Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Tournaments and Events => Dominion League => Topic started by: aku_chi on March 04, 2017, 05:53:19 pm
-
We've always played 6-game matches in the Dominion League. I don't know all of the reasons for this precedent, but I'd like to at least consider transitioning to 4-game matches (not this season, of course). I believe that circumstances have changed recently in two relevant ways:
Games last longer
Empirically, this is the case. I'm a slow player, but on the Making Fun platform, I never had a 6-game match last longer than 2 hours. On the ShuffleIt platform, almost every Dominion League match has lasted over 2 hours. My experiences are not unique; others have reported that recent matches have been lasting longer than they used to. The new platform (and getting familiar with it) might be responsible for some of the game duration increase, but I believe that the following reasons are more important:
- The addition of Adventures, and - especially - Empires. Adventures and Empires both introduce cards with a lot of decision points. They also introduce Events and Landmarks, which add additional nuance to the games they appear in. Most importantly (IMO), Empires adds a lot of different ways to get VP. Games with alternate VP tend to last longer, and Empires has so many alternate ways to get VP (including all of the landmarks). I find it increasingly rare that buying only Provinces (and some Duchies) is the correct strategy in a random kingdom.
- The removal of 1st edition duds. 12 dud cards have been removed and replaced with reasonable cards that might be purchased. This makes it more likely that any given kingdom has all of the components necessary for an engine. Monolithic strategies are less effective than they've ever been for this reason (and the Empires Alt VP).
While these two factors make an average game of Dominion more interesting, they also make it take longer.
Games have less variance
The same factors that result in games taking longer also provide more opportunities for a skilled player to tilt the game in their favor, or even bring it under their control. While there are still some kingdoms with obvious strategies - where victory hinges mightily on shuffle luck, there are many more kingdoms with so many decision points where skilled players can reasonably disagree about the best approach.
For these two reasons, I believe many people would look more favorably towards 4-game matches. I think that 4-game matches in the current climate will take about as much time as 6-game matches in the past, and offer sufficient opportunity for a more skilled player to turn the match in their favor.
-
Why not 5? I agree with all this, but I think 5 would be better than 4 if anything
-
Why not 5? I agree with all this, but I think 5 would be better than 4 if anything
aku_chi is employing a tried and true negotiating tactic.
-
Why not 5? I agree with all this, but I think 5 would be better than 4 if anything
aku_chi is employing a tried and true negotiating tactic.
Let's expand the League to Best of 12 matches!
In my experience, the games last only marginally longer at most, but I'm also one of the players who often play first and think after :)
-
Why not 5? I agree with all this, but I think 5 would be better than 4 if anything
I does need to be an even number if both players are to have the same number of starts.
-
I like 6-game matches. You can easily split up a match if 2 hours feels like an upper limit for you.
-
I would probably find it more approachable and would likely play more often if there were 4-game matches. Just my 2 coppers.
-
I'd much prefer agreeing on fewer late-expansion games as opposed to fewer games.
-
I like 6-game matches. You can easily split up a match if 2 hours feels like an upper limit for you.
Agreed.
Personally I play quite quickly so only 5-10% of my matches take over 2 hours.
But 4 games can be done in 30-45 minutes, in my view that's not worth the scheduling effort.
-
Why not 5? I agree with all this, but I think 5 would be better than 4 if anything
I does need to be an even number if both players are to have the same number of starts.
Ah, if this is super important then I'd rather have 6 than 4.
My average set of League matches pre Empires was like 1:20, and now it's 1:40? I can handle that.
-
My first two games in this season first match took about as long as all second match. And 4 games are very short distance. And I hate changes :-)
-
I would welcome such a change.
-
I would be more likely to re-join the league again if the matches were shortened. I know that that's just a personal thing as even just plain two hour long matches are hard for me to commit to, and I never liked the long series of games even before the new cards, but thus I remain.
-
I haven't played in the League since the first couple of seasons, and this is quite honestly one of the reasons why. I also don't watch streams of league matches much anymore because they are so lengthy. Personally, I thought it was too much even pre-Empires/Adventures.
With that said, since I'm not in the league, my opinion isn't as important as that of people actually playing in it. But I do think matches would be less of a slog for spectators at the very least if they were faster.
Frankly, I would go so far to say that best of 3 matches are totally sufficient, especially since the League is meant to be somewhat volatile anyway, but I'm sure the TOs have their reasons for having more.
-
I like 4. For me anyway, games are lasting much longer and against certain opponents matches can take 3 or more hours.
-
I would also prefer 4 matches.
In my last matches, I had to split two of them because I do not have much available time.
Playing 4 matches would let me finish in one evening.
-
At the start of the season I would have said go to 4 as all but one of my matches had been over 2 hours last season. Now I say stay at 6 as all but one of mine were under 2 hours.
You all just need to play faster. I'm not sure exactly how, but surely it can be done if we were able to do it in A.
-
You all just need to play faster. I'm not sure exactly how, but surely it can be done if we were able to do it in A.
Personally, I don't want to play faster; I want to be able to assess all my options and then make a decision. Eventually, I suppose practice will quicken that assessment. However, I would rather not feel pressured to play faster especially in Dominion.
There are some games that simply just goes against you. However, there are other games where your decision actually matters. In League games, where skill level is so close, an incremental advantage might just get you the point.
Also, I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed so I might need time to sort things out. I'm just saying I feel like it should be ok to spend time thinking.
-
Poll maybe? 4 sounds good to me.
-
I wouldn't mind 4 games each, but only if you increase the number of people in each group to 7 or 8.
Only 10 points on average seems too few to me, if you want to find 3/6 people that promote or demote.
-
I wouldn't mind 4 games each, but only if you increase the number of people in each group to 7 or 8.
Only 10 points on average seems too few to me, if you want to find 3/6 people that promote or demote.
Increasing the number of matches people have to schedule would have its own problems, though.
-
Increasing the number of matches people have to schedule would have its own problems, though.
Would people start playing two matches in one night?
-
Increasing the number of matches people have to schedule would have its own problems, though.
Would people start playing two matches in one night?
That would involve getting 3 people's schedules to line up at roughly the same time. So not likely.
-
I'd be in favor of 4 game matches and 7 - 8 people per division. That way your total Dominion Game Count is only down like, four to six games total, but scheduling is far easier. Having almost all of my matches go to around 2 hours plus this time was brutal for me, and it made multiple matches in 1 night very difficult.
-
I think if players per group are increased, we'd have to increase weeks per season, too even if individual matches are shorter. If you just increase the number of players without increasing time to play all those matches, having to schedule matches with more opponents will probably make it harder to finish in time.
We haven't discussed a lot about this internally, yet.
-
I would totally be behind 4-game matches. Much easier for scheduling.