Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 153 154 [155] 156 157 ... 225  All

Author Topic: Interview with Donald X.  (Read 2126862 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3850 on: May 22, 2017, 02:53:24 am »
+1

There's a "strategic breadth" to dominion that stems from it's randomized kingdoms; even with just the base set its incredibly unlikely to play the same kingdom twice, so to get good you have to consider the pairs of interactions of loads of cards. I'm not as convinced that dominion has a similar amount of "strategic depth", in that one kingdom would generally get boring to play in less than 5 play thrus as a decent player. Chess is a good default example of what I mean from strategic depth: there's a universal starting point but it can handle tens of thousands of play thrus while still being interesting.

Did you intentionally aim for (some form similar to my definition of) strategic breadth over depth because you think it's more valuable for board games? Do your favorite games generally have some form of "arbitrarily large number of starting positions"?
So far the distinction you're making between "breadth" and "depth"  just seems arbitrary and negative to me. Either I'm having new experiences or I'm not; either I continue to find ways to improve or I don't. How the game achieves that seems unrelated to whether or not you have it. I mean. It's like you're saying, my games aren't as good, because of the particular ways that they produce new experiences. "Depth" is a term other people use, it will mean something to those people separate from whatever you may mean by it, and no amount of quotation marks changes that. When you say you don't think Dominion has strategic depth, you are telling those people that it sucks, regardless of what you actually mean. FYI!

I try to make games that produce new experiences repeatedly; often that involves varying starting conditions, often with those elements being rules components, to the point of "it's a different game each time." That's not the only way to get new experiences; you can for example simply have lots of designed space, such that it takes players a long time to see all of it. That's a basic thing computer games often do. You can push psychology or creativity such that you're exploring yourself or the other players; for people who like those games (far short of everyone for either category), that can keep a game replayable for a long time with nothing else backing it up. I've done some of each.

I can also enjoy a game that just gives one experience though, if I like that experience. For example I still sometimes play Boggle. Boggle is an example of a game with variable set-up where grouping it with variable rules games like mine is just hugely misleading; the variable set-up doesn't stop it from being the same experience every time.

I hold Chess up as an example of what not to do. It's too hard for new players to even see legal moves, let alone make good plays. It feels like if you were good enough you could see lots of moves ahead, but you aren't actually able to do that; so it feels like the game is telling you how stupid you are.

And yes also "explore what happens when the first 8 moves are the same but then things try somehow to get interesting" is bad. Bobby Fischer - wikipedia says, "Many consider him to be the greatest chess player of all time," and gives citations - didn't think it was so great memorizing openings and exploring those paths, and advocated randomizing the starting positions. As if then the game had more uh well let's not call it depth. More something.


I like Dominion more than chess because of the randomized start states, I'm sorry if I came off as negative, I probably coulda thrown in some praise for what I called "breadth". I was wordily describing why I think chess is harder to fully master in a sense (though neither are by any means easy), but I think there's about 1000 things more important to a game being fun than "being incredibly hard to master" to the point where you have to devote your life.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer!
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3851 on: May 22, 2017, 01:43:48 pm »
+1

It's possible that for a game to have the kind of "depth" that chess has, it needs to have little or no randomness. Looking several turns ahead becomes difficult the more random events change things. Personally I'll take some randomness any day of the week. I find chess incredibly dull.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 887
  • Respect: +1675
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3852 on: May 22, 2017, 05:53:49 pm »
+2

I'm not as convinced that dominion has a similar amount of "strategic depth", in that one kingdom would generally get boring to play in less than 5 play thrus as a decent player.

I think this might be true; but I think we should test it. I'd actually like to see the results of a "Kingdom of the week" feature on ShuffleIt: give players the option to play the KotW and then at the end of the week publish some analysis on the results: the dominant strategy, etc.; 5/2 vs. 4/3 breakdown; first player advantage etc.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3853 on: May 22, 2017, 07:11:07 pm »
+3

But even with the same Kingom every time, Dominion has luck which makes it different. Chess has a theoretical right set of moves that will win every game (or force a draw every game; it's not known which). Dominion will always require you to play the odds and work with what you've got.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5344
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3854 on: May 23, 2017, 06:27:03 am »
0

But even with the same Kingom every time, Dominion has luck which makes it different. Chess has a theoretical right set of moves that will win every game (or force a draw every game; it's not known which). Dominion will always require you to play the odds and work with what you've got.

You're going either too far or not far enough here. Chess has no correct set of moves, but rather a theoretical tree of optimal moves that is so enormously big that I will confidently claim that non-enhanced humans will never be able to memorize it. Either way, if you were to assume that humans were capable of memorizing it, you should also assume that they would be capable of making the exact right decision (based on probabilities) at any time in a game of Dominion, leaving the result up to chance alone. However, a game that's decided on chance alone isn't more than a coin flip, and therefore just as dull as a game with fixed winners.

The point is that Chess' actions depend exclusively on your opponent's actions, while Dominion's don't. You can like either and complain about either. I like both.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3855 on: May 23, 2017, 09:02:15 am »
+6

You're going either too far or not far enough here. Chess has no correct set of moves, but rather a theoretical tree of optimal moves that is so enormously big that I will confidently claim that non-enhanced humans will never be able to memorize it. Either way, if you were to assume that humans were capable of memorizing it, you should also assume that they would be capable of making the exact right decision (based on probabilities) at any time in a game of Dominion, leaving the result up to chance alone. However, a game that's decided on chance alone isn't more than a coin flip, and therefore just as dull as a game with fixed winners.

The point is that Chess' actions depend exclusively on your opponent's actions, while Dominion's don't. You can like either and complain about either. I like both.
We have been down this road before.

For people who want to be super correct: chess is a low-luck game, but does have luck. This is trivially true due to the impossibility of complete analysis. As always I then recommend Richard Garfield's speech on luck vs. skill, which you can find on youtube.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9625
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3856 on: May 23, 2017, 09:39:39 am »
+1

Will there be a Secret History for Alternate Realities?  I'm rather curious to hear some of the stories behind the mechanics and flavor of some of the zones/cards.  The ancient aliens want you to get rich, for some reason?
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3857 on: May 23, 2017, 06:54:22 pm »
+2

Will there be a Secret History for Alternate Realities?  I'm rather curious to hear some of the stories behind the mechanics and flavor of some of the zones/cards.  The ancient aliens want you to get rich, for some reason?
I wrote a preview/history that doesn't say much, but was waiting to post it until my copies showed up, and they are late. So now it's super pointless but probably it will make it out anyway.

You need the money to power up your pyramid spaceships? "Aliens" sounded like it fit with "alternate win condition" and I looked no further.

Obv the number $100 could have been tweaked to be whatever perfect number, but it really wanted to be $100 if $100 worked, and $100 did work.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3858 on: May 24, 2017, 01:31:42 am »
+1

You're going either too far or not far enough here. Chess has no correct set of moves, but rather a theoretical tree of optimal moves that is so enormously big that I will confidently claim that non-enhanced humans will never be able to memorize it. Either way, if you were to assume that humans were capable of memorizing it, you should also assume that they would be capable of making the exact right decision (based on probabilities) at any time in a game of Dominion, leaving the result up to chance alone. However, a game that's decided on chance alone isn't more than a coin flip, and therefore just as dull as a game with fixed winners.

The point is that Chess' actions depend exclusively on your opponent's actions, while Dominion's don't. You can like either and complain about either. I like both.
We have been down this road before.

For people who want to be super correct: chess is a low-luck game, but does have luck. This is trivially true due to the impossibility of complete analysis. As always I then recommend Richard Garfield's speech on luck vs. skill, which you can find on youtube.

I'm going to disagree on an abstract level, ignoring actually playing the game.

I'm all but certain chess will be brute-force solved in my lifetime.  And even if it's not, we can show easily that such a solution exists even if computing technology as of 20xx or even 23xx can't find it.  (The computers described in Star Trek almost certainly had solved chess.)

This is not true of Dominion and other games that involve randomness.  Dominion, like poker, is non-solvable.

Chess has no such randomness; you cannot have a "bad beat" in chess, because there are only the moves that have been made.  The same could be said for many other games: Go, Caylus, Prismata (though setup is randomized), Terra Mystica (random setup), and of course dozens of games that *have* been solved.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3859 on: May 24, 2017, 02:15:17 am »
+4

I think the argument is that, unless you integrate a supercomputer into a human brain, the human won't be able to solve the game, so there is some amount of luck into what a human will or will not see. Computers already beat humans at Chess, and they are getting there at Go. That doesn't stop people from playing those games.

And even in games with luck, there will always be a move that maximizes the odds of winning, so they can theoretically be solved too.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3860 on: May 24, 2017, 04:00:57 am »
+1

I don't really get why people still play actual chess. It lacks a ton of aspects that a lot of comparable games do have.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

ThetaSigma12

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1681
  • Shuffle iT Username: ThetaSigma12
  • Respect: +1809
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3861 on: May 24, 2017, 07:58:10 am »
+1

I don't really get why people still play actual chess.
Nostalgia.
Logged
My magnum opus collection of dominion fan cards is available here!

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3862 on: May 24, 2017, 09:36:28 am »
+1

You're going either too far or not far enough here. Chess has no correct set of moves, but rather a theoretical tree of optimal moves that is so enormously big that I will confidently claim that non-enhanced humans will never be able to memorize it. Either way, if you were to assume that humans were capable of memorizing it, you should also assume that they would be capable of making the exact right decision (based on probabilities) at any time in a game of Dominion, leaving the result up to chance alone. However, a game that's decided on chance alone isn't more than a coin flip, and therefore just as dull as a game with fixed winners.

The point is that Chess' actions depend exclusively on your opponent's actions, while Dominion's don't. You can like either and complain about either. I like both.
We have been down this road before.

For people who want to be super correct: chess is a low-luck game, but does have luck. This is trivially true due to the impossibility of complete analysis. As always I then recommend Richard Garfield's speech on luck vs. skill, which you can find on youtube.

I'm going to disagree on an abstract level, ignoring actually playing the game.

I'm all but certain chess will be brute-force solved in my lifetime.  And even if it's not, we can show easily that such a solution exists even if computing technology as of 20xx or even 23xx can't find it.  (The computers described in Star Trek almost certainly had solved chess.)

This is not true of Dominion and other games that involve randomness.  Dominion, like poker, is non-solvable.

Chess has no such randomness; you cannot have a "bad beat" in chess, because there are only the moves that have been made.  The same could be said for many other games: Go, Caylus, Prismata (though setup is randomized), Terra Mystica (random setup), and of course dozens of games that *have* been solved.

To borrow Garfield's example... we'll play a game. We each name a digit 0-9. Whoever is closest to the 23,343,498,734,328'th digit of Pi is the winner. (The large number chosen changes each time you play). The game is perfectly solvable... just memorize the first few quadrillion digits of Pi. However, given the human impossibility of doing such a feat, the game ends up playing out indistinguishable from a coin-toss game with 50/50 chance of winning.

Same goes for chess. Even though it is absolutely solvable, because it's impossible for humans to do so, a beginner could defeat a grandmaster by making random moves and getting lucky enough to make the 1 set of moves that's a guaranteed win.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3863 on: May 24, 2017, 10:10:43 am »
0

I've always thought Dominion and Chess were similar in that they are both very easy to understand (rules are simple) while having very complex strategies and gameplays.   To me that's a mark of an elegant game: you can get a lot of richness from a few basic rules. 

I contrast this with something like (American) football, where there are lots of complicated and seemingly arbitrary rules.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3864 on: May 24, 2017, 11:28:26 am »
0

Chess would be simple if the pieces had text, but all the text is in the rules which actually makes it pretty complex.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3865 on: May 24, 2017, 01:23:02 pm »
+4

I'm all but certain chess will be brute-force solved in my lifetime.  And even if it's not, we can show easily that such a solution exists even if computing technology as of 20xx or even 23xx can't find it.  (The computers described in Star Trek almost certainly had solved chess.)

This is not true of Dominion and other games that involve randomness.  Dominion, like poker, is non-solvable.

Chess has no such randomness; you cannot have a "bad beat" in chess, because there are only the moves that have been made.  The same could be said for many other games: Go, Caylus, Prismata (though setup is randomized), Terra Mystica (random setup), and of course dozens of games that *have* been solved.
It's obv. moot if computers have solved chess, if we are talking about a game between humans. To the humans, the game has luck. It's trivial to demonstrate.

The idea that a game with randomness can't be solved, well that's not how I use the word "solved." You can of course have a game with randomness where you can calculate the odds and know the best move. The only sane definition of "solved" is the one that includes those games. The fact that after the fact we can tell you another move would have been better given how the dice came up is moot. It's hugely misleading to suggest that "we don't know how the dice will come up" is anything like "we haven't thrown enough computing power at Chess yet."

Poker is unsolvable due to the psychological component. You can hone in on answers with history analysis, but may start with no history of your opponents to analyze.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3866 on: May 24, 2017, 01:28:00 pm »
+4

Chess would be simple if the pieces had text, but all the text is in the rules which actually makes it pretty complex.
This is not true, and I have playtesting experience backing me up. The grid adds a lot of complexity.

In the early days of Magic, trying to describe it, I'd say, suppose we were playing Chess, but I brought half the set and you brought the other half. You've got knights and bishops and things, but I have archers and pikemen. And half of my board is underwater. After describing it that way a few times, I thought, I should make that game. And I made a game with tiles with text on them that went on a board and fought it out. It was impossible to see legal plays, let alone good plays.
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1179
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3867 on: May 25, 2017, 12:14:43 am »
0

You're going either too far or not far enough here. Chess has no correct set of moves, but rather a theoretical tree of optimal moves that is so enormously big that I will confidently claim that non-enhanced humans will never be able to memorize it. Either way, if you were to assume that humans were capable of memorizing it, you should also assume that they would be capable of making the exact right decision (based on probabilities) at any time in a game of Dominion, leaving the result up to chance alone. However, a game that's decided on chance alone isn't more than a coin flip, and therefore just as dull as a game with fixed winners.

The point is that Chess' actions depend exclusively on your opponent's actions, while Dominion's don't. You can like either and complain about either. I like both.
We have been down this road before.

For people who want to be super correct: chess is a low-luck game, but does have luck. This is trivially true due to the impossibility of complete analysis. As always I then recommend Richard Garfield's speech on luck vs. skill, which you can find on youtube.
Zermelo's theorem begs to differ.
It has luck if start player is predetermined.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3868 on: May 25, 2017, 03:18:23 am »
0

You're going either too far or not far enough here. Chess has no correct set of moves, but rather a theoretical tree of optimal moves that is so enormously big that I will confidently claim that non-enhanced humans will never be able to memorize it. Either way, if you were to assume that humans were capable of memorizing it, you should also assume that they would be capable of making the exact right decision (based on probabilities) at any time in a game of Dominion, leaving the result up to chance alone. However, a game that's decided on chance alone isn't more than a coin flip, and therefore just as dull as a game with fixed winners.

The point is that Chess' actions depend exclusively on your opponent's actions, while Dominion's don't. You can like either and complain about either. I like both.
We have been down this road before.

For people who want to be super correct: chess is a low-luck game, but does have luck. This is trivially true due to the impossibility of complete analysis. As always I then recommend Richard Garfield's speech on luck vs. skill, which you can find on youtube.
Zermelo's theorem begs to differ.
It has luck if start player is predetermined.
I am looking at the wikipedia article on Zermelo's thereom; it does not appear to have the tiniest bit of relevance to the conversation.

Again if someone wants more words on the topic of what exactly counts as luck and all that, I recommend Richard Garfield's speech on luck, which is easy to find. I am not going to devote time to arguing it out but am prepared to tell more people that they're wrong.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3869 on: May 25, 2017, 03:46:27 am »
0

It's simply different definitions. Donald isn't using the game theory definition of luck, which is perfectly fine because he's using the other definition for a purpose.

Certainly Zermelo's theorem isn't relevant because it's using luck in the randomized integer sense, and implicitly assumes an omniscient player is playing the game.

...it also assumes that the game has no luck within it's assertions, and the proof is about being deterministic, not about lacking chance/luck so it's entirely irrelevant that way too regardless of definition....
Logged

ben_king

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 190
  • Shuffle iT Username: ben.king
  • formerly grsbmd
  • Respect: +612
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3870 on: May 30, 2017, 10:09:29 am »
0

My wife and I came across a Temporum rules question while playing the new expansion (which we absolutely love, by the way).

What happens if you set aside Anubis Statuette with Cache?  Presumably the start of your turn happens before changing history or moving.  So does "resolve this zone" tell you to visit the zone where you happen to be at the start of your turn, or does Anubis Statuette just set up an effect that happens later in the turn when you visit a zone normally?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3871 on: May 30, 2017, 10:45:20 am »
+1

My wife and I came across a Temporum rules question while playing the new expansion (which we absolutely love, by the way).

What happens if you set aside Anubis Statuette with Cache?  Presumably the start of your turn happens before changing history or moving.  So does "resolve this zone" tell you to visit the zone where you happen to be at the start of your turn, or does Anubis Statuette just set up an effect that happens later in the turn when you visit a zone normally?

Interesting. It's clear that in general Anubis Statuette just sets up an effect that happens later. But there's some unfortunate wording with "this zone", since "this zone" normally means "the zone where you currently are while playing Anubis Statuette". The only reasonable resolution to me would be interpreting "this zone" to mean "the zone that you choose to visit on this turn". Meaning, it would still just set up an effect that you would take after the next time you visit a zone.

It just now occurred to me that even without the expansion, Anubis Statuette might happen in the middle of turn instead of at the end of turn. When combined with Information Age, you might visit Time III, play Anubis Statuette, then resolve Anubis, moving and visiting somewhere else. But then after that you still move on to Time II and/or Time I, depending on where you have 4 influence.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3872 on: May 30, 2017, 03:11:21 pm »
+1

What happens if you set aside Anubis Statuette with Cache?  Presumably the start of your turn happens before changing history or moving.  So does "resolve this zone" tell you to visit the zone where you happen to be at the start of your turn, or does Anubis Statuette just set up an effect that happens later in the turn when you visit a zone normally?
Anubis Statuette should say, to clarify this situation, "after you visit your regular zone for the turn" (or some such). That's the intended functionality. With Information Age, it's after resolving Information Age, after visiting whatever Zones result from that.
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1179
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3873 on: June 07, 2017, 10:54:24 pm »
+1

Why did you choose to make wall start at 15?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3874 on: June 07, 2017, 11:19:09 pm »
+13

Why did you choose to make wall start at 15?

If the question is, why 15 specifically, then I don't know. The reason it doesn't start at 0 is because of a lunch game my group had where one player trashed down to a 3-card golden deck (with Temple) and then left to go to a meeting. Now at the time, I believe Wall was "–1 VP per 2 cards you have". If it had been –1 VP per card without the 15-card threshold, he would have won that game, despite gaining a measly 1 VP per turn.

Long story short, having that 15-card threshold lets actual decks compete against golden decks in Wall games.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 153 154 [155] 156 157 ... 225  All
 

Page created in 0.173 seconds with 21 queries.