Talk:Subdivision

So, as you're the only "Real Estate" Category of game--because you invented it--you need to describe the Category for folks. Click here to edit the Category description, please. Thanks! —David Artman 13:53, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Feedback from David Artman

Near v Next To

OK, reading the rules I get lost fast. And I think it's because of the terminology, so maybe you could fine-tune these two terms:

• Near - Actually, Near works fairly well, for me, given how you've defined it on the main page.
• Next To - This game is about towns, right? So how about using "Neighboring"? One is not generally though of as the neighbor of someone across corners from one, nor behind one at angles.

I did change this to Neighboring. I was never fond of 'next to' as I would rather have a one word term but I do think of the diagonally adjacent homes as my neighbors which is likely why that term din't occur to me sooner. After some thought though the phrase 'Next Door Neighbor' likely produces the mental association needed to make the term sink in so I went with it. Thanks for the suggestion. Carlton 'Kermit' Noles

Clarification

"A 1 pip pyramid must be placed Near another 1 pip pyramid or a 3 pip pyramid of a different color."

Does this mean:

• A 1 pip pyramid must be placed Near another 1 pip pyramid of a different color or Near a 3 pip pyramid of a different color.

OR

• A 1 pip pyramid must be placed Near another 1 pip pyramid (any color) or Near a 3 pip pyramid of a different color.

Basically, you have your verb "must be Near" reaching across the first conjoined object, and then (maybe) you have the adjectival parenthetical "of a different color" trying to reach back across the second conjoined object to the first object (if the first bullet is correct). People just don't read like that (shifting ahead and then back across the same conjunction).

This is an interesting question. My original intention was the second explanation. When Aaron was working on the implemention for SDG he took the first interpretation and after some thought I liked that one better. So the final decision is the first interpretation stated above. Carlton 'Kermit' Noles

Scoring

Could you somehow tighten up the Scoring, in general? I honestly can't figure out (a) how I'd score my own game or (b) how your examples (especially the math) explain scoring. Take your time, provide individual examples of play and scoring, rather than a mob scene, and consider minimizing the use of bullets (which seem haphazard and distracting, here, rather than organizing).

Hope this helps.... --David Artman 15:15, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

take a look at the changes on the scoring and let me know if that makes things clearer. Carlton 'Kermit' Noles

Not really, and I think I know why: Your Scoring never explains in a positive manner what one is doing in play; it seems, rather, to only be some kind of most efficient or derived means of scoring based on (to me) hidden rules. It's clear that there are positive rules under the hood: "Subtract 1 point for each group" is really saying something like "The goal is to make the largest contiguous neighborhood(s)," but the former is written totally from a scorer's perspective, not a player's (who must learn the gist of the game to even get to a scoring situation, right?).

Can you derive the handful of proactive strategies or goals that contribute to an individual piece placement decision, and document that before you get into (one) method of quickly scoring a given board layout? I think it will really help comprehension more, for some new players (like me--even having read it several times, now, I wouldn't have a clue what to play first or throughout the early-game). As a bonus, you can also explain how the various strategies/goals reinforce the theme of "developing a subdivision," and those parallels will likely help folks really anchor the game play in their minds. --David Artman 11:17, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Alright! It's a lot more clear with your additions, but there's inconsistency now (rule change in mid-design, perhaps?):

You say "In the above example the 3-pip at A2 would be worth 3 points, because it has only a single 1-pip Near it" and "The blue 3-pip at C2 is worth nothing because it has four 1-pips near it and thus is worth -1 point for each after the first with a minimum of 0 points (a 3-pip can not have a negative value)."

BUT, in the actual Scoring procedure, you write "Subtract 1 point from that total for each 1-pip pyramid of any color Near one of that player's 3-pip pyramids (up to a maximum of 3 points per 3-pip pyramid; a 3-pip is never worth less than 0 points)."

What's the "real" rule, then? Is the first 1-pip Near a 3-pip ignored or not? --David Artman 10:55, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

That was an oops! Carlton 'Kermit' Noles

A Treehouse set?

"This is the same info but adjusted for a ThreeHouse Set:"

Does this mean you can play the game with only one Treehouse set? I can't really see how. I'd need to know, to translate it in French. Julien

After thinking about it a little, I came to the conclusion it should be three Treehouse sets. Julien