Re: 2008 Retrospective - Results

I'm approaching 500 plays of Dominion, over 150 with the core set and I'm
at the point where I probably want more complex. I just don't like games
where Big Money will win, or one or two card purchases then Big Money is
optimal.
That is how I'd like the way to go. Shake up the core enough so that I need
to purchase multiple Kingdom Cards. I'd actually welcome sets that remove
one or more of the base six money and VP stacks. I know this is unlikely
since this would significantly complicate the game, since there needs to be
a way to guarantee the game can end in a reasonable manner. Perhaps I want
cards that prevent purchasing from a certain stack until a certain number
of rounds have passed, or a certain number of other cards are bought.
This is where the real game expansion depth is, IMO.


Brent Mair
- Spielguy


On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:30 PM Jacob Lee [email protected]
[spielfrieks] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Thank you for the insight.  I enjoy learning about the "making of" process
> (I read all the secret history of Dominion diaries).
>
> I don't understand the math behind determining costs of cards but I've
> always found the perceived cost of any card sort of relies on the other
> cards in the set you're using.  So a card that has some sort of unique
> combination of +cards, +actions, etc and maybe throw in a little tweak like
> "this card enters your hand when gained" or whatever and Donald may
> determine its cost to be 3.8 but its value does change based on what other
> cards in the current set can do.  I know this because I regularly find
> expansion cards that don't measure up well against others in the set we're
> playing or maybe get all the attention compared to the other nine cards in
> the set.  I don't think all of the cards have a one size fits all perfect
> cost - but that is one of the beauties of the game.
>
> I would just argue that there are probably lots of players like me that
> are less into the game changing expansions but would still buy cards that
> are variations of cards from the first eight expansions.  I hope this
> suggestion reaches his ears but I can understand he may want to devote time
> to new projects.
>
> Jacob
>
> On Saturday, 21 July 2018, Wei-Hwa Huang [email protected] [spielfrieks] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I discussed this with Donald a few years back..  The problem with more
>> "regular cards" is that there actually aren't that many more "regular
>> cards" that are publishable.  One general design rule he's trying to adhere
>> to is that there shouldn't be any cards that are strictly weaker or
>> strictly stronger than another card of the same price.  For example,
>> consider the "regular card" that's +1 money, +1 Card, +1 Action.  This card
>> should cost something like 3.8.  You can't release it as a 3-cost card
>> because it's clearly better than a lot of other 3-cost cards.  You can't
>> release it as a 4-cost card because it's worse.  If you look at all the
>> 4-cost cards throughout the expansion, you'll see that there are a lot of
>> cards that are actually this card but with a little bit of a bonus that
>> gets it to the 4-cost threshold.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Jacob Lee [email protected]
>> [spielfrieks] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I love Dominion!  But it's time for the designer to stop changing the
>>> game so much with each new expansion and just give us new "regular" cards
>>> if you know what I mean.  I just want more of the same.  I think it would
>>> sell.
>>>
>>> 2003? . . . The years don't mean much to me, but bring it on!
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2018 at 09:16, [email protected] [spielfrieks] <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So 50 people voted in our latest retrospective, which is great
>>>> support.  The results showed much less change than they did for 2013.
>>>> Here's the top 10, together with their vote totals, and with the original
>>>> place given in parentheses (n/a means that the game wasn't nominated the
>>>> first time around):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Dominion - 24 (1)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Pandemic - 20 (2)
>>>>
>>>> 3. Le Havre - 11 (3)
>>>>
>>>> 3. Stone Age - 11 (4)
>>>>
>>>> 5. Dixit - 10 (n/a)
>>>>
>>>> 6. Chicago Express - 7 (5)
>>>>
>>>> 6. Tinners' Trail - 7 (9)
>>>>
>>>> 8. Battlestar Galactica - 5 (6)
>>>>
>>>> 8. Snow Tails - 5 (6)
>>>>
>>>> 10. Nefertiti - 4 (n/a)
>>>>
>>>> 10. Time's Up! Title Recall - 4 (n/a)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, not much shifting around.  Dominion and Pandemic remain
>>>> the two dominant titles of the year, probably to the surprise of no one.  8
>>>> of the original top 10 are still in the current top 10 and the other two
>>>> (Ghost Stories and Diamonds Club) finished tied for 12th.  There were two
>>>> interesting developments.  Even though Le Havre once again finished third,
>>>> it dropped down quite a bit from the original election--back then, it gave
>>>> Dominion and Pandemic a run for their money, but this time around, it wound
>>>> up tied with the original fourth place finisher, Stone Age, on which it had
>>>> a big lead during the first election.  The other item of note is Dixit,
>>>> which wasn't even nominated originally, but which just missed finishing in
>>>> the top three, and which had a nice lead on the rest of the field.  I
>>>> haven't seen or heard of a game of Dixit in 7 or 8 years in my games
>>>> groups, but it's obviously popular elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 31 games got at least one vote.  The only ones which were shut out were
>>>> Municipium, Preussische Ostbahn, Say Anything, and Wealth of Nations.  You
>>>> can check out all the results, together with who voted for what, on the app.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next on the dance card is 2003.  I'll check out the potential nominees
>>>> and get back to you in a little bit.  Thanks to everyone who participated!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wei-Hwa Huang, [email protected]
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> If your Best isn't good enough, reach for a Starr.
>>
>>
>
> 
>