Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: Additional Game Ending Conditions  (Read 10943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +559
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2015, 09:37:52 am »
0

If You Miss, Reload
Event - 0
Reveal your hand.  If it contains no Action cards or Treasure cards (other than Copper), and you have no cards in play, take another turn after this one.


I wonder how many people will get this?
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2015, 10:08:55 am »
0

Well, it's not limited to 1 turn, so you could have an infinite loop right off the bat with your starting cards (no Shelters).
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +559
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2015, 10:11:56 am »
0

It wasn't a serious suggestion, to be honest.

But now you mention it, yes.
I considered a turn restriction, but I like that you can keep cycling til you find a not-crappy hand. The opening turn thing you don't gain anything by looping except a choice of opening split.

If this were to be remotely serious yes it would have to have a turn cap.
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2015, 04:56:35 pm »
+1

Are there other problems with my idea that I haven't seen?

Well the obvious one is that different VP token cards can get tokens at a wildly different rate. A number that's a reasonable maximum for one such card might still lead to unreasonably long games with other such cards.

If the rule had been in place since the beginning (or since Prosperity), then cards could be designed with that maximum in mind.

I don't think the rate matters that much.  I think "unreasonably long" is not really a problem compared to "unending".  An easy example -- suppose two players both pursue Bishop-Fortress and they come out even.  They end up gaining +VP at the same rate.  If one player ever tries to proceed towards a game end by buying anything at all, they'll start to fall behind and the other player will be able to end it on a win instead.  So they're both stuck playing the same turn over and over again until somebody resigns or somebody dies.

With a VP token end condition, this is avoided.  Whoever reaches the "finish line" first wins, period.  Even if it would be a long, long game to get there (depending on whether it's 100 or 1000 or whatever) the players could easily extrapolate -- Alice has the lead and they're gaining VP at the same rate, so of course Alice will win.

My intention is to choose a number that doesn't really impact the original cards much except in the extreme circumstances.

What other "closed" card design spaces could be opened up with a new general rule?

This latter question is difficult because it requires going back to look at old assumptions.

Nothing jumps to mind.

It's tough, which is why I'm asking other people if they have any ideas along these lines.  The discussion is headed elsewhere though...

OK, how about this -- we take for granted that attacks should not simply prevent an opponent from having a turn ever again.  The most common incarnation of this is a card that forces players to "discard X cards" with no other restrictions.  In official games, this could happen from a pin -- something faust has mentioned above.

What if the Event that faust proposed was just a rule of the game?  If you start your turn with no cards in hand, the game immediately ends -- now the person who wants to pin would likely lose, since their deck wouldn't have any VP in it.  Or it could be a minor mulligan rule -- if you start your turn with no cards in hand, immediately draw 3 cards.

Rules like this would severely nerf pin combos but also open up design space of cards that potentially take a player down to 0 cards, which could open up new design space for attacks based around this idea.

Goons is the least problematic of the bunch, because you only get +VP from it by pushing the game to an end.
Sure. But if you are concerned about players getting too many VPs from VP tokens and wanna cap it Goons is an obvious candidate which would warrant such a cap as among the three official card it is the one which on average leads to most VP tokens.
Does not mean that I think that the cap is necessary but if you introduced a cap you should be aware that among the three official VP token gaining cards it would weaken Goons on average the most (which IMO wouldn't be a big thing as Goons is overpowered).

I think you are wrong on that front for 2 reasons.

First, Goons games normally don't lead to close games where both players are consistently racking up points the whole time (though it could happen).  If there is no way to play multiples, Goons is an attack with some bonus VP in what is just a regular game.  No problem there.  But when you can play multiples, then it's an intricate game where both players build up engines as they try to find a way to pile out with the win.  The scores stay relatively low (that is, relative to the final score) most of the way through until the last turn, where the winner piles out and uses all her extra +Buys on VP cards and Copper (which would have been anathema any time earlier), leading to a sudden explosion of points.  The imposition of a game end tied to VP tokens would not impact this because players would not normally pass the ending threshold unless they were going to pile out anyway.

And that's the second reason Goons wouldn't be weakened - my proposal isn't merely a cap.  It's a game end.  That means that Goons would actually be strengthened if the threshold were set too low, because it would just turn the game into a race to reach that line first.

Now if you wanna try out cantrip VP token gainers (personally I do not see much merit in that) you can do that (my uneducated guess is that a pure one would probably cost 5$) and you will soon see how much VP tokens such a card generated on average which would be the basis for a maximum value of VP tokens. Obviously in decks with non-terminal and terminal VP token gaining cards such a cap would make the latter weaker.
As others have said, I think it would make more sense to put the extra game ending trigger on the card. Only so much cantrip VP token gaining variants one can come up with.

Or if you wanna do non-terminal VP token gainers you simply nerf them directly instead of via a cap. Asper's Hospital comes to mind. After all the problem of a cap is that if a card is so strong that it will generate on average create such a huge load of VP tokens all players will go for it anyway and the only tricky decision is to balance how much of them you need in order to (nearly) reach the maximum of VP tokens.

As I said earlier, the simple cantrip was just an example.  The card that got me thinking about this isn't even an action, and I think this rule would open up design space more.  I also explained why this would be better as a new rule as opposed to something tied to specific cards - it eats up physical card space and it would require multiple dividing lines for certain card concepts.

Here are some quick concepts that might work (after some tweaking) with a VP token end condition that probably wouldn't work without one.  Let's say the end game condition is 200 tokens (and there would be 10VP denomination tokens for easier tracking, probably).

Quote
Passage
$5 - Action-Reaction
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Discard a card.

When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it.  If you do, +2VP.

Since it is non-terminal and combos with other non-terminal cards like Warehouse, having the end condition is important.  Putting it on the card would require two dividing lines though, ugh.

Quote
Land Surveyor
$2 - Action-Reaction
You may return a card from your hand to the Supply.  If it is a Victory card, +VP equal to its cost in coins.

When you would gain a Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, +VP equal to its cost in coins.

This one is terminal!  The concept is a card made for actively stalling the game.  It clearly needs the rule to bring the game to an end.  I don't think there would be room to put the rule on the card itself, but even if you could, it would be two lines again.

Quote
Merchant
$5 - Action
+2 Buys
Take 2 coin tokens.

In games using this, coin tokens are also VP tokens.

Another terminal.  The rule is important this time not because of this card but because of what it does to other cards.

Quote
Landlord
$4 - Action
+2 Cards
Reveal your hand.  +1VP per Victory card revealed.

Terminal, but dangerous with any sort of village.  Double Tactician would be particularly threatening.  Granted, this one could probably have the condition on the card itself, but I think this is enough examples to show that it would be worth having as a rule in the rulebook.

Quote
Village Savant
$4 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
You may return any number of VP tokens for +1 Action each.

Straight forward.  Again, the rule could be on this card, but it's cleaner if it isn't.

Anyway, these probably aren't good cards as they are.  They're just to illustrate the wide variety of cards that might work with a VP end condition in place.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2015, 05:15:23 pm »
0

Well the obvious one is that different VP token cards can get tokens at a wildly different rate. A number that's a reasonable maximum for one such card might still lead to unreasonably long games with other such cards.

If the rule had been in place since the beginning (or since Prosperity), then cards could be designed with that maximum in mind.

I don't think the rate matters that much.  I think "unreasonably long" is not really a problem compared to "unending".

It is, though. It really is. Having a game-ending condition like this might be a nice safeguard against rare combos that can stall the game (like Bishop/Fortress), but any new cards (or events) that you create should still have a reasonable limit on how many VP you can get from them throughout the game. It's not fun for most players if the winning strategy is to try to reach 200 VP tokens.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2015, 05:23:50 pm »
+1

Well the obvious one is that different VP token cards can get tokens at a wildly different rate. A number that's a reasonable maximum for one such card might still lead to unreasonably long games with other such cards.

If the rule had been in place since the beginning (or since Prosperity), then cards could be designed with that maximum in mind.

I don't think the rate matters that much.  I think "unreasonably long" is not really a problem compared to "unending".

It is, though. It really is. Having a game-ending condition like this might be a nice safeguard against rare combos that can stall the game (like Bishop/Fortress), but any new cards (or events) that you create should still have a reasonable limit on how many VP you can get from them throughout the game. It's not fun for most players if the winning strategy is to try to reach 200 VP tokens.

Has it been tried though?  It shouldn't be that kind of game every time one of these cards appeared, of course, but I think it could be a refreshing change of pace to have that kind of race once in a while.

Edit: you actually summed it up better than I have:

It's fantastic when a card alters the way you play; that's the entire point of having so many cards.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 05:59:36 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

GeneralRamos

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2015, 02:46:50 pm »
0

Just thought of another way one could add another game end conditions with respect to the VP tokens: The game ends when the VP token pile is depleted and two Supply piles. This would be in addition to the existing conditions of 3 pile depletion, Province depletion, or Colony depletion.
Logged

convolucid

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2015, 07:27:12 pm »
0

I believe the Prosperity rules say that VP Tokens are infinite. You're supposed to use a substitute if you run out.
Logged

GeneralRamos

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2015, 07:31:17 pm »
0

I know. I'm not necessarily suggesting overriding that rule (though I'm not ruling it out either) but you could still use other markers while still employing this new rule. Just that once tokens are out, only two piles need be depleted.
Logged

spiralstaircase

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +453
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2015, 06:30:01 am »
0

I really like the idea of having another landscape card type to go into the randomiser deck like events, which have an additional end condition.  I think it's quite a rich area - these are just five minutes' thinking's worth:
  • If two piles are empty at the end of any player's turn, the game ends.
  • If there are 10 or more cards in the trash at the end of any player's turn, the game ends.
  • Setup: Put 12 tokens per player on this.  At the start of each player's turn, take a token off.  If there are no tokens on this at the end of any player's turn, the game ends.
  • Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile worth 2 or 3 to the Supply.  If that pile is empty at the end of any player's turn, the game ends.
  • Setup: Put a token on each Kingdom card pile.  When a card is bought from a pile, remove the token from that pile.  If all tokens have been removed by the end of any player's turn, the game ends.
I'm totally stealing this idea for my expansion  :)
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2015, 12:25:45 pm »
0

They all have in common that they shorten the game.

Two empty piles is a decent option.

About cards in the trash, I would scale it according to the number of players, i.e. "if there are more than [ a value between 5 and 15] cards per player in the trash the game ends".

I do not like the idea of a fixed number of rounds. A lot of boardgame do (have to) work like this but cardgames, in particular deckbuilders and tableaubuilders (Race for the Galaxy comes to mind), do not have to work like this. This is a feature as the players can influence the length of the game which opens up strategic space. The other ideas are all conditional and not simply temporal so the old feature of a player doing something to make the end of the game nearer / more likely still exists.

And extra pile sounds OKish to me but it could be too fast so perhaps the price should be higher.

The last one, ending the game when a card of each Kingdom pile has been bought, is in my opinion the best idea. In most games there are some Kingdom cards which you do not wanna buy so you gotta "pay a price" if you wanna trigger the end of the game.
Logged

spiralstaircase

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +453
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2015, 06:24:05 am »
0

They all have in common that they shorten the game.

True.  I don't see that as necessarily a problem, especially given that some of my other cards have 'at end of game' effects.

Quote
About cards in the trash, I would scale it according to the number of players, i.e. "if there are more than [ a value between 5 and 15] cards per player in the trash the game ends".

Good idea.

Quote
I do not like the idea of a fixed number of rounds. A lot of boardgame do (have to) work like this but cardgames, in particular deckbuilders and tableaubuilders (Race for the Galaxy comes to mind), do not have to work like this. This is a feature as the players can influence the length of the game which opens up strategic space. The other ideas are all conditional and not simply temporal so the old feature of a player doing something to make the end of the game nearer / more likely still exists.

I agree that in the general case, Dominion is better for having variable-length rounds.  As an occasional, everything-you-know-is-wrong kind of thing, I think it could work.  That said, perhaps this ought to be a dual type landscape card, so as well as being one of whatever these are it was also an event, where you could pay to add or remove tokens.  I kind of like that idea.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2016, 05:28:28 am »
+2

I may have something.

You might have a special kingdom pile with these 8-12 VP cards:

Magical Glade - Victory
Top card costs $8 (include 3 extra copies for 3-4 player) and gives 8 VP (giving incentive to buy it over Province)
Rest of the cards going down:
$8 - 7 VP
$7 - 6 VP
$6 - 5 VP
$5 - 4 VP
$4 - 3 VP
$3 - 2 VP
$2 - 1 VP

The last card in this pile has the special text: When this card is gained, the game ends after the current player's turn.

The specific values can be tweaked with, but I like the idea of having a kingdom pile with a very enticing $ to VP ratio. The earlier you buy, the more points you get, but you have to deal with that dead card in your deck. But beware of the pile running out!
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

spiralstaircase

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +453
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2016, 05:48:35 am »
0

Nice. Would you want them all to count as the same card for "gain a copy" purposes?

There's probably more design space around ordered piles - imagine something like Knights, but they get better as you get further down the pile.  Or a diverse pile of cards which all act as the topmost card in the pile.  Actually that last one could work even if they weren't ordered.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2016, 06:20:56 am »
0

Nice idea but I think that this is an easier and cleaner implementation.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 06:22:32 am by tristan »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Additional Game Ending Conditions
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2016, 06:50:47 am »
0

Nice. Would you want them all to count as the same card for "gain a copy" purposes?

There's probably more design space around ordered piles - imagine something like Knights, but they get better as you get further down the pile.  Or a diverse pile of cards which all act as the topmost card in the pile.  Actually that last one could work even if they weren't ordered.
I like it better if cards get worse so there's incentive to buy the top card instead of playing a game of chicken.
And I like the idea of having the last card in the pile be the trigger to end the game.

It can create a race where one player tries to empty the pile while the other tries to catch up for a role reversal.

Giving them different names (to prevent copy-shenanigans) or the same doesn't matter much. I'm okay with you Smuggling a worse version of the same card.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 21 queries.