Quote:
Originally Posted by thejeff
The nature of the power curve in this type of game means once you fall far enough behind it's really hard to catch up. It's one thing if you're close to par on research and resources, but lose a few battles, even lose most of your armies. If you are far enough behind in research and resources, your opponent will not only be able to beat you in the field but keep getting farther ahead of you in research.
|
You are still only talking about one opponent. What about cooperation? Have you considered this? Cooperation is potentially HUGE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejeff
You say Dominions is less predictable than chess, which is true. But consider your example: An Air Queen can beat whole armies. Which means, when your opponent has Air Queens (& other SCs) while you only have armies, there isn't much you can do. Sure there are tactics for countering SCs, but they really require some level of parity. It's very possible to be outclassed with no real chance of catching up. You're already behind in research, devoting more mages to battle puts you even farther behind, even if it lets you win a few pyrrhic victories.
|
For a non-hardcore player, you seem know an awful lot about what happens when a hardcore player plays!
Well, that was snide. You probably have more experience playing than I have, and I think you're probably right about a lot of situations. But are you right about the majority of situations? You seem to be assuming the two players in your scenario are of roughly equal skill (that, for instance, the one with the queens won't use them stupidly while the one with the armies cleverly takes advantage), but reality is much more complex than that. Well, suppose we all became experts, and played each other in a hardcore style. Would it then become the case that holding on to the end would almost always be bitter? Maybe it would. But do we really know that? Science, people--you have to try things!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejeff
I don't play Dominions to get better at Dominions. I don't even play to win. I play because it's fun. Getting better does make it more fun, but if I spend to much time learning but not enjoying, it's not worth it. Maybe that makes me not hardcore. That's Ok.
|
Ahhh and so a much bigger subject opens up. Is learning fun? Should it be? Is it better to accept pain while learning now, so that you can experience finer enjoyment later, or to... haha well I prefer not to get into all that.
Rather, what I'm wondering now is how a person might find enough folks interested in playing in a "hardcore" way to actually explore this matter. (I've suddenly put "hardcore" in quotes because it is kind of a stupid word.) That wouldn't be hard in Starcraft would it? Or some other huge game like that. Not in chess, obviously. Hm! Starcraft and chess aren't for people like me, people who love chaos and backstory and rich, colorful drama that comes from more than just cold, pure strategy. I think I want to roleplay, to some extent! While playing to win.
The last game that got me excited about this sort of thing was Sacrifice. The Sacrifice community was great fun! Then I had to watch it die. I hope I find some more satisfaction in Dominions, before its community dies!