Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?  (Read 993 times)

Offline Accatitippi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #30 on: 22 August 2019, 09:32:40 AM »
I think you need to step back and consider what you're trying to achieve here. You did all you could do, argued extensively in favour of your variant and now know that it's being considered by the only person who can do something about it (in case it had never been considered before, which I highly doubt).

What does not help you is insulting him and the other people who are arguing with you. You're also misrepresenting his and our words, turning expressions of reasonability and patience into support for your idea and admissions that 3-pile is bad.

I suggest you try banning cultist, ill gotten gains, ironworks and whatever card enrages you, and try to play on? Consider also this: page and peasant (and spirits) are essentially engine component piles that break the 3-pile rule! So your idea has already been implemented, how good is that?

Offline Pizzaelemblast

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #31 on: 22 August 2019, 02:34:59 PM »
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.

Offline jeebus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #32 on: 22 August 2019, 04:38:54 PM »
the people on this thread who oddly enough said I have a good point while being against my point (says a lot).
I was the only one who said that you have a good point, but I did not say I was against it. I did say that I think there are many features and fixes that we have been waiting for from the start, that are more important than optional variants. (I also said that Donald would almost certainly not approve of this variant.)

Offline Pizzaelemblast

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #33 on: 22 August 2019, 08:40:59 PM »
Yeah... and the 'more important' stuff we settled on was just logsearch and better text colors in the log... Nothing else convincing...

Offline Accatitippi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #34 on: 22 August 2019, 09:16:51 PM »
Yeah... and the 'more important' stuff we settled on was just logsearch and better text colors in the log... Nothing else convincing...

You settled on, you mean.

Offline josh bornstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #35 on: 22 August 2019, 10:38:10 PM »
I am surprised and dismayed to see how the thread has, in part, devolved into name-calling.  Let's all take a deep breath, okay?   :)

I thought Pizza made mostly good points.  So I'm not gonna jump down his throat for expressing them.  I will thank him for making clear and detailed arguments.

I thought lots of people gave good counter-arguments, and I appreciate those as well.  And I am glad that the game's creator took the time to post here as well.

Given what Donald X feels, I would make a suggestion to Stef:  If someone posts with an idea and it is vetoed by Donald X; please take 30 seconds out of your day to post something like the following.  "Your idea to _______ was interesting.  The online version of Dominion will never implement something that is vetoed or nixed by the game's creator, and he has done so in this case.  Of course, feel free to use your variant in any of your IRL games."

See?  Easy.  Someone has made a request, and has received a definitive response.  End of issue.  :-)

Offline Pizzaelemblast

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #36 on: 28 August 2019, 02:52:17 PM »
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.

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #37 on: 31 August 2019, 07:18:25 PM »
I rarely check these forums, so if you want to say something where I might read it, I recommend dominionstrategy, where you first posted this thread and I guess thought you could ignore the answer, or discord.
Since you didn't want me to read your post, I'll do you a favor and not read it. No don't thank me; it's what I'm here for.

Offline josh bornstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?
« Reply #38 on: 01 September 2019, 04:28:03 AM »
Come on Donald.  You're better than that.  You're not a spoiled 8 year old brat--you're the bloody creator of this great game.  If you are going to take the time to read threads and to take the additional time to write a response; please fewer of the passive-aggressive comments and more of the productive and kind-hearted ones, okay?

Lots of people here are trying to create a culture of politeness and--when there is not agreement--civil discussions.  Please do not intentionally poison your own well by makings posts that you know will do nothing to make things better . . . and could very possibly make things worse.

Only my 2 cents, natch.  :-)