Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Flip5ide on March 21, 2015, 01:50:16 am
-
Name a radical change in the rules or layout that would work to change the game significantly or at least make for an interesting thought exercise.
For example, what if you added 4 Provinces to every game? What would a high level game look like? A low level game?
-
4 player games use 16 of each VP card and only end when 4 piles are empty instead of 3. Would make the game less of a sprint for VP.
-
I think non-radical changes are more interesting (*cough* scoutrebuildtheif *cough*)
But, hmm..
Each player receives 1 special shuffle token at the start, which they may use once per game at the start of a turn. When this token is used they immediately shuffle their entire deck and draw however many cards they had in hand (maximum 5)
-
Well considering the fairly open design of the game, the biggest changes would probably be based on setup. Almost everything else can be changed with new cards. Nearly every "game changing" idea I come up with could simply be an "under-the-line" addition to some card somewhere.
-
I'm really trying to make a co-op version of Dominion work out but I can't think of how it would work.
-
I have never understood people's fascination with co-op games, or co-op modes in general, but hey:
1) Goal: End the game as soon as possible using normal rules.
2) Goal: Empty the curse pile as quickly as possible.
3) Goal: Play a game of dominion in which all kingdom cards are available for purchase, and discuss your favorite cards while you play
4) Goal: Using the mega kingdom, end the game with over 100 VP as quickly as possible
5) Goal: Play a game in which each player starts with 1 Ghost Ship. The first player to play it is a meenie, and retains this status until the next Ghost Ship game.
6) Goal: Buy all the coppers
7) Goal: Buy all the silvers
8) Goal: End a game by emptying the following 3 supply piles: Gold, Silver, Copper
9) Goal: (Hard mode) Do #8 using *all* the cards from Base, Intrigue, and Base Cards
10) Goal: Play a game with no silvers in the supply
11) Goal: Play a game in which everyone must use their first $3 to buy Chancellor
12) Goal: Play a game in which you are allowed to use your Zaps from Dominion Online
13) Goal: Play a game with no kingdom cards
14) Goal: Play a game with Scout as the only kingdom card. Point and laugh anytime somebody buys a Scout.
15) Goal: Play a game in which each player starts with KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge. Discuss first player advantage.
-
You get my respect only for the scout part.
-
Would 12 Kingdom cards realistically work? or would something be skewed?
-
I have never understood people's fascination with co-op games, or co-op modes in general, but hey:
1) Goal: End the game as soon as possible using normal rules.
2) Goal: Empty the curse pile as quickly as possible.
3) Goal: Play a game of dominion in which all kingdom cards are available for purchase, and discuss your favorite cards while you play
4) Goal: Using the mega kingdom, end the game with over 100 VP as quickly as possible
5) Goal: Play a game in which each player starts with 1 Ghost Ship. The first player to play it is a meenie, and retains this status until the next Ghost Ship game.
6) Goal: Buy all the coppers
7) Goal: Buy all the silvers
8) Goal: End a game by emptying the following 3 supply piles: Gold, Silver, Copper
9) Goal: (Hard mode) Do #8 using *all* the cards from Base, Intrigue, and Base Cards
10) Goal: Play a game with no silvers in the supply
11) Goal: Play a game in which everyone must use their first $3 to buy Chancellor
12) Goal: Play a game in which you are allowed to use your Zaps from Dominion Online
13) Goal: Play a game with no kingdom cards
14) Goal: Play a game with Scout as the only kingdom card. Point and laugh anytime somebody buys a Scout.
15) Goal: Play a game in which each player starts with KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge. Discuss first player advantage.
#15 XD
-
Goko
-
Name a radical change in the rules or layout that would work to change the game significantly or at least make for an interesting thought exercise.
An online platform that worked.
-
The two "house rules" that isotropic allowed you to implement were:
-force identical starting hands
-veto mode.
(and later point counters, which let's not discuss in this thread since they've been discussed ad nauseum.)
I liked veto mode a lot, and even enjoyed the strategy of the meta-game on veto mode. The unfairness of identical starting hands in Dominion doesn't bug me. Neither did the house rule seem to break the spirit of the game. I mean, there's no way you can force things to be identical in Dominion. When my opponent is 5/2 on a Mountebank board, I think, "OK, I'm probably going to lose... but what can I do now to make that less likely?"
To me the much more frustrating shuffle is the second. If I had to house-rule the second shuffle, I would give players the option, on turn two only, of placing an estate on the bottom of the deck. This is unnatural and inelegant, but I can't think of any other rule that fixes the second-shuffle frustration without breaking the game.
-
I think Action card piles should add a card for every player past 2. That might make games last a little longer, but it might mean you can actually construct a halfway decent deck in a 4 player game before the Villages run out.
-
I think Action card piles should add a card for every player past 2. That might make games last a little longer, but it might mean you can actually construct a halfway decent deck in a 4 player game before the Villages run out.
What about having all piles (kingdom/victory) vary on a scale like 2p-8, 3p-10, 4p-12?
-
I think Action card piles should add a card for every player past 2. That might make games last a little longer, but it might mean you can actually construct a halfway decent deck in a 4 player game before the Villages run out.
What about having all piles (kingdom/victory) vary on a scale like 2p-8, 3p-10, 4p-12?
10, 15, 20 for non-VP?
-
I might consider the online game a true spinoff and try things there that physically can't be done, like bottomless piles. What if the base VP piles (estate, duchy, province and colony if it's there) were bottomless? Every game would end on three piles, because you can't empty province or colony, or slog past half the available points.
I also like getting to use a lot of any given board. My least favorite kingdoms are the ones full of terminals, where you just pick the best one or two, grab a few copies, and otherwise buy treasure and green. To get rid of that I'd consider making plain Village a base card with a pile of 40 like Silver.
-
If Village were a base card, no one would ever buy Shanty Town. What I did in my myth-y deckbuilder was I made "Necropolis" a base card, along with a card that can trash 2 cards at a time and does nothing else.
-
If Village were a base card, no one would ever buy Shanty Town.
Shanty Town is a fine opening buy, and it works well when you have lots of other Villages.
-
If Village were a base card, no one would ever buy Shanty Town.
Shanty Town is a fine opening buy, and it works well when you have lots of other Villages.
Yeah, probably. I guess my point was that if you want to make engines *possible* every game, that's one thing, but you shouldn't necessarily encourage them. Having Village be a base card is saying "always make an engine". Boards without Villages force you to be creative in other ways.
-
If Village were a base card, no one would ever buy Shanty Town. What I did in my myth-y deckbuilder was I made "Necropolis" a base card, along with a card that can trash 2 cards at a time and does nothing else.
How would Shanty Town conflict whatsoever with Village? If I started with 3 copies of one of the two in my deck I would still consider a couple the other card.
-
Yeah, probably. I guess my point was that if you want to make engines *possible* every game, that's one thing, but you shouldn't necessarily encourage them. Having Village be a base card is saying "always make an engine". Boards without Villages force you to be creative in other ways.
I think it would definitely be an improvement if you could always build an engine. It's nice that sometimes something is powerful enough to compete with an engine, but it's not particularly nice that sometimes there's absolutely nothing powerful on the board whatsoever and you just have to go with the least awful strategy. However, I don't really like having Village as a base card either, because I think it's cool that there are games where, for example, you have to win the Procession split because it's the only splitter on the board.
-
I think it's pretty short-sighted to say that "the game would be better if you could always build an engine." That's a different thing from what I think you're trying to say, which is "I would like the game better if you could always build an engine" but there are lots of people out there who prefer other types of games.
If you could always build an engine then every game would be an engine game. They're no longer special and there's no sort of variety; maybe engine games are your favorite (they are mine) but that doesn't mean I don't want to ever play the other types of games. It's pretty clear that the game would have much less replayability if BM games, slogs, or other types of hybrids were guaranteed to never happen, and no matter how you feel about any of those things, I don't understand how after years of playing the same game, anyone would want to say they would be happier if those games were never played.
This is a strong statement, but I'm pretty sure it holds: there's no way the game would be better if only engine games were possible.
-
I think it's pretty short-sighted to say that "the game would be better if you could always build an engine." That's a different thing from what I think you're trying to say, which is "I would like the game better if you could always build an engine" but there are lots of people out there who prefer other types of games.
If you could always build an engine then every game would be an engine game. They're no longer special and there's no sort of variety; maybe engine games are your favorite (they are mine) but that doesn't mean I don't want to ever play the other types of games. It's pretty clear that the game would have much less replayability if BM games, slogs, or other types of hybrids were guaranteed to never happen, and no matter how you feel about any of those things, I don't understand how after years of playing the same game, anyone would want to say they would be happier if those games were never played.
This is a strong statement, but I'm pretty sure it holds: there's no way the game would be better if only engine games were possible.
Being always able to build an engine doesn't mean you always should.
-
I might consider the online game a true spinoff and try things there that physically can't be done, like bottomless piles. What if the base VP piles (estate, duchy and province) were bottomless? Every game would end on three piles, because you can't empty province or colony, or slog past half the available points.
These might become an endless race where people are constantly buying VPs at the same rate and ending the game gives the other person the lead...
-
Uhh guys, having Village as a base card doesn't even mean you can always build an engine. Without desirable payload actions, Village is a useless cantrip. Without some draw card or at least a cycling, you won't reliably line up villages with multiple payload actions. Yes, Village as a base card makes engine boards more likely (one less piece that needs to appear at random), but just having villages in your deck doesn't mean you're playing an engine, it just means you're a little less likely to have terminal collision so you can risk buying more actions.
Maybe Village as a base card isn't the best way to get at the thing I dislike, which is that Big Money + (best available terminal) gets old pretty fast. I think it's more fun to have a deck full of kingdom cards (most of which happen to be actions) than a deck of mostly Silver and Gold, especially if you can use multiple different kingdom cards.
-
I might consider the online game a true spinoff and try things there that physically can't be done, like bottomless piles. What if the base VP piles (estate, duchy and province) were bottomless? Every game would end on three piles, because you can't empty province or colony, or slog past half the available points.
These might become an endless race where people are constantly buying VPs at the same rate and ending the game gives the other person the lead...
Possible but rare because base green cards clog your deck. Even a super-reliable engine would have to keep buying some components while it buys green, which would lower piles and eventually end the game. Only golden decks could do what you're suggesting endlessly, and there are already possible "stalemate" situations like that in the real game. It can happen pretty easily in a Bishop/Fortress mirror, for instance.
-
4 player games use 16 of each VP card and only end when 4 piles are empty instead of 3. Would make the game less of a sprint for VP.
I like the game length in terms of turns more with 4 Provinces per player, but made it 3 for 4 players due to the game length in terms of minutes. For sure if the minutes aren't an issue for you then 16 Provinces for 4 players is a good variant. I don't know what the best number of empty piles would be, I would have to do testing.
-
Would 12 Kingdom cards realistically work? or would something be skewed?
I think 8-12 are fine. With 8 you have the advantage of it taking more games to see everything (relevant when you just have the main set), and of course the disadvantage of having fewer options in each game. I wouldn't go much higher than 12 because you are asking a lot of new players.
-
I think Action card piles should add a card for every player past 2. That might make games last a little longer, but it might mean you can actually construct a halfway decent deck in a 4 player game before the Villages run out.
Obv. you would not possibly want to do this irl; it's just way too much set-up. If the game had started out as an online game, I would have tried having non-VP piles be unlimited (and done whatever work on the ending condition that I'm not doing for a hypothetical).
-
I also like getting to use a lot of any given board. My least favorite kingdoms are the ones full of terminals, where you just pick the best one or two, grab a few copies, and otherwise buy treasure and green. To get rid of that I'd consider making plain Village a base card with a pile of 40 like Silver.
For me it's a huge plus to the existing game that basic parts shift in availability (and that this works). Some games there's no village, some games there's a village; some games there's a village for $2, some games it's $5. Hooray, different experiences. Villages are so common that you usually have one, and sometimes several, but which village it is shakes things up, and you get those different games with no villages.
Anyone who always wants Village, or Moat, or whatever, is obv. free to just always include it, and that's that. The game is already handling that just by letting you pick the kingdom cards however you want.
-
A variation i like to play once in a blue moon is called BMU (black market ultimate) where you take 100 randomizers from the randomizer stack and put them in ten stacks of ten face down with only the top card revealed. Now you're not playing dominion, you're playing ascension with dominion cards and rules. Pro tip: this does not make dominion better, it is hard to make dominion better, but it does do hilarious things to card power and balance.
-
I also like getting to use a lot of any given board. My least favorite kingdoms are the ones full of terminals, where you just pick the best one or two, grab a few copies, and otherwise buy treasure and green. To get rid of that I'd consider making plain Village a base card with a pile of 40 like Silver.
For me it's a huge plus to the existing game that basic parts shift in availability (and that this works). Some games there's no village, some games there's a village; some games there's a village for $2, some games it's $5. Hooray, different experiences. Villages are so common that you usually have one, and sometimes several, but which village it is shakes things up, and you get those different games with no villages.
Yeah later in the thread I backed off the idea of village as basic card, it's not a very good answer to what I wanted to solve anyway (random boards where you just pick the best kingdom card). And I do love the replay value that comes from varying parts.
Anyone who always wants Village, or Moat, or whatever, is obv. free to just always include it, and that's that. The game is already handling that just by letting you pick the kingdom cards however you want.
Not if you're playing goko pro mode, which I suspect is the majority of Dominion games for f.ds users. "Just pick the cards you want to play with" is a perfect answer to almost every complaint or suggestion I've ever heard about Dominion, which is why I think it's such a shame that the de facto online standard doesn't have that feature.
-
Not if you're playing goko pro mode, which I suspect is the majority of Dominion games for f.ds users. "Just pick the cards you want to play with" is a perfect answer to almost every complaint or suggestion I've ever heard about Dominion, which is why I think it's such a shame that the de facto online standard doesn't have that feature.
You can play whatever cards you want online, and I expect that someday the system for doing so will be better. You won't get ranked for those games and well there's no way around that; picking the cards confers too much of an advantage.
-
You can play whatever cards you want online, and I expect that someday the system for doing so will be better. You won't get ranked for those games and well there's no way around that; picking the cards confers too much of an advantage.
People like Leck cheat act dubiously by playing the same chosen trap board hundreds of times in casual (e.g., http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150109/log.516dc44be4b082c74d7c8c25.1420802054571.txt).
A feature that showed the string used in the Salvager Kingdom generator to create a game (for unrated/casual games) but hid the Kingdom itself would be great. For example, suppose you want to include Prince (or exclude Scout), but not see the Kingdom in advance.
In addition, there are ways in the current Salvager Kingdom generator to make different cards come up with varying frequencies. However, the associated Kingdom generator strings are cumbersome. If before joining a game you couldn't see the Kingdom but could see an indication that, "All cards have equal probability, except: 3x frequency of Jack of All Trades, 1/3 frequency of Knights, excludes Tournament", that would increase the market for unrated/casual games. You could see that this person likes Jack and dislike Knights and Tournament, but hasn't preset the board.
-
You can play whatever cards you want online, and I expect that someday the system for doing so will be better. You won't get ranked for those games and well there's no way around that; picking the cards confers too much of an advantage.
People like Leck cheat by playing the same chosen trap board hundreds of times in casual (e.g., http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150109/log.516dc44be4b082c74d7c8c25.1420802054571.txt).
That isn't cheating.
-
You can play whatever cards you want online, and I expect that someday the system for doing so will be better. You won't get ranked for those games and well there's no way around that; picking the cards confers too much of an advantage.
People like Leck cheat by playing the same chosen trap board hundreds of times in casual (e.g., http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150109/log.516dc44be4b082c74d7c8c25.1420802054571.txt).
That isn't cheating.
True: it isn't cheating
True: it is cheap. it's hard to take casual ratings too seriously.
It would be interesting to pit a top player against a "trap" board player and see what happens, whether they take the same route off the bat.
-
The punishment for playing the same trap board over and over in casual rating is that you have to play the same trap board over and over in casual rating.
-
I would change the theme, because I don't like the medieval European aesthetic. It invariably reminds me of lame-ass "creative anachronism" types and their ren-fests and LARPing and all that garbage. That's just me though.
But the benefit that everyone would get out of that would be that the cards would have to get different artwork which would mean that no one would ever have to look at the likes of Candlestick Maker or Scout or Harem ever again.
-
But the benefit that everyone would get out of that would be that the cards would have to get different artwork which would mean that no one would ever have to look at the likes of Candlestick Maker or Scout or Harem ever again.
(http://i.imgur.com/D8zaKZQ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/vBTG8IK.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Ksegryc.jpg)
Better?
-
Not remotely. Who said anything about a sci-fi theme?
-
Who said anything about a sci-fi theme?
You just did.
-
My favorite variant is simultaneous turns. It's mainly for 4-6, but basically everyone takes their turn at the same time. It requires a few rules changes.
- Priority marker: Designates who gets priority in the buy phase if there's a dispute over who is buying the last two cards. Rotates clockwise every turn.
- Attacks resolve on the next hand. Draws happen before discards (Council Room/Militia)
- If players tie, they're joint winners. Alternatively you could do most green cards, farthest from priority, etc.
- Possession is banned (not much of a rule, I know)
Makes the 4 player game suck a lot less, and makes 5-6 playable. Although really, going up to 12-15 stacks for 6 is kind of good.
-
But the benefit that everyone would get out of that would be that the cards would have to get different artwork which would mean that no one would ever have to look at the likes of Candlestick Maker or Scout or Harem ever again.
Oy. I like Candlestick Maker.
-
- Both players sit with their cards backwards, facing their opponent.
- Player 2 plays any and all action cards possible (in any legal order) from Player 1's hand and makes applicable decisions for Player 1 during the Action phase. Villages (+2 action variants) must be played if possible.
- Player 1 now buys any card(s) he/she wishes to buy, which all go to their (Player 1's) deck, just like normal.
- Play continues to Player 2, who (always holding his cards backwards) has his action phase run by Player 1.
EDIT: There are a few holes in the idea that I can think of. Namely BM and trashers in general. Looking for some way to tweak the idea.
-
Kind of an idea of a friend but also partially my idea:
1. Play a 4 player game of Dominion with players opposite each other on the same team.
2. The team with the most points total at the end wins.
3. Attacks can either affect your partner or not depending if they want them too.
Seems like one of the best ideas I have ever thought of for playing co-op Dominion.
Leads to possibilities for some engines where there otherwise couldn't be engines (i.e. parter goes for pirate ship you build an engine) that possibly make the game more interesting than two player sometimes.
-
Kind of an idea of a friend but also partially my idea:
1. Play a 4 player game of Dominion with players opposite each other on the same team.
2. The team with the most points total at the end wins.
3. Attacks can either affect your partner or not depending if they want them too.
Seems like one of the best ideas I have ever thought of for playing co-op Dominion.
Leads to possibilities for some engines where there otherwise couldn't be engines (i.e. parter goes for pirate ship you build an engine) that possibly make the game more interesting than two player sometimes.
That's simple enough that it might actually be interesting to try a few times. I bet there would be few kinks. However the problem is that there is nothing separating this game from a standard 4-player game. I mean, you could literally pair up into arbitrary teams on Goko, but there would be little true "teamwork." You need at least one aspect or rule that adds to teamwork or it will never stick.
EDIT: I'm not saying mine would fit the bill either. I'm just thinking out loud.