Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 108 109 [110] 111 112 ... 209  All

Author Topic: Interview with Donald X.  (Read 1499383 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

gkrieg13

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • Shuffle iT Username: gkrieg
  • Respect: +463
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2725 on: February 10, 2016, 10:43:30 am »
+1

Hopefully the better things to do are making a new dominion online client
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10381
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2726 on: February 10, 2016, 10:51:37 am »
+5

Hopefully the better things to do are making a new dominion online client

Hope springs eternal.
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2461
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2727 on: February 15, 2016, 07:26:40 am »
+3

You made a comment during the Twitch match that at some point you realized that cards costing $2 are more like cards costing $4 and that $2-$4 are essentially the same. At what point did you reach this conclusion? I'm just curious because it seems the power level of $2 costs in Adventures is much higher than normal, which I'm not complaining about.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5949
  • Respect: +23934
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2728 on: February 15, 2016, 10:20:17 am »
+3

You made a comment during the Twitch match that at some point you realized that cards costing $2 are more like cards costing $4 and that $2-$4 are essentially the same. At what point did you reach this conclusion? I'm just curious because it seems the power level of $2 costs in Adventures is much higher than normal, which I'm not complaining about.
I don't know exactly, but looking at the cards, Pearl Diver is an example of "you buy it with $2 so it's okay," and there are no later examples. Let's put it at during Prosperity, which has no $2's.

Maybe you immediately want to cite Duchess, but Duchess doesn't cost $2, it costs $2 or gaining a Duchy. It did not want to be a card you'd typically pay $3-$4 for.

Page and Peasant are stand-out $2's, but Coin of the Realm, Ratcatcher and Raze all seem like completely reasonable/normal $2's.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2729 on: February 15, 2016, 10:37:47 am »
0

Honestly, i think you have to blame the +Buy mechanic for this. If you could just buy as many cards as you liked, you could pick up two $2s instead of a $4. In Dominion, you first need to play a card that allows you to do it, so often $4/$3/$2/$0 is the same to you.

Obviously somebody is going to say this wouldn't work with cost reduction and $0 costs, but man, those are conclusions, not premises.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5949
  • Respect: +23934
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2730 on: February 15, 2016, 10:54:43 am »
+14

Honestly, i think you have to blame the +Buy mechanic for this. If you could just buy as many cards as you liked, you could pick up two $2s instead of a $4. In Dominion, you first need to play a card that allows you to do it, so often $4/$3/$2/$0 is the same to you.

Obviously somebody is going to say this wouldn't work with cost reduction and $0 costs, but man, those are conclusions, not premises.
In order for me to assign blame, I would first need to be unhappy. I'm not! It's fine that the differences between $2's and $4's come down to +Buys and openings.

Your deck starts out making ~$3.5 a turn, and tends to go up from there; that's what makes $2-$4 similar.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2731 on: February 15, 2016, 01:15:16 pm »
+1

I wasn't really meaning "blame". You decided for buys being a ressource a player needs to akquire first if they need it, which creates strategical depth and allows you to make more cards. It's a very plausible step to make, especially as smaller costs still matter occasionally and also help structure the game a bit.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9396
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2732 on: February 15, 2016, 01:54:44 pm »
0

Does this mean you stopped testing online halfway through Empires or that you moved too 3/4 player testing online on Empires. If so, that's a very interesting decision.
Doug found better things to do with his time midway through Empires. So, he stopped updating isotropic, so we couldn't test new cards on it anymore.
Does that mean isotropic is going down?
Dude, there's still Innovation, and uh. The Celtic knot thingy.
Looks like he found better things to do (than updating isotropic Innovation) for quite a while now.

Come back Doug!!!!

(Or, you know, open-source... pretty pretty please?)
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 01:56:02 pm by Kirian »
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

ashersky

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2343
  • 2013/2014/2015 Mafia Mod of the Year
  • Respect: +1516
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2733 on: February 15, 2016, 05:22:44 pm »
+4

What??? Isotopic is going down??? No!!!
Logged
f.ds Mafia Board Moderator

2013, 2014, 2015 Mafia Mod of the Year
2015 f.ds Representative, World Forum Mafia Championships
2013, 2014 Mafia Player of the Year (Tie)

11x MVP: M30, M83, ZM16, M25, M38, M61, M76, RMM5, RMM41, RMM46, M51

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1436
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +759
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2734 on: February 16, 2016, 07:33:27 am »
0

What??? Isotopic is going down??? No!!!
ugh ... is it?
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2735 on: February 16, 2016, 09:25:28 am »
+1

Have you ever tested a version of Treasure Hunter that gains "at most" as many Silvers as the player to your right gained cards? Because i have found myself to play Treasure Hunter almost exclusively to get Warrior, and never bother about the on-play effect until it's too late and i realize i didn't count. It wouldn't matter if i could just say, "Whoops, i forgot how many it were, you know? Three? Four? Let's go with three to be save, okay?". But maybe that's just me and other people find it to be a non-issue.

Also, i apologize for many of my questions being a bit complain-ish. Please don't take it as a general opposition, as Dominion is probably the best-designed game i ever played and it's just me having a kind of "black thinking hat" approach to things in general.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5949
  • Respect: +23934
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2736 on: February 16, 2016, 09:31:24 am »
+3

Have you ever tested a version of Treasure Hunter that gains "at most" as many Silvers as the player to your right gained cards? Because i have found myself to play Treasure Hunter almost exclusively to get Warrior, and never bother about the on-play effect until it's too late and i realize i didn't count. It wouldn't matter if i could just say, "Whoops, i forgot how many it were, you know? Three? Four? Let's go with three to be save, okay?". But maybe that's just me and other people find it to be a non-issue.
No. Usually we can work out how many Silvers it should be, if someone wasn't paying attention. I don't think I would possibly use "up to" as a solution to memory issues; it doesn't solve the problem, because someone may really really want the maximum they're allowed to get, and feel cheated if they can't get it. The solution would be not to do this wonderful card.

Treasure Hunter was a card a broad swath of casual players loved, that playtesters didn't like much and so got dropped from multiple expansions. It was great to put it into a Traveller slot, where the players who don't like it can just grumble a little before upgrading it, while the players who love it get to have it.
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1470
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2737 on: February 16, 2016, 09:53:13 am »
+1

Have you ever tested a version of Treasure Hunter that gains "at most" as many Silvers as the player to your right gained cards? Because i have found myself to play Treasure Hunter almost exclusively to get Warrior, and never bother about the on-play effect until it's too late and i realize i didn't count. It wouldn't matter if i could just say, "Whoops, i forgot how many it were, you know? Three? Four? Let's go with three to be save, okay?". But maybe that's just me and other people find it to be a non-issue.

Also, i apologize for many of my questions being a bit complain-ish. Please don't take it as a general opposition, as Dominion is probably the best-designed game i ever played and it's just me having a kind of "black thinking hat" approach to things in general.

This would be quite a buff for the Champion line and I don't think that this would be a good thing.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2738 on: February 16, 2016, 10:13:58 am »
0

Have you ever tested a version of Treasure Hunter that gains "at most" as many Silvers as the player to your right gained cards? Because i have found myself to play Treasure Hunter almost exclusively to get Warrior, and never bother about the on-play effect until it's too late and i realize i didn't count. It wouldn't matter if i could just say, "Whoops, i forgot how many it were, you know? Three? Four? Let's go with three to be save, okay?". But maybe that's just me and other people find it to be a non-issue.
No. Usually we can work out how many Silvers it should be, if someone wasn't paying attention. I don't think I would possibly use "up to" as a solution to memory issues; it doesn't solve the problem, because someone may really really want the maximum they're allowed to get, and feel cheated if they can't get it. The solution would be not to do this wonderful card.

Treasure Hunter was a card a broad swath of casual players loved, that playtesters didn't like much and so got dropped from multiple expansions. It was great to put it into a Traveller slot, where the players who don't like it can just grumble a little before upgrading it, while the players who love it get to have it.

Well, i would assume a player who actually wants the Silvers would also pay attention. The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently. If it was "up to", you could grumble over a compromise that you think is unfair for you. The way it is, at least one player will be certain you actually broke the rules of the game.

This would be quite a buff for the Champion line and I don't think that this would be a good thing.

Well, if you assume several players use their Treasure Hunters in one turn, the first player will gain the least cards and get the least of this "buff". Though that player will also be the first to have a Warrior, and actually i think it's unfair to have the last player in turn order swamped with Silvers, possibly never to draw and play their Warrior at all. Making it a choice means play order matters less.

Also i really might be wrong here, but i feel Treasure Hunter isn't that relevant for the Page line, either way. If you think it's too strong, start with Warrior.
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1470
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2739 on: February 16, 2016, 10:17:01 am »
+1

I think the silver "flood" is a great way to stop the fast cycling, so being able to take no silvers would take a weakness (on some boards) away from it.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5949
  • Respect: +23934
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2740 on: February 16, 2016, 11:06:00 am »
+4

Well, i would assume a player who actually wants the Silvers would also pay attention. The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently. If it was "up to", you could grumble over a compromise that you think is unfair for you. The way it is, at least one player will be certain you actually broke the rules of the game.
I continue to feel no pull whatsoever towards "up to."

Also i really might be wrong here, but i feel Treasure Hunter isn't that relevant for the Page line, either way. If you think it's too strong, start with Warrior.
It's relevant for the game to have fun cards for casual players. It's more relevant than any of this other stuff for sure.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10381
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2741 on: February 16, 2016, 11:10:14 am »
+4

The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently.
In practice this just never happens, though. One player says, "But you also gained that other card, remember?" And the other player says, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that!" It's so easy to reach an agreement.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7857
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2742 on: February 16, 2016, 11:12:48 am »
0

I always assumed not having "up to" was because of balance issues.  Because you often don't want all those Silvers.  It also slows down the Traveler progression. 
Logged

Voltaire

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 957
  • flavor text
  • Respect: +1097
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2743 on: February 16, 2016, 11:13:27 am »
+2

The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently.
In practice this just never happens, though. One player says, "But you also gained that other card, remember?" And the other player says, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that!" It's so easy to reach an agreement.

Is it? At the Cincy tournament, I can't speak for the other players, but I got the impression the four of us in the Page game I played were operating with 75% certainty and just accepting it. I certainly was. And that was a tournament situation.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10381
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2744 on: February 16, 2016, 11:16:20 am »
0

The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently.
In practice this just never happens, though. One player says, "But you also gained that other card, remember?" And the other player says, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that!" It's so easy to reach an agreement.

Is it? At the Cincy tournament, I can't speak for the other players, but I got the impression the four of us in the Page game I played were operating with 75% certainty and just accepting it. I certainly was. And that was a tournament situation.

But you were accepting it. There wasn't any sort of intractable disagreement?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5949
  • Respect: +23934
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2745 on: February 16, 2016, 11:19:40 am »
+2

I always assumed not having "up to" was because of balance issues.  Because you often don't want all those Silvers.  It also slows down the Traveler progression.
It's not "up to" because I never once considered "up to." It never came up. The premise was, gain a Silver per card the previous player gained. I liked that premise and was not looking to change it.

It does slow down the Page line a little. That was not missed. Treasure Hunter wasn't put there to do that, but that was not invisible. It was factored in in its mild way, to the balance of the whole line.
Logged

Voltaire

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 957
  • flavor text
  • Respect: +1097
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2746 on: February 16, 2016, 11:26:23 am »
+2

But you were accepting it. There wasn't any sort of intractable disagreement?

Correct. But in my small way I was unhappy.
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 843
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1507
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2747 on: February 16, 2016, 11:29:26 am »
0

The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently.
In practice this just never happens, though. One player says, "But you also gained that other card, remember?" And the other player says, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that!" It's so easy to reach an agreement.

It seems like some of the most difficult to remember situations with Treasure Huntrr could have been avoided if the card set a maximum number of Silvers gained, such as five. Then you wouldn't have to remember the number of cards gained exactly, only that it was at least five.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4987
  • Respect: +5310
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2748 on: February 16, 2016, 11:38:09 am »
0

I can just say that this happened to us, in a casual 4-player game, and we found we were tracking stuff just to not break the rules when doing an effect nobody cared for (as we only played TH in order to get a Warrior/Champion).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7369
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10381
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #2749 on: February 16, 2016, 11:49:51 am »
+4

The point is that there's no way to fix a situation where people remember differently.
In practice this just never happens, though. One player says, "But you also gained that other card, remember?" And the other player says, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that!" It's so easy to reach an agreement.

It seems like some of the most difficult to remember situations with Treasure Huntrr could have been avoided if the card set a maximum number of Silvers gained, such as five. Then you wouldn't have to remember the number of cards gained exactly, only that it was at least five.

But then you wouldn't have the fun of gaining 16 Silvers with one play of Treasure Hunter.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 108 109 [110] 111 112 ... 209  All
 

Page created in 0.101 seconds with 26 queries.