18xx jason, designers, and an acre of snow

I do not understand why many designers on BGG, including some in this discussion, believe that their aesthetic preferences are inherently superior, and furthermore, believe it is worthwhile trying to tell other people that their tastes are, in a word, wrong.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning and argumentation is successful around 0.0% of the time.

Furthermore, as it turns out, different people enjoy different things for different reasons, and what they enjoy has zero bearing on your ability to enjoy the things you do.

So why all the arguing?

Seem similar? I do not understand why quite some designers up here, notably including Tom Lehman, who didn't use any reason and logic to repute the accusation that his Race/Roll for the galaxy is a bad design. But just yelling and screaming that someone is being 'unfair' and 'impolite', without any legit reasoning.

Perhaps one can look into the case of An Are of Snow, again.

A Few Acres of Snow and the Critical Silence On The Biggest Flawed Game of 2011
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/9073/few-acres-snow-and-critical-silence-biggest-flawed

So what did Martin Wallace did to upset. Well, the game won an award, but there was an inherent flaw within, most would not agree. Until that game is played online, someone showed a record of winning 100% of the time. Wallace tried to patch the game, it didn't work. And then later he walks away with the money and the award.

hmm.

This is an extreme case, but there is a lot out there.

- First version of Caverna: The Cave Farmers with the infinite ore auto-win bug.
- Axis and Allies veteran found it very easy to spot OP strategies in the first game of a new version AAP1940.

How many times do we have to produce a legit proof, before any 'designers' would admit it is a bad design? To be fair, it is not as bad as nobody is perfect. Scienfic experiemtal project fails over 90% of the time. It isn't even as bad if one admits one of their designs is bad.

Perhaps it is money.

What bad is, designers thought themselves are in a position of [i]"aesthetic preferences are inherently superior, and furthermore, believe it is worthwhile trying to tell other people that their tastes are, in a word, wrong."[/i]

Because they call themselves a designer? Because they "did" some playtest (how about open those experimental records for peer review like in the academia field?)?
Becuase you didnt design and publish a boardgame so you are inherently bad?

Freedom of speech?

So nobody should comment football before they earn their world cup, because [i]"aesthetic preferences are inherently superior, and furthermore, believe it is worthwhile trying to tell other people that their tastes are, in a word, wrong."[/i]

This industry is too much about
-buying the game just because you can
-buying the game just because everyone says it is cool
-buying the game just because Dice Tower says so
-buying the game play it once and then shelf it.

It is too much about buying and 'playing' it once, rather the game itself. I never have a doubt why modern games are losing their replayability in these 10 years.

---------------------

There is a lot of AP Tryndamere syndrome going on in the boardgame world. If anyone wonder what it is, some people in the popular game League of Legends figured out a way to play a character differently, most notably unintended by the designers, and raised their global ranks a lot.

The designers didn't like it. So the keep on patching the game until it is not viable. And then later even ban players out of their systems just because "it wasn't intended by the game designers (Riot Games)" and it "destroys fun".

Being locked into the tunnel vision of the designer is very dangerous. For instance, most should know about 1856's rule of "you cannot sell the same certificate back into the market in the same turn". What does it do? Well, perhaps one cannot trash shares so hard (not quite sure why one would trash so much shares before 6T CGR), or the president couldn't pump funds into the company too fast?? (really??) or some random player doesn't own any of the company shares could not trash so hard.

???

It really doesn't stop anything. A company could still be double shorted at the turn of CGR formation.

If you had thought carefully about the possible intention and the result or such rule, likely there would be players find this rule unnecessary.

More days into 18xx, I finally start to understand the idea of "permutations of player strategy should form the game itself sufficiently replayable" or "do not bother to fiddle around with the random noises of the game". No ass-licking here, I disagree with him quite often.

Locking most players into one or two branches of strategies with all other 'creative ideas' to be not viable is generally a bad idea and a bad game. But it is very frequently seen in modern games, particuarly in modern Euro Econ Snowball games.

Examples

1. Le Havre. You do not build boats or build buildings.[i] You buy them.[/i] Wait until the colliery comes out and it turns into a toilet queuing game. One goes out, the next goes in. And then there comes the Shipping Lines, let's ship, let's buy more buildings, let's buy more ships. Who cares to build?

2. Agicola. Yes, it is well regarded as a strategic game. But think about, why not two family members are allowed in the same action space. Why do everyone go for family growth one by one once it is available? Why wet nurse and lover?

3. Brass. Cotton or port. Pick one, or you can try hard to win yourself in this multiplayer solitare research shipping and cotton all on your own. Iron wasn't even viable unless everyone on the table let you solo it...

4. Eclipse. Orion has to be in GCD in two turns, elephants have to hit good science tiles, those green plants have just to keep explore... etc. Anyway, if you didn't have X econ by the turn T, you are done!

All of them have the same property if you do not have X by turn T, you are lose.

These are some prime example of games it is more about a clash of players more than clash of strategies. One of the core reason is that there is too little viable strategy to choose from, another one is there is a constant flow of resources out of the game. The flow is so high, your relative net worth difference would not be a difference. There is no comeback mechanism and the game is too short. Once you are off the orbit, you are forever gone.

Everyone is literally playing more or less that strategy a/b/c you pick. In a few games, this becomes very repetitive and uninteresting as everyone is playing the same thing you had seen.

Well, perhaps except those who have some artistic minds valuing these...

18xx is not quite different. It is still a snow ball, and it is still quite not comebackable as it is well known it is a front-loaded game. But intentional or not, ther eis a lot of possible comeback strategies in 18xx. For instance in 1830,

-intentionally not pushing trains

-intentionally pushing trains

-intentionally buying up all shares risking being thrown quite a few companies

-intentionally open 6 companies in one SR

-intentionally dumping all shares possible

-intentionally trashing your own company

-intentionally feeding into another company with your own company

-intentionally abuse game bugs (i.e. not reasonable and feasible in the real world, e.g. suitcase company) to steer the game into unknown waters

etc. Yes, the side effect is that kingmaker is being extremely strong, but it is a game so deep, a few years later I still do not master it.

[q="Jasonbartfast"]

Then why have designers at all? Why not just play with lego?

[/q]

Lego began in the carpentry workshop of Ole Kirk Christiansen in Denmark. So someone started it, as one or a group of designers behind. 

Or you mean we should all play building blocks or sand castles. Or why megablocks is not as successful?

Sir, I do not think you ever understand why Minecraft or some other open world games become so successful nowadays, and why World of Warcraft has been losing their subscribers.

--------

Dota have lost quite of its player base. But that could render down to the fact that the developer has crappy infrastructures and centralized all games. But still, it has one of the top viewer counts and prize pool given out after 15 years of its birth.

Perhaps, it is a good example why games should not be too centralized, and opinions and actions should not be too depended on a few people power in hands, so call 'developers' or 'designers'

After all, I do not recall 1830 was playing as intended in the rulebook. Or, if there is an clear intention at all?

1817 company sales note

In simple laymen terms,

[b]Lidqudation: the president screwed up the company[/b], so he is responsible for all the crap (loans) he did, take away all the remaining money and the loans from the mat. The bank make the first $0 bid so the company is always sold. The reason is the company has run out of credit so everything sellable must go, the bank have enough of the company. Auction everything in one batch. The money gained is used to repay loans (must).

If the previous president cannot make up of the sin he made, auction the president himself. (bankruptcy)

[b]Friendly Acquisition: or in laymen terms the company is sold at the current spot price.[/b] Everything is sold. If no bid is made the company is taken back. But if one bid is made, then all shares in the company is liquidated at current stock price. In another words, if the company is sold at the current share price, the company is only sold at the current price multiply by the number of shares sold. For instance, if there is 3 shares outside of the company (on player's hand or in bank pool) out of 5 shares at price of $50, one is only paying $150 despite the bid is made at $250. Since when bidden, the remaining 2 shares in the company would immediately be sold and become $100 to be place in the company. Those money when sold, would be first move into the buyer's company, then be paid out. So that $100 would not matter unless it is sold at a price higher than current price. If the bid becomes $300, those shares would not suddenly become $60 spot price, since it had been sold at $50 already.

The shares only matters in terms of percentage (%) to split the money made from the auction.

Friendly sales is extremely useful and under-used, commonly used in the follow situations:
1. get rid of the company at current price to remove the obligation to get a train for the company, right before or after a train rush.
2. to force the few shorter to clear their position at the current price.
3. to squeeze out cash from your company, or take a loan and move the company to you at the company's name.
4. some of the composition of above.

[b]Hostile Acquisition[/b] (grey spaces): [b]the company is simply at a bad state. Or in laymen or common financial term [u]Suspension of trade[/u][/b] No shares could be sold or bought, or shorted, since at the current state it has no value. At the penultimate of the M&A stage anyone could make a bid of $10, then the company would be sold. Almost like friendly sales, once bidden, the shares in the company would be sold immediately. However, unlike friendly sales, there is no price. Hence the price would be zero. The procedure is exactly like friendly sales, but just the share price is zero. And such auction is always done and forced. Unlike friendly sales that it is elective.

When the company is sold, the money gained is also split in terms of percentage (%) in shares held.

The grey suspension zone looks like hell, but it is still extremely useful when no one could afford all your company loans. In Hong Kong terms, a company with negative asset, who just could barely afford the interest. So you could make a company full of fucking loans and drives the interest all the way up to $60. And then leave that trash company there. Want it? Take it. I don't care.

18USA- are these changes necessary?

First of all, I do not own the game. A groupmate wanted to buy a game but I was skeptical after reading the design notes. But it was too late after all so now the game is on the table. Alright could not complain if there was not my money..

There were a few changes but some are very notable:

1. offboard pass through and the toronto buypass.
2. the map.
3. new train exporting schedule
4. 3+ and 4+ trains
5. pullmans
6. ripple effect to shorts.

Private companies and subsidies are two minor changes we do not mind. Like 1822, it only shakes things up and it does not change the course towards the goal much. Just that most would have a different starting point to make the game slightly more interesting.

Loan returning changes are not a big issue either. But we are ok with either ways. Somehow restricting returns to the next turn only allow richer companies to jump more. That probably will not limit any comeback from those falling behind since it might be too late already.

[b]Offboard pass through and the Toronto bypass.[/b]
There comes the first issue. Having easier runs everywhere on the map differently make stations wroth way less than in 1817. And those forced station buys during conversions i.e. SEOs and floats are now way more expensive than in 1817. Your dead companies will not worth that much, and stations laying is not that much of a problem and decision in 18USA. Since there are literally good places everywhere and you only place station in or around those richer cities.

[b]The map[/b]
While we agree the map is a big issue in 1817 resulting in similar plays and that changes are necessary, I am not sure if 18USA is the changes that is good enough.

In the 17 map, early plays are limited by the mountain range from the east to south. And with little cities around Pittsburgh, that generally divides the map into three parts: the rich and expensive east coast, Detroit-Cleveland, and the rivers. Somehow we call the river zones "the fishes", a reason that the bridges look like fishes more, but later it seems like that starting in zone is particularly harder to have good results. So we generally avoided it resulting in half price for those fishes privates, and that still wasn't quite enough. Anyway, the starts in the 1817 looked staler and staler to us. While it definitely looked like group-think, we generally stick to the three big areas (or minus the fishes) with one Pittsburgh player and the start generally becomes not interesting.

In USA, the map now looks a lot less restricted, but that seems like compound to the effect that stations are not worth as much than in 1817. At least back in 1817 that would take some effort and cash to go through the ranges to build a bypass leading to NYC. Now that was not quite needed, as there are high payout red places and metros all around. And building a bypass is definitely less of a hassle than in 17 with those immediately green city airborne and instant upgrade to brown. On the surface it means, it is easier for those falling behind to catch　up, but it does mean those leading could leap off even faster. The combined result is ambiguous to be good or bad.

But definitely tracks are a bit too easy to lay now.

[b]New train export schedule, 3T+ and 4T+[/b]
This is the part I dislike. While I believe that trains should be pushed forward by player's will, this could be easily fixed by going back to the 1817 schedule. For the record, our group never have the issue of poisonous 3T but only the last poisonous 4T or sometimes 2 poisonous 4T. But one can always deduce someone's fault for not buying that penultimate 4T. And we generally agree the last 4T is toxic so no one would buy it unless one is losing so bad he is forcing a faster end or a comeback play.

The design of 3T+ and 4T+ is somewhat problematic. While on the surface it seems to resolve the old toxic train problem, now our new toxic train is the train before 4T+. 3T+ also creates another problem that it is possible that they are better than the first 4T since 3T+ guarantees another run which could be well into 6T. With one less stop but one more guaranteed run, they seem to be better than 4T.

And then now the last 3T becomes [i]the[/i] toxic train, which we used to blitz all the way through the 3T set without a problem except one or two export.

Since now there isn't a toxic 4T to hold on for one more set of OR and/or all the 3T are exported altogether, the 2T and 3T now becomes generally way more expensive than what they were in 1817.

There is now a strange hill in the yield curve in the place of 3T+, and cases are there that the 4T+ could be better than the first 5T, since it would generate more money than a pullman and run an extra time after 8T. And the trough of the toxic 4T is just pushed forward with a lesser climb but still there.

6T7T8T are harder to run in 1817. But since there are now more bypasses and of board locations, less stations is required and they are now generally better and way easier to be run.

[b]Pullmans[/b]
The purpose of addition of pullmans it not known. Perhaps it is there to alleviate the effect of that two permanent trains could be easier run in USA than 17. But I am not sure adding a auto-push-that-button option when a second train cannot be yet financed is necessary or not. Though definitely it is not an interesting decision to be made during gameplay to me since everyone is buying that whenever there is a space. And oh if you cannot afford it you are well done anyway.

[b]Ripple effect to shorts[/b]
Shorts could be played around in 1817. In later games, it could be reduced to merely a money borrowing option. Since there is not quite a lot of reports that aggressive shorts having good results, I would believe that it wasn't group think. And because there are cases that if an early successful short is made obviously it is game there.

At least I am so far unsuccessful to produce a scenario to go all the way through 3T to 6T within 1 sets of 2 ORs.

But just because it wasn't very viable in 1817, does not automatically mean that artificial made short timings are an interesting addition. Now you could prepare to short and counter-short everyone in that 3T exporting turn. That said, shorts are slightly harder to assess since stations could stop less trains, map is more open, and there are less terrain to stop tracks.  Is that an interesting change? I am not sure.

And that now there is a 1.5 step jump in 1817 scale instead of a deadweight loss..

Are these changes interesting? I am not quite sure either. Shorts is an very interesting and potential addition to the 18xx family. But it seems more refinement is still needed.

It is a bit of pity that Davis' version is still not there. Local gameplays are mostly inconclusive until we reached a point the general 18xx population could have a stress test on the traditional 1817. And yes, board18 is not enough for such major scale.

Side note: i am not interested in submitting this as a review and be "(peer-)reviewed". but since there is no way i can revoke that 'submission', so let it be. i will 'delete' that review later.

論1856

1856 真係一個好自閉0既遊戲. 買2股其實已經幾過份,

因為買得兩股個時其實個2TURN 個老闆應該都拎到舊錢 如果間公司可以即刻拎到錢, 除非佢無辦法即時搬走或者唔係多錢, 其實都係益左個大股東 買3股0既話不如訓落去買4股做二股東.

不過本身個前置其實都膠膠地, 因為人地多你50% 股票注定你一世做契弟

 ---------

你諗下新公司都要擺站, 最理想情況可以籌到一千蚊, 搬去舊公司還錢, 仲可以KEEP 住D 舊站, 然後AL 左其他對手一共4張股票, 自己有一大堆股票搬左出去或者未賣, 個狀況冇想像中咁差.

其實好多時唔係BARE 住JC LAWRENCE或者咩咩比較權威0既人0既名就唔會膠, 

不過我諗最大問題係我要有機會開公司先. 如果007繼續係咁玩其實有機會開公司我都唔會開, 廢事炒車

e-sports DOTA: Dendi vs AI

Why you would not want this game - A Handful of Stars

I honestly hope I played this game wrong. But it has never been a good experience to me. So please let me know if it is wrong, as it is baring the name of Martin Wallace. Brass and Age of Steam had given me good times but not this one.

I will comment more on the strategic gameplay side more than anything else since those are really just side-kicks. [i]Well if the gameplay is not good enough, you'd better have something else to sell![/i] Otherwise a passing mark and functional components with a good strategy game will have good reception. Example: Food Chain Magnate.

-----------------------
TL:DR
- This game is Risk (initial position) + Dominion + Eclipse. The game play is very dictated by RNG.

While it has a strong reference on eclipse and it looks like the author has awareness what is being weak in Eclipse, Eclipse is still straightly better.

-----------------------

- Mostly I would not comment on 'good' art since either they are functional or fail. It is good if art are good on top of being well functional or it is too excessive that it does more hurt than good. Sadly it is not for this game. Situational and VP awareness of this kind of combat games, like Eclipse, is very essential towards late game if one is playing to win, and therefore a VP bar is there for good reference. However, the reference is not easy. You have to look at the 10th digit bar, and then check the single digit bar to see the point difference and to decide who is the best to attack. This is a pain in the ass. While it could be easily done with a VP round race track like Amun-re to show VP, I do not understand why this weird way of presentation is chosen.

- Numbers, text and parameters are too small and hard to read on planets.

- Drawing cards of lost worlds out of your deck from time to time is very annoying.

- Unique cards of planets are very big burden of knowledge.

- Even if you know what card you will need, you might not get them easily because of your initial position and research card draw, a dictation by the RNG.

- The game ends when the 20 shuffles in Dominion. It is a game too short to comeback if you are forced into subpar plays, just like [url="https://boardgamegeek.com/article/9709366#9709366"]slightly subpar hexes[/url] in Eclipse.

- Since the game is short and has a somewhat fixed end, stacking resources and powerplaying cards is very strong and efficient, even if you overpay just to get rid of cards. These will earn you a bigger share of resources spent.

- Developments on the top of your charter makes powerplay even stronger despite they are necessary to offset Dominion luck. And hence spamming colony is better than building an early army. Even better when your developments are not returned if your colony is destroyed. Please correct me if I was taught wrong here. I really hope I played wrong here that colonies and developments have to be returned.

- Your initial position could lead to very good (clustered) or bad startings (spread everywhere) completely out of your control.

- Researching is mostly wasting time and a sub-par action as the correct research card has to land on the market, then with the correct amount of science bought, then placed on the discard, then shuffled, then drawn, then wait for the correct timing to play. Too hard to predict given the long activation time and too short of a game.

- Essential in Dominion: trimming is too expensive an action and mostly wasting time. Better build colony quick and get that free development.

- Very standard Martin Wallace economic snowballs. If you cannot catch up and lose tempo, even if was forced by bad RNG, you'd better pray everyone play bad or die to a wild comet in order to just have a comeback chance.

- Common problem of multiplayer combat games. You have two ways of spending your resources: simcity or building army. But you always lose troops when beating opponents so simcity players left alone or even hit last will have a economic snowball big enough, just to hold back the remaining troops, sit back and easily win. Good luck killing everyone warmongering!

- Flat distribution of ancient strength. Completely RNG, no prediction at all so you are playing against an almost same risk aversion curve. Landing a 2 with minimal fleet or hitting a 9 with a all-in is a big difference enough in a economic snowball game - one turn lost. See slightly sub-par hex arguement.

- And since beating ancient could have a result losing nothing and beating players would make you have to guess what hand they are holding (RNG) and a very potential lost, ancient farming is far superior early game until they are exhausted. And rather ancients are spawning around you depends on your initial position again (RNG again). If there are no ancient around, sorry bro!

- Moving big troops is toooooooooo slow and inefficient as in Eclipse. So you mostly will not build troops unless you need it, and it doesn't really matter losing one colony and play the "I am weak no attack me pls bro" card. I once misplay where you could have 0 moving cost in your own space, and I do hope it was the case so to make warmongering a bit more doable.

- This game relies on player balance but there could be no easy way to knock a leading player out of orbit. Say, if you and the winning players are at a two corners and you have no solution to him, while others do not care, game is done. Not to mention classic players who would get mad thinking you are up against hating him just because you are trying to do logical player balancing.

- The ending. The ending is terrible. I really hope I was wrong here. In Eclipse, you could at least burn resources racing to the end in order to observe all moves and make the last move reasonable in order to have a last swing of VP to win the game. In A Handful of Stars, the last player is well known. If someone is leading the main group 20VP mid game you might as well fold and start over already. But in normal cases where player balance works, scores are all open (unlike Eclipse where VPs are a guess though still very guessable) and everyone is close, you have a very good chance to make the lethal snipe given you have access to your target (RNG)

It is a RNG party game. Relax and enjoy fireworks and see how RNG screws people up but you might not see the whole picture! (Ah bad draws no research no ancient available gg). But if you want a competitive game, this game is too long a pain for bad random results - punishment in terms of expected value, big cost with a outliner result

------------

back-up-ed from BGG since it is OK to spam 10/10 because the publisher tells you to do so on twitter, but writing a sincere negative review is insta death penalty.

Scythe has now won GOTY from BGG, as well as the Origins and Dice Tower conventions. Is it really the best game of 2016?

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/6m0p3t/scythe_has_now_won_goty_from_bgg_as_well_as_the/

This is a game where there is no strategic depth. Your starting strategy is dictated by the board you get. And then you try to dance along the standard path or otherwise you lose.

BGG ranking has been obsoleted after 2012 and that Pandemic Legacy twitter thing. So is Dice Tower who are calling people to get a life about the vote 10/10 twitter campaign or Origins.

I used to at least try those game who make it into BGG top 10 list once before commenting. Now it is a standard "amazon buy good review" thing which those game newly made it to top 10 are mostly complete rubbish.

People well underestimate how advertorials and paid reviews are polluting this hobby.

If you want sincere reviews, read those 1/10 rates on BGG.

台灣谷阿莫事件

話說台灣電影那壇垃圾事件，有人扯上直播遊戲不會被告不公平。

像些大公司，其實他媽的老早已經把政策公布了出來。不過當然，又會有一大堆鄉下人會供出自己不會英文云歹去抵賴，這點講廣東話或者不捲舌頭國語沒太大分別，反正都是支那豬而已。（種種原因，華人評分必須由零分起評，其他人是由１００分開始扣）

用上人家的版權去賺錢，還在「自己的照片」上面貼上人家的商標去「裝飾」，這有沒有問題，大概是蠢人才要想。

這還包括了不少這頭用人家的版權去賺錢，那邊指著人說人偷圖的人。

同人還可以說「灰色地帶日本人（而且只是日本人，還有日本人會告的，例子不用詳細了吧）不告」，個人使用跟新聞傳遞算是公平使用FAIR USE。那賺錢的，可以用什麼去抵賴？ＵＧＣ？

所以當天，黏土人鄰人部那邊供出了要搞個商業牌照去賺錢的時候，就知道離起身的時候不遠了。

http://store.steampowered.com/video_policy

「香港共享單車計劃」

咩「香港共享單車計劃」，收錢架

係唔係好眼熟呢，

十足十Ｄ麥當奴PIZZA HUT車泊死晒D骨位

車房車推晒出馬路DISPLAY

同香港支那人講道理, 浪費時間

網上社交媒體興起後的所以「傳媒」－香港同人HKDOUJIN一例

傳統的媒體，好歹是用具爭議性的題目，作為一個平台給予當時沒有互聯網的公眾去討論，代為發表高質素回應以及精闢見解，以收取「中介」費用為生。而且也不會隨便什麼狗屎垃圾都貼上去，漁翁撤網般低質發文。

現在的自稱網上傳媒，為了收視，就不擇手段，妄顧是非黑白，低質文章放題，還要以劣等魚餌用作炎上之用，要人浪費時間去回應討伐這些常識圈以外的下等廢物，以取更多收視。

還自稱傳媒，污染香港已經奇差的傳媒圈，這挺人罪該萬死。

高登轉莊。

其實在HKG什麼什麼之前, 2006年左右還有一個叫 HK CIRCLE. 那邊最大的賣點就是

「HKC的人不歡迎高登人」

「HKC 的創辦人, 好似叫DR. JIM」

無辜被人撞死，香港人要死者RIP，報館要幫加害者打格仔的香港奴隸文化。

不要跟我講什麼神化不神化，你要人RIP，大多指rest in peace，大概不是pieces，要人安息，要人投胎不要追究。無論是精神上，還是天主教式只限肉體上的，就是肉體被人撞完之後「肉體永享安寧」。

真的不要追究嗎？法律就頂多鎖他三五年，出來又是一條好漢。將心比己，自己被人撞死了，在天之靈，你要加害的被鎖三五七年你就可以無事了嗎？

好了，就算被害的真的想釋負遠離人世了（不論是天主教天堂的，還是下世投胎後又不知道會不會被哪位「人類」撞到）。

至於加害者，反正上庭都可以有百般質疑「因為已經被報導，公眾討論而干擾審訊公平」，「懷疑影片真偽」等等去減低罪名。儘管不論香港人與否大家都是善忘的，法律以外最大責備的就是公眾認識以及譴責這個人。而報館的照片，居然會在加容者的辨認物上面打格仔。

他會改過自身是後話，似乎大家都很樂見道路炸彈在大家都不警惕的情況下路上自爆。

我也很想知道吃完午餐肉之後，豬隻到底可不可以「肉體永享安寧」RIP。

反正就是為了兩餐飯同個老母，每天被老闆OT磨到18、19個小時工作，第二次還每天準時上班，還要謝主龍恩，多謝老闆俾機會。沒有人知道老闆的德行，結果更多無辜的人要進去感受過，浪費時間機會。

自己不願意面對怨恨，就交給法律，就交給上帝，要他帶人「落地獄」。沒有人處理，與自己無關，就不了了事。

大家記得係投胎CV上面，寫清楚自己最大的優點，就是「我每天都會準時返工」、「我最會寬恕別人」。

東京WF行2016：‪#‎今天我參加了一個叫wf的運動會‬

ＷＦ前，在朋友努力做功課之下，自己也查了一下。本以為自己對ＧＫ興趣不大，ＳＡＯ也退潮流了所以不太會命中，才知道原來自己也有目標，也就是CHERRYMILK 的莉法娃衣，這還是ＷＦ前一兩天才知道的。

雖然感覺還是有點差，尤其是奶子的部份，不過機會難得，而且一旦錯過了要補買，就要付出幾倍的金錢，好像還是先買好一點。

本來朋友是打算隨便找一家酒店就住了。我自己就有點要求，想住在秋葉原附近。每晚回酒店前可以去吸毒是一件事，但是最重要的還是秋葉原在山手線內以及就近東京站，方便賽跑。

還好自己有這樣的要求，本以為抽不到DIRECT PASS，就不會太衝ＷＦ，結果還是要衝了。

原來是說可以去通宵排隊的。不過除了是官方明文不准之外，２０１３年也發生過官方直接承認在海浜幕張站始電出來的隊伍，而不承認通宵的隊伍的做法。更加因為就算是徹夜成功了，徹夜組前面還有2000~3000人的ダイパス組，所以投入太多時間是不必要的。最少我是這樣想，雖然我也沒有問過伙伴怎樣想咳咳，不過三點起床也是我的極限了。

ＷＦ當天３點鐘就已經起床了。自己的酒店下面就有２４Ｈ松屋實在是天賜。三點半的時間松屋裡面一個人也沒有，大概店員也是躲在廚房裡面打遊戲吧。

自己也是打工的，吃完之後記得提醒一下躲在廚房裡面的員工通知他人走了，方便人家。

３點半左右，因為總武線還沒開出，要等總武線的話就會拖到半小時之後才到幕張，我們只好徒步走到秋葉原站坐京濱東北線的大船方向始電。雖然可以花錢坐的士到東京站，不過就是懶搞，而且這樣搞倒不如在千葉縣那邊起步了吧！

當時除了查過好像在有樂町過去好像快一點以外，另外一個擔心就是記得上年由東京站山手系的月台走去京葉線的要一段時間，而我們的時限在十分鐘內，上年就好像走了１５分鐘，感覺時間有點太吃緊。不過始電就這麼早了，的士又感覺貴，所以就只好用跑的吧＠＿＠

雖然最後下車，急步了快５分鐘就到京葉線月台，而且還看到有位子坐。我還是太杞人憂天了。往後的用京葉線也好了吧。

之後我們就在電車的暖氣下，半小時後呆呆坐到海浜幕張，氣氛就開始緊張起來。

結果車一停就一大班人一言不發湧出站去。那個急步由幕張站開始，經過商場側，沿途看到默默地舉牌的工作人員，快步踏破天橋，衝落電動樓梯，看到經典的ＷＦ大看板，去到入場卷買賣攤前（在這裡要停下來買書的就輸了！），在保安CHECKPOINT 前跟著大伙一起舉書，２０１５年那個可以隨意漫步走進去會場的記憶就隨著急速的腳步在眼前快速閃過，感覺眼熟但是完全不一樣，急步之下很快就去到近海的會場前。

　

一閃眼就已經走了快１５分鐘的路，之前就是一片人海！那數量完全不是香港動漫節或者ＣＷ可以比較的，還好自己有早起床，不過大概再早就是不值了，這也就是盡力了吧。

除了有半個小時時間在前前後後的在工作人員的指示下，鬆出自己各自的位置之外，往後的時間也可以坐著，而且更可以離開隊伍去洗手間等，這比香港實在舒服得多了。要是港豬支那人來這邊隨意插隊解壓縮，大概也會變成ＣＷ的級數，再也不能那麼輕鬆了。

說是有得去洗手間，其實也有長龍。百幾人要排個半個小時才去到。去到才發現原來是４個公廁服侍一大堆人，沒暖水只有冰水不突止，原來那４個公廁還包括了女廁。

吃的飲的當然不用講，要半小時回到幕張商場那邊才買到。回來再插隊的話，又會被人問長問短，又要要求更高的日語能力。還好我自己有準備好小食糧水，免得跑來跑去跟某些支那人一樣被誤會。

開場前半小時九點半左右，除了GSC那邊的官網開始放出消息之外，隊伍也在眾人低頭看電話的時候開始徐徐移動，慢慢去到天橋下。

進場前有個有名的盆路，一邊去1234號場館，一邊去5678號的場館，。要搞清楚那邊是自己的目標。注意不是純粹分商業館跟個人館，其中一邊是包括了商業館間部份個人展區的入口。要小心選好行車線（之前應該已經做好功課了吧！），因為進場後一段時間，好像是十分鐘，因為人潮控制的關係而不准通過場館中間的通路的，而這十分鐘有多重要，有去衝過限定品的人也知道了吧。

排了４個小時隊，幾經辛苦之後我才進到會場，還發呆了一下，才找到CHERRYMILK 的位置。那時候已經有長長打蛇餅的人龍了。還好排過２０分鐘之後，就順利買到莉法跟其他兩個順手買的娃衣，一口氣省下了幾千元，早排一次就值了。

回個氣再望一望，就算已經不是新鮮的景象，還是驚嘆幕張會場之大及人之多，但是又不會有焗促以及擠迫的感覺。還好有人釣起我的引去日本，要不困在香港實在不知道拖到什麼時候才可以去ＷＦ朝聖。

再來悠閒的去到ＧＳＣ那邊買雪初音，對於起個人館那邊實在簡單太多了，數量又多，下次如果只有雪初音要搶的話大概也可以像之前十點十一點悠悠閒進場...

再來就是今次ＷＦ另一個免費發布，熊仔！

以為還會有點難拿的，因為一開始也有點搶奪潮，工作人員一直說來貨很多也沒用，後來也輕鬆派了。誰知道這免費的居然回到香港會賣到２００＝＿＝又省下錢來。

GSC這邊除了有介紹他們大力投資的布袋戲之外，也不忘低調地幫台灣震災籌款。

大概因為已經過了快八個小時，拿完布偶土人之後又著一包二包的戰利品，就算說感覺不重也好（其實是超重！），也很臃腫，難以走動，實在累了。幸好在經過個館後沒多久發現上去樓上的通路，原來又是可以憑書自由出入的，外面剛好就是一排排的儲物箱。在那麼強大的人流之下，當然不論價錢大少全部都是滿的，還好走過幾個場館以後發現有一個最便宜３００日元剛好足夠的空位！除了一次白痴不小心把書也鎖進去，又要開門白白浪費３００之後，大衣背包戰利品等等全部塞進去，就復活了！可以漫遊ＷＦ了！

話說這次去也沒有想過提款什麼的問題。提款機是有的，便利店也當然是有的，但是也要有海外提款的功能吧。那個就沒去研究了，大概是一開始已經準備好大量的錢，不準備好要去提款的話也就輸了。除非是那些賣不完的剩餘品吧，那怎樣拖慢也大概沒差，所以也就沒有去研究哪個提款機可以海外提款。其實也是怕了在提款機面前「非常好奇」鬼鬼祟祟的樣子會令到日本人困惑吧。

其他的見聞就不多廢話了，有興趣看走馬看花式的劣照吧就請移步FLICKR 把。

話說今年就算是多快也好，個人館又走不完了，成人區沒去到，商業區更加是幾乎沒有行...

何謂PR MARKETING

很多人到現在還相信ＨＲ跟ＰＲ／ＭＡＲＫＥＴＩＮＧ不是公司裡面最廢的人。

係創意有限的前題下, PR 公司/人如果沒有殘局收拾, 又何須請什麼PRODUCT/PR/BRAND MANAGER? 所以他們要做的, 就是要製造災難給更多人去收拾, 那整個行業才有生氣.

至於他們的TITLE, 是無意義的, 叫BRAND/PR/PRODUCT/MARKETING MANAGER/TRAINEE/PERSONNEL也好, 那個JOB TITLE跟MARKETING 廢吹的本質是無異的.

1HP

很時候外人看上去「原來只是剩1HP」，「原來只是贏剛好一個回合」，「只是嬴＄１」，都是幸運。

如果是排名遊戲，其實嬴「最小可切割的單位」就已經是贏了。這可以是1HP, $1, 或者是1 TURN，其餘的資源可以去認乎遊戲內外的其他事。而這些在下手及外人眼中，往往好像只是幸運。

很簡單，換上一個不是純排名遊戲，而是分數跟收入支出直接掛勾的，如華人的賭博麻雀，我可以擔保下手糞會被那些「１ＨＰ符碌仔」殺到以後不敢再玩那個遊戲，叫苦連天，幸運的幸字都幸不出來。

東京近郊ＷＦ自由行DAY5.1m：雀莊。

又來到了東京，當然少不了雀莊。朋友也有自己的地方想去，那就當然是分道很事最佳了。

秋葉原新開了一間無煙的雀莊，人比較少，也省卻了要等待的時間。

因為是無煙雀莊，那家雀莊就以無煙為主，宣揚裡面女性玩家較多，以這種美人計找招來人客。但是上去上面，根本一個女人都沒有啊！！清一色男人，除了幾個很假的女僕之外...

等了半個小時左右才坐下去，四人半莊點五。一坐下去已經有人問「你不是日本人嗎？」剛好我六巡入張，一句「リーチ」迅雷不及聽牌立直壓過去，對家吞了一下口水沒事了。

中間事端不多，始終是半新手雀莊，只要敢棄胡，就不會輸太多錢。這次的手氣不太差，立直跟鳴牌進攻成功都多，收入不錯。

只是中間起了幾件小事我後來才明。原來沒記載的，雀莊有時候還有一條禮儀：既然有了五百點點棒，點棒其實也不混亂。交收點棒的時候，以最少點棒交收以外，最好還是給準確的支出數。要不是3900給4000找一百那些之外，最好還是要報應找回的點數。以免混亂。

場中間因為我沒做好這點，有點交收的混亂起來，而且有時候也忘記收赤牌的祝儀。還好就算上家雀力比較低，同檯全部玩家也非常的提醒，得救了。就算運氣多好，太迫人也有點令人不好意思，想鬆手棄胡多一點。

不過就算怎樣收手也好，運氣有時候好就是停不下來。什麼六巡混一色七對子ドラ１聽牌的，自摸斷么ドラ３ ALL STAR，收入豐厚。

香港有留意不到的，日本也會有發生。親家立一摸表ドラ，手中赤１再中裡１，就經常因為看不到自摸的表ドラ而數少一翻（赤牌少看就活該抵死吧）。結果那局也搞了一陣子才收了6000 3枚 ALL。

還有就是一直添飲放題以外，還想把菜單上面寫的飲料都試了。自己可能發音差，說要紅茶，店家給了一杯居然是鹹的綠茶！我也不好意思問那是什麼鬼茶，雖然對我來講非常奇怪，但是去問「這是什麼鬼！？」感覺好白痴...

打牌打到五點半左右，電話不停的震，但是又正好雀局的南三局決勝位，令我極不好意思叫代走，但是雀莊又不給看電話的，令我非常擔心是伙伴出了事。不過我想今次的同行會日文，而且只是去購物，也不會鬧出什麼大事來吧。

到六點左右打了４個半莊，速度比上次正常太多了，跟日本人打牌不太累，可能是因為自己在陌生的地方打牌又很盡力的不想出醜，精神上還是很累。就叫了LAST半。

叫了LAST半以後，老毛病又出來。既然都沒機會見了，那就可以不用客氣了吧！之前還會假裝棄胡的，裝模作樣頭痛的，東一局起就是聽牌即立，用得著的字牌即碰，同檯的玩家立即面容扭曲，感到壓力。

東三局上家的大概也因為一點一點的輸得多了，立直都放銃完場的，開始不耐煩起來。下家立直七巡以後，我在連打安牌以及無安牌推進之下，成功門斷平ドラ２聽牌，在３５０００點不大的領先之下當然即立。

上家摸到牌之後立直「まちすか？？」這樣大嘆氣，一看便知道是天要你聽牌立直一發出銃的大會指定動作。果然上家大嘆完氣之後大力打出二萬立直，這邊當然立即攏和，萬二中裡三枚，一個玩家出局了。

其餘對家跟下家，咬著不放，我也只是收聽牌料或者是小牌和了跟他們拉鋸。直到南四局，跟上家剛自摸1000-2000的差了2400點，剛好是立直自摸可以收窄的距離。小的運氣好，五巡無役兩面立直，下家就立馬忍不著「ちきしょー！！」小拍一下檯！嚇得我有點面紅。結果三巡之後就自摸了，還是頭馬作結。

最後的金錢交收完之後，有人起來轉檯子了，其他兩個就一面被擊倒的倒死在椅子上。看來真的辛苦了。

後來下家的好老人就問我「你不是日本人吧？你是中國人吧？（無惡意）」那就當然是一面羞恥PLAY 對話。

2-1-4-3-1 TOP的收入當然豐厚，但是可以自摸兩三場三枚四枚也佔了收入的一角。

AlphaGO 挑戰SC2? 遊戲深度簡評

圍棋的難處在於變化多，19X19的棋盤足足有「768 個零」(10^768)的變化，那怕其千萬份之一是有效棋盤狀況(game position) 也是難以想像的多。只是，大家都同意如果電腦用窮舉法硬轟，電腦攻破人類圍棋圈只是時間問題。

星海爭霸(SC2)的有效戰略比圍棋少得多，變化少得多，而且有名只要輸了一兩場大戰之後就難以追上。就算不是窮舉戰略 ，而是真正的人工智能學習，電腦在物理可觀察的限制（顯示幀數及以及解像度）以及近乎１幀(1 frame)的反應微控(micro)之下，不見得人類有什麼贏的可能，就算是SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKER 的大絕CHEESE也是有最大資源生產的限制的。

人類的狀況判斷(scouting & decision) 以及微控可以以「幀數」為反應標準嗎？要用電腦去挑戰人類打電腦遊戲，實在有點費解。

港豬，你清楚你在做什麼嗎？要另文的拉麵感想。

話說今天去了西環大學站附近一新開拉麵店一試。

地舖，有BAR檯位，很自然的坐了上去。

正常一有人進去應該會最少有一個人很有朝氣的いらっしゃいませ！的。

結果沒有。

我去查問一下：「你地未LAST ORDER 架呵？」

開放廚房裡面三個人才恍然大悟，「未架，隨便坐！」

未坐，見沒水，又已經有問題了。

坐下來，沒水瓶，又不附上水，你是想怎樣了？

下單要了個豬骨麵。

一個本來在玩電話的人，在我眼前拿起碗，

在我面前倒一殼比較漿糊狀流質物體的落碗，

我已經想拔腿就跑了。

耐何很多行李，也肚餓，跑不了。

結果給我上了這個。

蛋黃不是完全流質狀的，

肉是...普通。

麵，吉之島。

湯，居然沒有什麼口乾的感覺，不過不敢光飲太多。

最慘的是吃到一半，那個男的雙臂居然壓在BAR檯與廚房之間的間隔上玩電話，

令我非常大壓力。

本來這個溫度，要加麵是很正常的事，我也加不下去了。

吃完再仔細看一下廚房，

才看到食材（包括蛋）先煮好就放在當眼客人可以看到的地方。

你的麵就像大學食堂一樣一殼一殼的倒下去，就完成了！！

到這個時候，我還沒喝到一滴水。

施主，開放廚房是可以讓客人容易監工，

不過現在這樣根本是失禮吧。

這樣居然要價８８個大洋。

.

還是趕快滾蛋好一點。

東京秋葉原、大阪日本橋動漫購物總匯

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

十年後：科学する麻雀理論的剩餘價值

科學麻雀年代來臨前，有部份理性的舊雀士所擔心是正確的。比如好像是黑木真生所提到，好像數據被公布了以後，有如薛丁格的貓(Schrodinger's Cat)一樣，，上級玩家會不會就理論調節，而令所公布的理論失效？ 十年以後，實際如此。十年前的凸理論是不夠的，就只剩下輾新手的用處而已。