Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Pizzaelemblast

#1
Card Bugs / Tower miscounts split piles
03 May 2020, 12:13:17 PM
Played a game with tower, and the encampment/plunder pile.

At the end, tower counted encampment cards for points, but did not count plunder cards.



"When scoring, 1VP per non-Victory card you have from an empty Supply pile."

Seems to me plunders count as being from that pile, (and also they are not victory cards, despite using the VP token mechanic).
#2
Since posting about this I've been observing more closely how this would work. Here's some of what I've noticed.


Firstly, I'll preface that there are basically two kinds of games that end by 3-pile rule, ones that end very fast (what I'm critical of) and one's that take a significant length of time yet end by 3-pile rule (what I'm not critical of).

I've noticed that in 3-pile rule games that take a significant length of time, often at time of ending there will be a fourth pile that is very close, at something like 2 cards left. These games will take only 2-4 turns longer as 4-pile games than they would have taken as 3-pile games. I gotta say to the people gushing about the deep strategy of 3-pile endings, that as a 4-pile game these game will have just the same amount of strategy involved. Maybe after more observing of specifically the games which went pretty long but ended by 3-pile, I can come up with a percentage that had a fourth pile which was also close, but so far it feels like roughly 60-80%.

On the flip side, when you look games that end very fast by the 3-pile rule (think things like cultist, magpie, or any number of things depending on number of players and how they like they to play) these games are made dramatically better when played as 4-pile. When you look at games on the short end of the spectrum, there's no denying that extending the length shortest games by 15-25 turns would add a ton of strategy to games that had a disappointing lack of it.
#3
Yeah... and the 'more important' stuff we settled on was just logsearch and better text colors in the log... Nothing else convincing...
#4
Wow, more people admitting my point so hard that they're just suggesting other solutions. But hey, it's the game's rules, so they're 'absolutely integral' (created back when chancellor and woodcutter were in the game, to make sure all games would always reach an ending). Strategy games are supposed to be about 'attentiveness', aren't they? Otherwise how can we 'seize victory' from those unwanted new players, who were expecting something closer to deckbuilding and further from egyptian ratscrew...

Accatitippi, I'm not so crazed about this shortcoming that I'm gonna ban all the many cards that play into it. I just didn't expect this thread to fill so fast with so many fools who would see a good optional improvement and literally say "seems like a good point, I gotta call it absolutely unacceptable!" Too much to ask, my bar is too high lolol.
#5
Ok, great Donald, have a game with less strategy. Ignore the people on this thread who oddly enough said I have a good point while being against my point (says a lot).

And wow, dude, thanks for shooting some thanks to people who literally gave you free in-depth feedback, whether you agree or not. That's really thoughtful of you to take a resource that you didn't ask them for, and hold it in perspective. Wow.

I also just now checked your reply at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19847.0, where the first replier was someone telling me it was the wrong forum for this kind of feedback who told me to post it here. Replying to my guesses about the base game, you said,

"The rule was originally there to make sure there's a way to end the game, when Provinces are harder to come by, e.g. in games with Curses and no trashing. It has worked out to be a significant part of play though."

So you've basically confirmed my guess that it wasn't designed for the purpose of dominion as it exists today with all the expansions. The 3-pile rule isn't terrible by any means, but you have confirmed for me that it was designed so that you could definitely end the base game. It wasn't designed with it even in mind that it should be a significant part of play, it just turned out to be. And it's not surprising that it may not be the most optimal for today's game with all expansions. Most repliers on this thread somehow believe that just because they can regurgitate some positive aspect of how the 3-pile puzzle works, that's it's adding so much strategy, that's it's the best of all possible versions of the game, as if it was designed for today's game.

It wasn't designed for today's game, it was designed for the base game, to make sure it could end, and it's really a matter of whether the designer and devs find it worthwhile to go about providing more options.
#6
"Recently there was a discussion if emptying Provinces should trigger the game end in Colony games. Then there are players who want everybody to have the same number of turns, so the game continues until before the starting player would take their regular turn again. Then there is a subset of those that want to put 'imaginary Provinces' in the Province pile, so in the turns after Provinces were depleted, the other players can buy them as well."

First of all, just because you identified that someone else had ideas to improve the game which were bad, does not mean all ideas to improve the game must necessarily be equally bad and get shot down, or sandbagged, or never implemented.

And it's pretty clear, while still a matter of opinion, that these two ideas aren't comparable to mine. There's a huge difference between changing the length of a game (thankfully, when a game just ends by way of cultist pile, ruins pile, and curse pile) vs these ideas, which are just about players griping about the number of points they had at the end of the game. Changing the length of the game adds a longer game experience, it adds more gameplay. It can turn a game that 'wasn't a game' into a game. This affects new players a LOT. But these ideas you're trying to compare to mine are just about modifying who has more VP at the end of what was essentially the same game. This variant would have basically no more gameplay than the original game, it just maybe would be more fair at picking the winner. There might be a bit a less luck in who wins, but there was just the same amount of strategy on the way there. But a game that doesn't get off the ground due to the 3-pile rule does lessen the amount of strategy over the course of the game while it also increases the role of luckily timed hands. You can praise the coolness of different possible outcomes to the puzzle of what to do when the third pile is close, yeah sure you can. But all that coolness would STILL be there when 4-pile is played, it's just that you'll actually have some more time to actually pick other cards and craft other combinations before the game reaches that point.


I also think these aren't sound ideas because 'who went first' doesn't warp the game so strongly. For instance there are also advantages to being player 2 in seeing what player 1 does first and essentially having more time to make your decisions.

But it's even possible that Donald had the people with gripes about the final turn count in mind when he designed the card 'Fleet', or that he shared their viewpoint somewhat. Obviously opinions about what would make the game better do help and deserve to be listened to. I mean the people on this thread opposing my idea even said I have a good point on what I'm proposing. So it's odd why I'm getting such angry blowback. It might speak to just how much 4-pile would improve the game over 3-pile. I've made very clear that it ought to be optional, so I can't understand why you guys are so threatened. Maybe you're afraid because if this was implemented, maybe you think everyone would just start selecting the 4-pile option and then the old version of the game you've  gotten so good at would be harder to find automatches in. Who knows. The way I'd implement it if it were me, would be that if both players were fine with any version, for it to pick randomly between 3-pile and 4-pile. I can't foresee much downside to 4-pile, because these days the cards are so strong on average that the game almost never reaches a tedious state before all 8 provinces are gone (it sometimes would get this way in just the base game). So with all today's expansions, things are far from erring on the opposite side, of the game getting too tedious before it ends if played as 4-pile instead of 3-pile.
#7
Jeebus, I wasn't saying coloring the pictures of trashed cards, I was saying the logtext saying swindler or knight, etc., trashed one of your cards, should be in a unique color or in italics. There are many unique colors in the logtext already, but oddly enough there's nothing that really makes that stand out, which would be a big help. Or, alternatively a unique sound plays when the swindler/knight trashes your card. Either playing a sound or having it stand out in the log would be much better than animations, plus would not wear on the servers like animations probably would.

Because, with people sometimes going idle for a while, it's nice to play while also checking out something else in another internet tab or just to look somewhere else as you wait for your opponent. People don't play with their eyes locked on the screen for animations, because there are gonna be pauses when the opponent is thinking or maybe they aren't thinking maybe they went afk for a while, you have no idea how long they will take. So the log or a sound would be much better for this issue. Animations seem to me like not really a way to improve the game, plus a way to make the servers work less well. But I do agree with you that a logsearch capability would be really nice.
#8
"Have you considered that maybe people genuinely think this aspect adds more strategic depth, interest and fun to the game than you do?"

Of course I have, lmao. I'm actually aware that it's fair for different people to have different preferences about various things, not just even just games.

Which is why I obviously haven't proposed removing the traditional way to play. That's what optional means. You on the other hand, as well as others on this thread, are a blowing a gasket and acting like the sky is falling about someone else, me, having a different preference in the game and, heaven forbid, ask, with admittedly "good points" as you folks said yourself, for the option that I see as better, which would not impede on your experience of the game at all

Daavor Have you considered that maybe someone genuinely thinks 4-pile would add more strategic depth, interest and fun to the game than you do?
#9
About the development list from 2017, jeebus:

Card animations - I'm not sure what this is or what it would add
Expanding on friend list - I agree, not sure what it refers to, and I don't see a need
Create an IOS and Android app - I have played on my cellphone before. So it's Android friendly, though perhaps
                               that's not the same as an app
Adding features for Kingdom selection, e.g. to help new players learn cards gradually - This was just recently done,
                               with the cardlists feature, plus the familiar cards feature has existed for a while
Adding tournament support - I don't think it's highly needed in the client, since it's being done well on discord

Are you saying you'd want an option to turn the log off entirely? I guess for those who want it, I see that as decently important thing at this stage, unlike the stuff on the outdated list. Personally I don't find much lacking in the client at this point. The only thing I'd want besides what this thread is about is better notification when an opponent trashes one of your cards, like through swindler. I wish it made a unique sound or was written in the log in a color that really stands out. That's the only other improvement I've felt need for and otherwise I think the client is great.
#10
Ingix, I just don't see any other reason for ppl to oppose something that would be optional, not forced upon them. Dominion has always been a highly customizable game. With the tabletop game, there is so much variability depending on what expansions you have. And now on the client we can ban cards and create custom kingdom setups. So seeing how these options have been fine, if specific people had opposed them, you probably would have said they were against 'growing the appeal of the game'. Very much the same if you're going to oppose my idea for a variant, which would only be optional and totally would make the game fit better with how the early sets were designed.

Perhaps I am exaggerating to say that this forum is all high-ranking experienced players, but I can at least say that genuinely inexperienced players are not gonna be highly represented here. That's just the nature of a game forum, people don't feel comfortable making posts on them if they're inexperienced players. And it's the inexperienced players who really suffer from the downsides of the 3-pile rule, in today's Dominion with tons of powerful cards. We've all seen inexperienced players often who just completely don't realize the game's about end. I see it happen a lot, sometimes newer players play turn upon turn upon turn, not noticing at all that they could've just won by depleting the last pile. And I see them leave quickly, one can assume frustrated, when someone uses the 3-pile rule to get a tricky win against them and they were quite clueless.
#11
The earlier sets were just more about deckbuilding, and less about 'whoops, game over'.

And yeah this forum is just a whole lot of high-ranking experts who have something against growing the appeal/customer base of the game. Maybe if it wasn't for all those 'whoops, game over' games vs less experienced players their rank would drop or something.

They don't think from the point of view of someone trying the game out, would not expect developers and designers to think the same way.
#12
Oh I've seen this on other game forums: "There's so many more important things that need to be implemented!" then link to a list of things that have already been implemented or don't relate to gameplay.

(cross-outs have already been implemented)

Top priorities in 2017:

Add retrievable gamelogs, rating, leaderboard
Finish implementing cards
Improving AI
Adding Campaigns
Adding German, Russian and Japanese support
Card animations: animating all card moves
Expanding on friend list
Create an IOS and Android app
Adding features for Kingdom selection, e.g. to help new players learn cards gradually
Adding tournament support (very well supported on discord)
Further improvements on AI
Offline client
Smart timing rules
Autoplay features
Add logsearch

Stuff like retrievable gamelogs and an offline client... I can't think of the perfect word for it but it would be something like "interface expansion". All of that shouldn't just be behind the issue of quick non-games, and improving the level of strategy, but behind anything gameplay related.
#13
What kind of features are missing?
#14
And I do like the puzzles that pile endings can add sometimes, so some generic praise of them does not really refute what I'm saying. I just think 3-pile is too fast for today's game with all expansions, sucking skill out of the game more than putting it in. 4-pile would certainly be more of a skill game.

So I'm not denying that if the game had been originally designed with provinces as the only way to end things, then yes it would've been less good than the way it actually was designed.

But just think back to how the game played out when it was only the base game.

Compare the impact that the 3-pile rule had on the game back then, vs the impact it has now.

Now, just for instance, you have ruins, you have ironworks, which you can play one after another without the aid of a village like you'd need with workshop, you have a random cheap things that will deplete or be depleted fast like magpie, lackeys, and lurker. You have more cards that work with multiples from its own pile like cultist and sauna.

What were the most fast-ending things from the base game? Witch? Workshop and gardens? You've got to be kidding if you think that's comparable to the way the game is now.

The 3-pile rule was in the sweet spot to make a workshop-gardens strategy fun, but when you look at the current game with all expansions and tons of powerful cards, 4-pile would absolutely make for a better game. It would not hurt to have a bit more time to build your deck and piece together card interactions before you get the conundrum of how to play around the last 1 or 2 cards in the last pile. For most boards 4-pile would improve the level of strategy compared to 3-pile, it would feel a lot more like how the base game felt.
#15
In SOME games piles being aware of pile depletion is an interesting skill. In just as many or more, it turns what would have been a skill game into "who draws a big hand first at the key moment". Of course it's not completely devoid of skill, but who has a small vp edge when piles get low is objectively less skill-driven than the factors that would have determined a game that played out longer.


It's SO common to be in a situation where you go "I'm ahead in VP and so I'll buy the second to last card in the final pile, allowing me to end the game the turn after, but then whoops, my opponent draws a big combo hand with additional buys to barely pull in front AND take the final card. Damned if I did, damned if I didn't."


Most replies on this thread have just amounted to "These are the games rules, therefore I will call them good".

So inevitably I'll get just as uninspiring replies saying "You coulda bought a duchy, you coulda bought something else!"


Of course, it's a game with many options, each has possible upside and possible downside, and that's the nature of any complex game. If you had bought a duchy maybe you would have won, or maybe the opponent would've used his big combo hand to buy provinces, and then the game goes longer and your duchy weighs down your deck for less value, you just don't know.


Of course you can't perfectly predict the opponent's hand and your upcoming hands. But the shorter the game is, the more it will tend to turn on what randomly comes up at the right time and the less it will be balanced by good hands and bad hands. THAT is undeniable.