for everybody and if WW still wanted to withdraw he could have waited. Theory could have easily said something like: "We're not allowing the use of the Point Counter Extension, the point counter on Iso is the only one that you can use. However, we can't ban people from writing down information or recording it with something other than the extension." Would this have made WW happy?
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #263 on: July 04, 2012, 10:33:41 am »
0

Now I'm one of the biggest advocates for the use of the PCE, but if I had received a request like that, I think I would just have agreed to disabling it and discussed afterwards. I mean, it is a tournament, so you kind of have to follow the rules set out by the refs, whatever they are, or leave the tournament. I would have used the original point counter, I mean that was allowed, right?

So I'm on WW's side and respect his decision. You must follow your own beliefs and if you think playing the finals is wrong, then don't do it.

Still I think it's sad that a solution couldn't be found. The solution couldn't have satisified everybody, but the card counting aspect of the PCE offers little more than the original point counter anyway. And if Personman wanted to write everything down instead or use some offline software, we couldn't have stopped him anyway. But it would have been easy to give WW this Pyrrhic victory and let hem believe that no one was using extra software, while it would've been easy for the others to do so.
In fact, I don't think I would hve believed this, after what happened. But I mean, saying the PCE offers little more than the OPC is a garbage argument. If it were true, then nobody would really care if it were disabled, right? Like, if you don't think it really matters, you will yield. Not to mention that based on repeated statements from the player in question (a la 'it lets me play the game in a way that would otherwise not be possible'), he at least thinks that it makes a big difference. And I agree - well, down to the relative term big. I mean, how big is 'big'?

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #264 on: July 04, 2012, 10:36:29 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.

No, they strictly address this issue.  Let's say you ask the question "What point counter can I use?"  Well, the rules say right in them the "official point counter."  So assuming your aid is a "Point counter" you can't use it.  Your argument is basically like saying "Well it says we need identical hands, but it doesn't say we can't have non-identical hands.  I know, we'll have non identical hands and that isn't bending the rules!"
Logged
A man on a mission.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #265 on: July 04, 2012, 10:36:58 am »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."

When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.

I firmly disagree here - the absolute perspective is THE perspective to take when considering ethics, as from the absolute perspective, you get absolute values. (Ironically, some of these absolute values are negative).
I reject relativism.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #266 on: July 04, 2012, 10:38:09 am »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.

When atoms is not enough, do you think it's enough to look at the movement of the electrons, protons and neutrons, or should I go down to quarks to understand this?
The Higgs Boson won't help you either, even if it has been 'discovered'.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #267 on: July 04, 2012, 10:40:27 am »
+1

The discussion about enforceability is missing something: "no PCE allowed" is an enforceable rule! It announces itself at the beginning of the game. It's unlikely that anyone in the tournament would go to the length of modifying it to be silent.

I chose to instead stand up for what is right.
Taking a stand is doing what WW did: if you believe the ruling is wrong, resign in protest. Playing anyway and weaseling around the ruling is not taking a stand.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #268 on: July 04, 2012, 10:47:19 am »
0

Whether or not you like the rule or want to follow the rules is, in my view, utterly irrelevant.  If you don't obey the rule, you're playing a different game.  Period.  If you play with the PCE, you're not playing Dominion.  You're playing Dominion + PCE.  I personally have no problem with a group of people playing Dominion + PCE but, in this case, the tournament is/was a Dominion + Point Tracker + Identical Starting Hands tournament.  If you add PCE to that, you're playing a different game.  I don't get how this can be any more clear.

Good post, and Isotropic is a different game from Dominion, too. There are fundamental rule differences (not seeing top of discard, Black Market deck), presentation differences (text log, supply counts easily visible, etc.), and it plays faster. PCE not violating the purity of true Dominion, because Isotropic is not true Dominion either. It happens that 2p Isotropic+PCE is my favourite variant of 2p Dominion. (But I prefer 3p/4p to be IRL, without tracking scores on paper.)
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #269 on: July 04, 2012, 10:48:47 am »
0

I firmly disagree here - the absolute perspective is THE perspective to take when considering ethics, as from the absolute perspective, you get absolute values. (Ironically, some of these absolute values are negative).
I reject relativism.

Not sure if you use the same words to speak about different things. Donald's 'absolute' I understand more of as (exaggerated) "we are just some complicated wavefunctions flying around, who cares what happens to them", or maybe to the other extreme (less exaggerated) "There are millions (at least (probably)) of planets in the universe, so what we humans do to us doesn't matter anything to the universe".

Whereas for your view, you look at the "right scale" (the one that matters for us, certainly larger than wavefunctions and smaller than universes), ... can't put it exactly, but I'm confident that you know what you mean and that it is something different than the one above...

Edit: Or, maybe, after applying Donald's 'relativsm' you end up considering only things that also in your 'absolute' view are probably the important ones...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 10:51:50 am by DStu »
Logged

joel88s

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #270 on: July 04, 2012, 11:02:03 am »
+1

I mean, whenever the players can't find some agreement, an official should step in and rule one way or the other.[...]
A simple ruling could have made it clear for everybody and if WW still wanted to withdraw he could have waited. Theory could have easily said something like:[...]
To follow up on my earlier point, theory's approach of initially asking the players to work it out among themselves, rather than making a firm ruling at once, may appear a bit naive in retrospect, but it could be seen as merely a failure to make a radical shift from the prevailing Isotropic culture to a suddenly much more intensely competitive one.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 11:03:10 am by joel88s »
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #271 on: July 04, 2012, 11:38:49 am »
0

What do I find unreasonable?  People deciding to derail the conversation just because they're uncomfortable with it.  Hell, I think theory shutting down my thread was unreasonable, for the same basic reason.  But this thread is--I'm sorry--not about Masq vs. Ambassador vs. Bishop.  This subforum isn't for strategy discussion, it is for tournament discussion, and discussion of the card counter is, well, quite important to that.

First off I wasn't attempting to derail and even if I did it wasn't because I felt uncomfortable with the situation. Obviously people feel the need to talk about it but a large part of what is happening here is people saying the same argument over and over.

My opinion even though I'm sure it's been said before: I don't even like the official point counter. Obviously in the day and age where everyone has smart phones, or a pen and paper or even a tablet and chisel handy people will cheat without the point counter and keep track anyways especially when they a) Won't get caught and b)something worth money is on the line. Hell people would even cheat with just a we see it all the time in online games. ANYWAYS because it can't be enforced otherwise pretty much the point counter has to be used, if people agree otherwise then well they're signing up to trust each other. Now most tournaments run online IsoDom and the DS Tourney say that unless a consensus is reached the OFFICIAL point counter is to be used. I don't know what happened with the back and forth between everyone involved but my inclination here would be that if WW objected which it's clear he did, and personman objected, then the official point counter was to be used as no consensus was reached, the extension tells other players when it's on so they would have known if he turned it off or not.

Without a lot more knowledge of what went back and forth my belief firmly boils down to
1) Although I dislike it if no consensus is reached the OFFICIAL point counter is to be used, not an extension.
2) If a consensus is reached then whatever is decided is what goes
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #272 on: July 04, 2012, 12:03:55 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #273 on: July 04, 2012, 12:11:49 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

Do you consider the extension to be a point counter?  Or do you consider it to be a card counter?
Logged
A man on a mission.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #274 on: July 04, 2012, 12:27:15 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

Do you consider the extension to be a point counter?  Or do you consider it to be a card counter?

What is this even...? We both know exactly what the extension does. I would advocate its use even if it calculated and displayed odds and strategy tips. In fact, maybe I should fork it and add those features...

My position about fun outside of a tournament setting is that the more of the grunt work is done for you by your tools, the more you can focus on the really deep decisions. All the haters sound to me like ancient farmers deriding and railing against the introduction of the plow, since you don't have that personal connection to each hole you dig or whatever. In my mind, the pursuit of fun, interesting game play should look like the pursuit of better and better tools to rid us of the mental gruntwork that isn't actually any fun.

Now, some people enjoy gardening by hand, and some people enjoy memorization in Dominion, and both of those things are totally fine and awesome things to enjoy. But home gardening should not be the end game for agriculture, and memorization should not be the end game for Dominion.

One more thing to note: a lot of people cling to the rules of games as printed, or as espoused by their designers. There is certainly value in standardization, but I think this is a bad philosophy for a community long-term. Almost every healthy gaming community I can think of either a) has an active official balance team (Magic: The Gathering, many competitive video games) or b) has community-proposed and now widely accepted rules changes, new formats, new tournament procedures, etc (Chess, Backgammon, and other classic board games all have these; Super Smash Bros. and competitive Pokemon are great example of community-set tournament guidelines; online poker communities that have had to legalize various external aids are probably the most direct analogy here). Games can and should evolve over time.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 12:51:53 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 18  All
 

Page created in 0.156 seconds with 21 queries.