I've played this game maybe 5-10 times now with different number and skilled players. Overall, this is a great game for both competitive and co-op-friendly players even though this game is more competitive style. Actually, it is a competitive style play but there is a factor that seems to keep some of the less competitive players interested. So it is a great game to bring to a party of unknown players or even first time players.
Although playable with less than 4 players, I agree with most of what Lyrisse (link below) said about fewer players. We actually made it a 5 player game and it seems to work out just fine too. We used a coin or some other small object for the score keeping and made another foyer.
I am not sure if there is a favorite to who goes first and winning, at least not an obvious one. Two big factors seem to be the big value rooms and bonus cards. As long as a player sticks to a game plan, I've found that the scores usually came pretty close at the end. Lucky players with good bonus cards usually do end up winning by a larger margin but does not happen often. I have also found scoring the last place person first at the end of the game keeps the lower skilled people more involved with the game so that they can at least feel like they led even if it is a short period of time.
The game is very replay-able. I still have not found a strategy that dominates another nor which rooms to keep at what cost. I found that it did not really matter that much.
At the beginning, I said that it was also somewhat fun for less competitive players because they just enjoyed building a castle and if they are adventurous a theme to their castle. Sometimes, this made it an interesting twist for the more competitive players.
Besides making it 5 players, we've even added another bonus point system at the end. If there are other non-players around, we had them vote on who had the "best" castle. You can make it a blind judge where they do not know who owns which castle, but it was a lot more entertaining having the players "sell" why their castle is better. You can use the same bonus structure as the middle bonus (8 for first, 4 for second, 2 and 1)... or really could be any system you want to use.
Reference
http://www.boardgameauthority.com/castles-mad-king-ludwig-review/
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Friday, February 5, 2016
Evolution - The Wrong Point of View
I am on the side of "evolution" in the discussion of evolution versus creation. But unlike most evolutionists, I can understand where creationists can also be correct. I chose my side because it coincides with my essence to seek the truth. My problem with creationism is that there really is not much else to seek because logic can basically stop at any point where my mind cannot conceive the idea and say it was just created that way. So it really is not a matter that I "picked" a side but rather I accept both as a possibility except that there isn't much else to "study" for creationism.
Back to the topic of the point-of-view of the word "evolution," to clarify, the evolution of animals/creatures. Fundamentally, I believe the word evolution is not the proper root to use because the connotation is that evolving is a positive mutation as if there was control of the mutation. Looking back in time, it appears to be evolving because it "adjusted" to the changing environments as if the animal decided on its new features.
The better term should be that animals are mutating (although mutation does have a negative connotation... perhaps there is a better neutral term). And only those that have the mutation that can survive the current and future environments keep living. Unlike movies or tv shows that show radical mutations, mutations are usually very small changes. Most of those small mutations are not life altering. Mutations happen all the time and can easily be observed even among ourselves from generation to generation.
Let's say a hypothetical situation where people build a higher tolerance to either heat or cold. Because we are much more mobile and free to move from place to place, people with higher tolerance to heat will slowly migrate towards hotter locations while people with cold tolerance move to colder locations where they will meet other similar people. These mutations are harmless. If the pattern continues, people will likely mate with similar people due to closer proximity to similar people. Eventually, the extremes of both people can no longer tolerate the opposite extreme but life continues.
So neither side really consciously chooses which mutation to change towards, but the natural habitat plays a factor in increasing certain mutations. While a mutation to have an extra finger may not have any factor (except maybe social ones where 5-fingered and 6-fingered people fight).
Now let us say there was a catastrophic world phenomenon where the world is freezing over. The heat tolerance people start dying off because they can no longer survive. While the cold tolerance people are surviving just enough to have future generations. In another 200 years where "freezing" temperatures are not normal weather, the cold tolerance people "evolved" to the new extreme. On the other hand, the opposite scenario could happen if the world heated up.
Of course, physics is much more complicated than that where the extreme tolerance would have likely changed other physical attributes of a person. Of course, there is guided "evolution" where we artificially bias a mutation over another for example plants. Sweet fruits used to spread because their seeds were able to travel further distances by the animals that eat them. Poisonous fruits protect themselves by preventing animals eating them. Now we produce sweeter fruits by only breeding the fruits that are sweeter.
So evolution is real or at least a pattern shown by the current creation iteration. Can I really "prove" that evolution occurred over millions of years? No, because nothing can survive even remotely that long. We cannot even prove someone did something even when strong evidence shows the high likelihood that it happened only 24 hours ago. Neither can I disprove that a fossil was created yesterday but "created" in such a way to carbon date millions of years ago.
So I do hold that creationism is possible and one that I would at least be partially possible. I would imagine that a replicator (like the one in Star Trek) would have the same principle where it could just "create" a million-year-old fossil even though it was just created.
Anyways, I hope this helps clarify some basic points and also hope that there are people who are capable of accepting multiple possibilities (a confident doubt, if you will).
Back to the topic of the point-of-view of the word "evolution," to clarify, the evolution of animals/creatures. Fundamentally, I believe the word evolution is not the proper root to use because the connotation is that evolving is a positive mutation as if there was control of the mutation. Looking back in time, it appears to be evolving because it "adjusted" to the changing environments as if the animal decided on its new features.
The better term should be that animals are mutating (although mutation does have a negative connotation... perhaps there is a better neutral term). And only those that have the mutation that can survive the current and future environments keep living. Unlike movies or tv shows that show radical mutations, mutations are usually very small changes. Most of those small mutations are not life altering. Mutations happen all the time and can easily be observed even among ourselves from generation to generation.
Let's say a hypothetical situation where people build a higher tolerance to either heat or cold. Because we are much more mobile and free to move from place to place, people with higher tolerance to heat will slowly migrate towards hotter locations while people with cold tolerance move to colder locations where they will meet other similar people. These mutations are harmless. If the pattern continues, people will likely mate with similar people due to closer proximity to similar people. Eventually, the extremes of both people can no longer tolerate the opposite extreme but life continues.
So neither side really consciously chooses which mutation to change towards, but the natural habitat plays a factor in increasing certain mutations. While a mutation to have an extra finger may not have any factor (except maybe social ones where 5-fingered and 6-fingered people fight).
Now let us say there was a catastrophic world phenomenon where the world is freezing over. The heat tolerance people start dying off because they can no longer survive. While the cold tolerance people are surviving just enough to have future generations. In another 200 years where "freezing" temperatures are not normal weather, the cold tolerance people "evolved" to the new extreme. On the other hand, the opposite scenario could happen if the world heated up.
Of course, physics is much more complicated than that where the extreme tolerance would have likely changed other physical attributes of a person. Of course, there is guided "evolution" where we artificially bias a mutation over another for example plants. Sweet fruits used to spread because their seeds were able to travel further distances by the animals that eat them. Poisonous fruits protect themselves by preventing animals eating them. Now we produce sweeter fruits by only breeding the fruits that are sweeter.
So evolution is real or at least a pattern shown by the current creation iteration. Can I really "prove" that evolution occurred over millions of years? No, because nothing can survive even remotely that long. We cannot even prove someone did something even when strong evidence shows the high likelihood that it happened only 24 hours ago. Neither can I disprove that a fossil was created yesterday but "created" in such a way to carbon date millions of years ago.
So I do hold that creationism is possible and one that I would at least be partially possible. I would imagine that a replicator (like the one in Star Trek) would have the same principle where it could just "create" a million-year-old fossil even though it was just created.
Anyways, I hope this helps clarify some basic points and also hope that there are people who are capable of accepting multiple possibilities (a confident doubt, if you will).
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Human Spirit - Always looking for a way (transcribed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgYZ32_5iOQ
Les Brown
One of the things that we know about life
One of the things that we know about life
is that it is always changing.
Sometimes you’re up,
sometimes you’re down.
Sometimes things go real well,
and sometimes they don’t.
Sometimes you’re happy,
and sometimes you’re sad.
Now that's that thing called... life.
And when we begin to understand and know that, accepting that reality, that...
that we will never ever have things just on an even keel all the time.
That you are going to have some ups and you’re going to have some downs.
But during those down moments,
that's where the growth takes place…
that's where the work is.
Anybody can feel good when they have their health, their bills are paid.
Anybody can be positive then,
anybody can have a larger vision then,
anybody can have faith under those kinds of circumstances.
See... but the real challenge...
The real challenge of growth,
mentally, emotionally, spiritually,
comes when you get knocked down.
It takes courage to act.
It takes courage to act.
Part of being hungry when you have been defeated.
It takes courage...
to start over again.
The power... to hold on in spite of everything,
the power to endure.
This is the winners' quality.
This is an opportunity for you to grow.
You’ve got to be so relentless,
regardless of what comes down the path,
that you are always looking for a way to get over,
Always looking for a way... that you can break through.
Always looking for a way... that you can win.
Always looking for a way... that you can strike a telling blow.
Decide that you are going to push yourself.
Most people won’t do that.
Most people give up on themselves easily.
You know the human spirit is powerful?
There is nothing as powerful,
it's hard to kill the human spirit.
You have got to be willing to go against the tide,
you’ve got to be willing to harness your will, and say
“In spite of this, I’m in control here,
I’m coming back,
and I’ll be stronger
and better because of it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)