Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Dominion Articles => Topic started by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 07:17:35 am

Title: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 07:17:35 am
I have read a few online articles on Dominion strategy and thought that what is missing is anything on playing a “Control” strategy.  The Control strategy was developed in the game Magic the Gathering, where you intentionally slow the game down in order to build up superior resources to your opponent in order to win.  In Dominion, the resources at your disposal are money to buy other cards and cards in hand during your turn.  Further, you want to disrupt your opponent from being able to win the game quickly, to slow the game down so that you can develop your resources to be more than those of your opponent.

Conventional Dominion strategy wisdom is that Big Money is a strategy.  When you look at what Big Money does, which is to buy large amounts of money and action cards to draw more cards, you quickly realise that this is a form of Control strategy as it is attempting to develop superior resources compared to your opponents.  However, the Control strategy is actually broader than just this and as a result I would argue that Big Money is a subset of the Control strategy, rather than being a true strategy in itself. I appreciate that this is a contentious viewpoint and am likely to get some negative reactions as a result, but want you as the reader to think about this point.     

I am going to take a look at some specific cards, which mainly come from the basic set as that is what I am most familiar with, to discuss how they can form part of a Control strategy.

Bureaucrat: the Bureaucrat card does two things for you.  First, it develops your own resources by gaining you Silver.  Secondly, it forces your opponents to put Victory cards in their hand back on top of their deck, meaning that next turn, it will reduce the number of useful cards that they draw and as a result restrict what they are able to afford to buy, slowing them down. 

Militia: this is an archetypal Control card, in that it disrupts your opponent’s hand size and also gives you more money to spend.  You have probably experienced being at the receiving end of this card (or one similar like Goons) where you thought you could afford to buy a Province or another high value card, only to be hit by this and not be able to buy what you wanted, thus reducing your chances of winning the game. 

Money: in order to develop superior resources, you are going to need to buy money in the form of Silver and Gold in the base game, or more exotic Treasures if you have access to the expansions, on a regular basis. 

Smithy, Laboratory & Moat: I have put these cards together as they all gain you card advantage during the turn you play them, which means that you should have superior resources to spend that turn.

Spy: the Spy card provides control in the form of determining which cards you and your opponent’s draw, preventing them getting resources they need, while ensuring you get what you want.
 
Thief: this works well in that it can potentially reduce your opponent’s resources, while increasing your own.  There is a risk involved, in that trashing your opponent’s Copper will likely benefit them in enabling them to draw more consistent better hands.  However, if you do get to trash and take a Silver or Gold from them, particularly early on, this can be devastating in slowing down their development in the game. 

Witch: this is a very strong Control card as it provides two benefits that are key to your strategy.  The first is that it draws you additional cards, enhancing the resources at your disposal.  The second is that it disrupts your opponents by filling their decks with “junk” Curse cards that slow them down. 

Looking further afield, the latest release for Dominion, the expansion Empires contains the card Enchantress, which “counters” your opponent’s first Action card.  This could potentially be a key card in preventing combo decks from working, stopping them in their tracks. 

I hope this article has proved interesting and given you an alternative perspective on strategy in Dominion, even if you do not necessarily agree with my opinions and that maybe it has given you something to consider. 
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: AdrianHealey on July 14, 2016, 07:26:06 am
Man, my favorite card to do this is ambassador. Double or even triple ambassador and villages, and junk the opponent until they have no deck control. I won once by puttign 16 potions and 10 curses in the opponent's deck.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 08:21:41 am
Hi Adrian,

Thanks for posting your reply and also for you agreeing to my exploration on the idea of this form of strategy.  I thought long and hard about whether I should post this or not, as I like developing thinking, but sometimes people can be very negative about new ideas that change conventional wisdom.  Just simply getting one positive response has made me feel it was worthwhile sharing my thoughts and I want to thank you for that. 
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: DG on July 14, 2016, 08:52:27 am
Should control be considered the build up of resources or the better utilization of the resources you already have?
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 09:02:38 am
Hi DG,

That is a very good question.  In my mind I saw it as being the build up of your own resources while limiting your opponents access to his resources. 
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: werothegreat on July 14, 2016, 09:23:35 am
What?  Big Money is very clearly an Aggro strategy, comparable to a Hearthstone player just throwing down a bunch of 1-drops.  Control strategies are engines in Dominion, usually using Attacks the way an MTG or Hearthstone player would use removal spells.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 09:44:49 am
In response to Werothegreat, I am glad you are challenging my idea, as what you have said has got me thinking perhaps what I have said could be wrong.  Hopefully some more people will add to the discussion with their views and we will see where it goes from there.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Jack Rudd on July 14, 2016, 09:50:27 am
Yazza, have you read this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15488.0)?
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 10:02:30 am
Hi Jack,

That thread was really interesting to read and I am very grateful you suggested it to me.  I am still learning and that has helped me a lot in getting a better understanding between Big Money as beatdown and Engines as Control. 
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Chris is me on July 14, 2016, 10:13:17 am
What would be a dominant dominion strategy you wouldn't define as "control"? Under the premise you appear to be using, it seems like basically any positive action you could take to increase your odds of winning would be defined as "control".
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 10:40:23 am
In response to Chris, I would argue that a "rush" strategy, where you are attempting to end the game as soon as possible is not a "control" strategy.  Control strategies are about building superior resources, which takes longer to achieve than a more aggressive strategy that is trying to win as soon as possible.  In fact, I would suggest reading the thread that Jack has posted a link to, as this is a really good explanation of the difference between the two types of strategy and that has made me reconsider my opinion that Big Money is actually a Control strategy, as it is clearly a more aggressive strategy.

Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Roadrunner7671 on July 14, 2016, 10:44:45 am
I think this was a good article. Yazza, in the upper right hand corner of all posts, there is a button labeled 'quote.' You should see what it does!  ;)
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 14, 2016, 11:13:51 am
Hi Roadrunner,

Thanks for saying you liked the article.  You did make me laugh about using 'quote', as I should have thought of that. 
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: eHalcyon on July 14, 2016, 01:10:10 pm
What?  Big Money is very clearly an Aggro strategy, comparable to a Hearthstone player just throwing down a bunch of 1-drops.  Control strategies are engines in Dominion, usually using Attacks the way an MTG or Hearthstone player would use removal spells.

I'm not super familiar with the MtG classifications, but this sounds right to me. Another important aspect of engines is having more gains per turn (whether through gainers or +Buy). Gain potential is another resource in Dominion which many newer players take for granted. A deck with higher gain potential has stronger end game control.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Awaclus on July 14, 2016, 01:21:06 pm
What?  Big Money is very clearly an Aggro strategy, comparable to a Hearthstone player just throwing down a bunch of 1-drops.  Control strategies are engines in Dominion, usually using Attacks the way an MTG or Hearthstone player would use removal spells.

Big money is not very comparable to an aggro strategy considering that it's significantly slower than rush strategies. Big money is more comparable to midrange/tempo/aggro-control decks.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Seprix on July 14, 2016, 02:03:40 pm
This article is only just the beginning, Yazza. You can make plenty of conclusions from what you have written so far. A good first attempt for sure, but you have only begun to cover the topic of control.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: markusin on July 14, 2016, 02:30:21 pm
What?  Big Money is very clearly an Aggro strategy, comparable to a Hearthstone player just throwing down a bunch of 1-drops.  Control strategies are engines in Dominion, usually using Attacks the way an MTG or Hearthstone player would use removal spells.

Big money is not very comparable to an aggro strategy considering that it's significantly slower than rush strategies. Big money is more comparable to midrange/tempo/aggro-control decks.

The Hearthstone analogy is that Big Money is the "play on curve" midrange deck like Midrange Hunter or Secret Paladin.

This topic is difficult to nail down because Dominion engines often resemble combo decks that stall to get up their combo rather than control decks that "outvalue" the opponent. In other cases the engine is favoured in the long term due to having much better late game consistency.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: dedicateddan on July 14, 2016, 07:09:25 pm
Articles are great, welcome to the community!

Maximizing control is key in tournament dominion
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Yazza on July 15, 2016, 04:29:05 am
I just wanted to thank people for their feedback and also for being so welcoming.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Davio on July 15, 2016, 05:28:32 am
Control in Dominion is not only attacks, but also pile control.

Sometimes, you can get control of a game by being able to get a lot of cards at once if you choose to, while your opponent can only grab 1 or 2 cards per turn.
This lets you prolong the game until you can end it in a single turn, all the while building up your deck to that tipping point.

It doesn't matter much when you buy VP cards, only how much of them you have at the end of the game.
Say your opponent buys a Province every other turn until he has 4, so it takes him 7 or 8 turns to do so.
That means you have 7 or 8 turns as well, but you could buy all of your Provinces in a single turn, using 5 or 6 turns to keep building your deck so it can do so.

This is why engines are so powerful, engines make it a lot easier to end the game (by grabbing multiple cards at once to cause a favorable 3-pile or grabbing multiple Provinces/Colonies at once) so you can either wait until you're ahead and end it or delay ending it to try and get ahead.

A non-engine player just has to hope and chisel away at the Provinces to get a big enough lead. Non-engine players often have difficulty ending the game while they're ahead. They'll either win by default (their point lead is too big to overcome) or the game turns into a slog where both players are fighting over Estates.

An engine vs. non-engine strategy is like a race from London to New York where the non-engine player just gets on a boat and waits until it arrives while the engine player tries to invent a spaceship.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Dingan on July 15, 2016, 03:44:08 pm
An engine vs. non-engine strategy is like a race from London to New York where the non-engine player just gets on a boat and waits until it arrives while the engine player tries to invent a spaceship.

Omg, yes!!

Good article Yazza.  My one comment is that yes, things like Spy and B-Crat provide you benefits, and hence add to your control.  But keep in mind that these are two relatively weak $4 cards, and that the control they give you now came at a price earlier in the game, which people tend to call "opportunity cost".  So control is good, yeah, but it can peak too late.  That boat might already be ashore.

EDIT:
To be clear, I'm not referring to a deck that has control and a deck that doesn't.  I'm referring to the different opportunity costs associated with different cards of similar price, and how the decisions you make now can affect your amount of control you have later.  So like, more control and more types of control are almost always good things; but it's the deck that out-paces the other decks in the amount of control it has that will come out on top.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 27, 2016, 10:24:52 am
(Mostly in reply to wero).

I have to say that I disagree with the idea that engines are the control strategy. To me, engines are very clearly a "tempo" strategy. This is because the engine itself does nothing to slow down your opponent. You take a lab, your opponent takes a lab, etc. The goal of an engine is to maintain tempo in this way. As soon as you miss tempo, you're behind.

Control decks should refer to removal and slowing your opponent down. Removal should be thought of as actively removing options from your opponent. As was pointed out in the article, this involves strategies like curses or forcing discard or inserting junk into their deck.

There's obvious crossover between these two ideas (Witch when there's already +action). But often there isn't, because putting control strategy into your engine can hinder the engine from working properly (picking up a militia could cause you to lose tempo).
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: faust on November 27, 2016, 11:53:35 am
Control decks should refer to removal and slowing your opponent down. Removal should be thought of as actively removing options from your opponent. As was pointed out in the article, this involves strategies like curses or forcing discard or inserting junk into their deck.

Engines do this. Removal works because 1) once you go big engine, you force a non-engine opponent to end the game before you explode, thus removing their option to build longer, and 2) building up pile control by multiple gains limits the choices our opponent has if they do not want you to 3-pile.

Engines always slow their opponent down if possible. If there is a decent attack in the game, then an engine will seek to incorporate it.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 27, 2016, 12:26:10 pm
I think you've just misunderstood my explanation. It is probably my own fault, because I used the term "remove options." By that I meant remove cards from the opponent's next turn (which is what I think corresponds to "removal" here since there isn't a persistent board state to remove creatures or counter spells). Adding junk effectively does this when they cycle in and discarding obviously does this.

Your interpretation is way too broad. Every time you buy or play anything, you've, of course, set some sort of course for the game, and hence, removed some line of play from the opponent. It's meaningless to call all of this removal. The point is to figure out what the corresponding idea is in Dominion from non-deck building card games. In Magic, if someone opens the game by playing a 1/1 creature with lifelink or deathtouch, the opponent must incorporate that into their next play, hence "removing" some lines of play, but no one anywhere would call playing a 1/1 creature "removal" or "control."

I also don't think pile "control" is part of a "control deck," despite the unfortunate overlap in terminology. If you pick a card that your opponent also wants, they have to pick it up to maintain tempo. This seems like an obvious tempo strategy correlation. It doesn't actually slow the opponent down like an attack does.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: DG on November 27, 2016, 01:31:56 pm
I also don't think pile "control" is part of a "control deck," despite the unfortunate overlap in terminology. If you pick a card that your opponent also wants, they have to pick it up to maintain tempo. This seems like an obvious tempo strategy correlation. It doesn't actually slow the opponent down like an attack does.

Your idea of tempo may apply to other card games but it is not correct for Dominion. You can forgo collecting cards for a number of turns as long as you can accelerate your deck strongly later.

Engines are not specifically built by ignoring attacks. Attacks are often added into engines. An engine will frequently allow better deck defense through trashing, deck control, hand control, etc. An engine may be able to play a variety of attacks every turn in a way that a money deck can never do.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 27, 2016, 01:57:58 pm
Eh. I think people are thinking that only "pure" deck concepts exist.

My general argument is that the correspondence should go something like:

Attack ~ removal
Engine ~ tempo
Slowing the opponent ~ control

In Magic, having removal in a tempo deck doesn't make it control. It's just not an argument against what I'm saying to point out that it's smart to put attacks into an engine if it works. It's smart to have removal in a tempo deck as well. There's a continuum here, just like in other card games. You'll almost never have a pure deck of one sort or another.

In theory, one could make a pure lab engine, and this would be some sort of pure tempo deck. In theory, one could make a pure slog deck with lots of attacks to slow the opponent down and this may be a pure control deck. In practice, you'll probably never do this, but I guess I still have no idea what the counterargument is.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: drsteelhammer on November 27, 2016, 02:13:15 pm
I think you're using engines differently than the usual definition (in dominion). Playing 10 Labs and then money is not an engine, it's just garbage you've wasted your time with.

I don't know if you're familiar with the term "payload", but if your engines don't have payload, they're not worth building. Payload can be a lots of stuff, most notably attacks, gainers or VP. It's an essential part of the engine, this is why I think you're analogy is a bit misled.

The easiest example of this is a kingdom of smithy and village: You'll never buy a village in that kingdom, ever. Add a Militia to the kingdom and it's very likely that you do.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: DG on November 27, 2016, 03:05:46 pm
Attack ~ removal
Engine ~ tempo
Slowing the opponent ~ control

So where does the Dominion concept of trashing fit into this? If it doesn't fit in, should your model change to accommodate it?
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 27, 2016, 03:33:10 pm
Huh. I'm not sure you've pointed out why my analogy is misled. My correlation of engine ~ tempo doesn't exclude payload, and I'm not sure why you're thinking it does. I said this several times in the last post even giving the example that in practice a tempo deck in Magic will always have some removal just like an engine will have attacks if they work. I haven't even mentioned other types of payload.

I'll reiterate that there obviously isn't some perfect correspondence, because the game form is fundamentally different. My classification has to do with the goals of the deck, and you're bringing up what looks like tangential things. The goal of tempo is to draw the deck. It can have many, many other things going on including VP, attacks, etc. The goal of control is to slow the opponent. It could draw the deck or it might transition to big money or slog. I think this is a useful distinction that correlates well to the traditional card game terminology.

So where does the Dominion concept of trashing fit into this? If it doesn't fit in, should your model change to accommodate it?

Trashing is a tool that can fit into many deck types, so I'm not sure it has to correspond to anything. I guess you could ask: how do Instants or Combat Tricks fit into deck archetypes in Magic, and the answer would be: they're useful in every type.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Chris is me on November 27, 2016, 04:25:47 pm
Quote
Trashing is a tool that can fit into many deck types, so I'm not sure it has to correspond to anything. I guess you could ask: how do Instants or Combat Tricks fit into deck archetypes in Magic, and the answer would be: they're useful in every type.

While very few decks are worse off for trashing, and most get some benefit from it, trashing is of far, far, far more benefit to the engine archetype than any other type of deck. It's not even close.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: DG on November 27, 2016, 04:51:29 pm
Trashing is a tool that can fit into many deck types, so I'm not sure it has to correspond to anything.

Anything can fit into many deck types so theoretically anything can correspond to anything else. My point was that trashing doesn't provide removal, tempo, or control by your terms, does it?
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 27, 2016, 06:30:02 pm
Anything can fit into many deck types so theoretically anything can correspond to anything else.

I mean, I pointed out in my response why that isn't true. I'm not sure why you would write this. Should Magic theorists say: instants can fit into many deck types so theoretically there are no deck types? I don't understand what point you're even trying to make with such a statement.

My point was that trashing doesn't provide removal, tempo, or control by your terms, does it?

And? As far as I'm aware trashing isn't a deck archetype. It's not like removal, tempo, and control describe every single card or archetype or strategy in Magic, and even if it did, not everything should be expected to have a corresponding part in Dominion.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Seprix on November 27, 2016, 06:39:00 pm
Attack ~ removal
Engine ~ tempo
Slowing the opponent ~ control

Very incorrect.

Control is the ability to end the game while ahead. This manifests itself in the form of +buys, gains and alt-VP options (primarily VP chips).

Removal doesn't really exist in Dominion, and even silly things like trashing attacks aren't really 'Removal' in the typical sense.

Tempo is being built up to win faster than your opponent, through either simply employing a Rush strategy to beat the Engine or by building up in a more efficient way, using things like gains, trashing and more efficient buying. Deck shuffle luck also plays into Tempo.

All in all, this is a somewhat poor way to think about Dominion, but it can be done. Dominion is not like most typical TCGs with the mechanics, and it is better to have a unique system of thinking for every different game, even if they are similar in most cases.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 27, 2016, 07:51:01 pm
Control is the ability to end the game while ahead.

?

Where did you get this? That's not the standard concept of control. The term literally comes from a deck whose purpose is to control the opponents cards and progression. +buys, gains, and alt-VP all affect your own deck and does nothing to control your opponents. It forces your opponent to keep pace, which is why I called this "tempo." Now giving your opponent junk or making them discard controls their cards, i.e. "control."

...even silly things like trashing attacks aren't really 'Removal' in the typical sense.

There's no persistent board in Dominion to remove from. But you buy cards in order to play them. If you then force the opponent to discard, you've removed that card from their ability to play. This is probably the most clear correspondence of any from classical TCGs.

Tempo is being built up to win faster than your opponent ...

I don't know what it means to win slower than your opponent. This definition is meaningless in a game where the definition of winning is tied to speed. You've basically said "Tempo is winning." Also, any rush strategy that aims to go faster than an engine is more of an aggro strategy.

All in all, this is a somewhat poor way to think about Dominion ... it is better to have a unique system of thinking for every different game ...

I agree, and have tried to point this out in every reply. It just seemed some people were into this concept based on the original responses to the OP. I thought there was room to add in tempo decks instead of classifying that one big idea as a control deck. I kind of didn't expect this much pushback on something that was supposed to be very loose correspondences anyway.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Seprix on November 27, 2016, 08:50:09 pm
Control is the ability to end the game while ahead.

?

Where did you get this? That's not the standard concept of control. The term literally comes from a deck whose purpose is to control the opponents cards and progression. +buys, gains, and alt-VP all affect your own deck and does nothing to control your opponents. It forces your opponent to keep pace, which is why I called this "tempo." Now giving your opponent junk or making them discard controls their cards, i.e. "control."

Again, thinking in the TCG sense is not a great way of approaching Dominion. They are both fundamentally different things. I object to using TCG definitions because they're simply confusing. Control is messing up the opponents deck, which makes no sense for Dominion. You'd logically think control is controlling your own thing, right? It may make sense for the TCG end, but not so for Dominion.

I'm not even sure your definition is correct, either. I pulled a quote from Hearthstone wiki for a Control deck, and maybe it's different for say MTG, I don't know.


A control deck, also known as a late game deck, is a deck that attempts to attain victory in the late game, through a combination of early game removal and Taunts, and powerful cards in the later rounds of the game. These decks focus on controlling the early game in order to survive through to the later rounds, where they can use a string of powerful spells, or a steady flow of larger minions to overwhelm the opponent. -Hearthstone Wiki


Yes, it controls the opponent, but it's a subset of the general idea of controlling the outcome of the game, i.e. control of one's deck as well. I see no real objection to calling what I called 'control', because there isn't really a 'removal' type in Dominion in the first place.

Quote
...even silly things like trashing attacks aren't really 'Removal' in the typical sense.

There's no persistent board in Dominion to remove from. But you buy cards in order to play them. If you then force the opponent to discard, you've removed that card from their ability to play. This is probably the most clear correspondence of any from classical TCGs.

1. You make it harder to play all the cards they want. This is not removing them from the game.
2. Opponents will discard their worst cards, not lose their best ones.

Again, arguing this is going to be kind of moot anyways, Dominion and Hearthstone are two completely different games. You say it's a bad idea to compare the two later on, but then you do it anyways? Why?

Quote
Tempo is being built up to win faster than your opponent ...

I don't know what it means to win slower than your opponent. This definition is meaningless in a game where the definition of winning is tied to speed. You've basically said "Tempo is winning." Also, any rush strategy that aims to go faster than an engine is more of an aggro strategy.

You don't win slower than your opponent. That is why Tempo is important! Tempo is simply time. If you win before your opponent, you won faster than they did. It's not like your opponent didn't want to win! He was just slower at it. So yes, tempo is winning in a sense. I like more accurate definitions though, so if you have a better one, I'd love to hear it. I readily admit my definition is sloppy.

To win, you want to get to point A faster. And then point B. And then C, all the way to Z.

Quote
All in all, this is a somewhat poor way to think about Dominion ... it is better to have a unique system of thinking for every different game ...

I agree, and have tried to point this out in every reply. It just seemed some people were into this concept based on the original responses to the OP. I thought there was room to add in tempo decks instead of classifying that one big idea as a control deck. I kind of didn't expect this much pushback on something that was supposed to be very loose correspondences anyway.

Fair enough.  :D I don't mean to be this obnoxious person, I apologize. It's not universally agreed on with all of the terminology and how to think of Dominion, so there's a lot of heated debate about even simple things like 'control' and even 'engines'. It seems to be somewhat of a (insert some name that I forgot, I think it was Hilbert) Problem where sometimes reality won't ever 100% match a given definition. Another example is art. Art is very hard to define because anybody can make an exception for basically anything.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Seprix on November 27, 2016, 09:05:55 pm
I'll reiterate that there obviously isn't some perfect correspondence, because the game form is fundamentally different. My classification has to do with the goals of the deck, and you're bringing up what looks like tangential things. The goal of tempo is to draw the deck. It can have many, many other things going on including VP, attacks, etc. The goal of control is to slow the opponent. It could draw the deck or it might transition to big money or slog. I think this is a useful distinction that correlates well to the traditional card game terminology.

Reading this, it seems you're saying the same things we're saying, but with different names. The one I would contest is Control, but everything else I object to is basically because I'm not used to the term compared to what I've traditionally used. Anyways, I am sorry again for seeming a bit prudish.  :P
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: DG on November 27, 2016, 11:17:02 pm
Where did you get this? That's not the standard concept of control.

It is a valid concept of control for Dominion. If you put four curses into your opponents deck is it actually meaningful control if your opponent can buy three more curses to end the game for a win? Is it meaningful to control your opponent with curses if they have enough control of their deck to trash them all each turn?

I hope you're not finding this welcome to the Dominion boards unfriendly, but why are you trying to tell Dominion players that their terminology is wrong and that MtG strategies work better in Dominion than Dominion strategies do?
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: hilbert90 on November 28, 2016, 08:47:28 am
I hope you're not finding this welcome to the Dominion boards unfriendly, but why are you trying to tell Dominion players that their terminology is wrong and that MtG strategies work better in Dominion than Dominion strategies do?

I hope I'm not talking about Dominion strategy at all. There are good ways and bad ways to play every deck archetype, and I've refrained from commenting on any actual implementation. I think the only time I said terminology was wrong was in reference to the TCG definition of control.

The original post was about the concept of control from MtG being imported to a Dominion deck archetype. I saw room to try to also tease out the concept of tempo, because it seemed like messing with your opponent's deck and hand was a fundamentally different goal from getting your own deck to work as fast as possible. (And again, before an argument breaks out, there is a continuum, they aren't mutually exclusive).
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: faust on November 28, 2016, 11:40:14 am
It forces your opponent to keep pace, which is why I called this "tempo."

I don't know why, if you have this definition, you would conclude that engines specifically are tempo decks. Anything you do in Dominion should force your opponent to keep pace. Maybe there is an argument for attacks working differently (though in my opinion "keeping pace", i.e. winning the Curse split, is highly important for junkers). But any non-attacking deck is a tempo deck by your definition.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: AdrianHealey on November 28, 2016, 11:50:49 am
In those quasi-solitaire deck, a bad shuffle can also be pretty devastating, without interaction.

Imagine the kingdom has a key $3 and a key $5 (village/Journeyman and everything else sucks monkeyballs to give a random illustration).

Well, having 2 $4 hands is way, way worse than a $3 and a $5 and almost equally likely.

That's also why I like dominion more when there are kingdoms with useful cards in every price range. It limits bad shuffles a bit.
Title: Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
Post by: Awaclus on November 30, 2016, 01:48:02 am
What you're doing superficially shouldn't really affect your definition of a strategy, because it's strategically irrelevant. One of the most important aspects of both control decks in MTG and engine decks in Dominion is that most of the time, your opponent is the "beatdown". That's why the comparison kind of makes sense (although slog would be a more accurate equivalent in that sense). Tempo decks in MTG, however, tend to be the beatdown quite often.