Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: ehunt on February 21, 2018, 09:42:11 pm
-
All the boons are pretty good. It's annoying how you can't predict them, but still, you should probably be finding ways to take them.
-
All the hexes are pretty good. It's annoying how you can't predict them, but still, you should probably be finding ways to give them.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
-
I'd tend to agree, though I think the average Hex is only a little stronger than the average Boon.
However, predictability is helpful in Dominion and randomness is a problem. That means a random Hex benefits you less, but a random Boon hurts your opponent more.
-
Shorter strategy article: try to win.
-
Even shorter: Win.
-
W
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
-
Shorter strategy article: try to win.
Shorter strategy article: try to win
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Whoa, Werewolf sucks? Since when?
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Whoa, Werewolf sucks? Since when?
It's not that the card itself sucks, but usually you want to use it for the draw and the attack is just compensation for drawing it dead.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Skulk seems good enough.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Skulk seems good enough.
Skulk also sucks.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Skulk seems good enough.
Strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Skulk seems good enough.
Strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys.
I can actually imagine a situation where I'd rather buy Ruined Market than Skulk.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Skulk seems good enough.
Strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys.
I can actually imagine a situation where I'd rather buy Ruined Market than Skulk.
Fair enough.
Once it's in your deck, it's strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys*.
*except in some last-hex cases, in which your War might actually help your opponents trash their only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) which happens to be Cursed Gold, and Greed gives them their 10th copper for Fountain, and Poverty triggers their Tunnels, Diplomats, and Horse Traders (is that even possible), and Plague gives them their 15th unique card, and Bad Omens discard a deck full of Green, and I think you've made your point.
-
Strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys.
I can actually imagine a situation where I'd rather buy Ruined Market than Skulk.
Both of you are a bit off the mark.
Strictly better means it has the same base functionality, but at least 1 thing is better, and 0 things are worse....and it doesn't account for corner cases where you don't want the extra functionality.
Skulk isn't strictly better thank ruined market because it costs more.
But if the skulk was free, it would be strictly better than ruined market, even if you can imagine times that you don't want a free gold.
-
Strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys.
I can actually imagine a situation where I'd rather buy Ruined Market than Skulk.
Both of you are a bit off the mark.
Strictly better means it has the same base functionality, but at least 1 thing is better, and 0 things are worse....and it doesn't account for corner cases where you don't want the extra functionality.
Skulk isn't strictly better thank ruined market because it costs more.
But if the skulk was free, it would be strictly better than ruined market, even if you can imagine times that you don't want a free gold.
By that definition, Oasis is strictly better than Peddler because it has the same base functionality, but it also has an extra functionality that you don't always want.
-
I like that Skulk comes with a Gold. Having a Gold in your deck makes up for the lack of +coin provided by Skulk.
-
I like that Skulk comes with a Gold. Having a Gold in your deck makes up for the lack of +coin provided by Skulk.
Where have you been, man? Golds are basically curses, with occasional utility as tfb fuel.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Pretty sure Vampires suck as well; at least that's how they're portrayed in all the movies...
-
Strictly better than the #1 Ruin, guys.
I can actually imagine a situation where I'd rather buy Ruined Market than Skulk.
Both of you are a bit off the mark.
Strictly better means it has the same base functionality, but at least 1 thing is better, and 0 things are worse....and it doesn't account for corner cases where you don't want the extra functionality.
Skulk isn't strictly better thank ruined market because it costs more.
But if the skulk was free, it would be strictly better than ruined market, even if you can imagine times that you don't want a free gold.
This has been discussed at great length before; and we've generally decided that cost should not be factored in, because if it were, then nothing is ever strictly better than anything else in Dominion; Donald designs it that way. When you don't factor in cost, you still get very few strictly better things... Mining Village and Worker's Village are both strictly better than Village, for example.
Giving your opponents a hex makes it no longer strictly better because of edge cases where the hex will help them (and you might even know the hex will help them before you play the card).
Gaining a gold also makes it no longer strictly better, because sometimes you don't want the gold. But it is fair to talk about "strictly better once it's in your deck".
Pretty sure the only way to make something strictly better at this point is to have a "you may", a choice, or a +buy added on. (Extra actions, coins, and cards are not strictly better due to weird stuff with Storyteller (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Storyteller) and Diadem (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Diadem) and such).
-
Edgecase Village
Action - $3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you gain this, gain a card strictly worse than it.
-
Bravo Chuckles.
Strictly better means it has the same base functionality, but at least 1 thing is better, and 0 things are worse
By that definition, Oasis is strictly better than Peddler because it has the same base functionality, but it also has an extra functionality that you don't always want.
You seem to have read "at least 1 thing better, and 0 things are worse" as "at least 1 thing is better in an edgecase"?
These three phrases are true:
* Peddler is better because discarding cards is generally undesirable
* Peddler is better because it will often be cheaper
* Peddler is worse because it will often be more expensive.
A strictly better comparison is inappropriate because it isn't a situation where 100% of the positive differences are stacked on one card.
Not just my definition, but this one too:
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Strictly_better
If all cards in the game were free, it would be fair to say "peddler is strictly better than oasis", but the inverse is wrong.
---
This has been discussed at great length before; and we've generally decided that cost should not be factored in, because if it were, then nothing is ever strictly better than anything else in Dominion...
Really?
You guys?
Forum.dominionstrategy.com, come together, and a strong majority decided to redefine a gaming term to fit dominion better...and there wasn't a substantial, loud and prominent dissenting block of respected members of the community?
I mean, if so: *mind blown*
-
Pretty sure the only reason people say "strictly better" instead of "better" is so they can have this argument again.
-
Bravo Chuckles.
Strictly better means it has the same base functionality, but at least 1 thing is better, and 0 things are worse
By that definition, Oasis is strictly better than Peddler because it has the same base functionality, but it also has an extra functionality that you don't always want.
You seem to have read "at least 1 thing better, and 0 things are worse" as "at least 1 thing is better in an edgecase"?
These three phrases are true:
* Peddler is better because discarding cards is generally undesirable
* Peddler is better because it will often be cheaper
* Peddler is worse because it will often be more expensive.
A strictly better comparison is inappropriate because it isn't a situation where 100% of the positive differences are stacked on one card.
Not just my definition, but this one too:
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Strictly_better
If all cards in the game were free, it would be fair to say "peddler is strictly better than oasis", but the inverse is wrong.
---
This has been discussed at great length before; and we've generally decided that cost should not be factored in, because if it were, then nothing is ever strictly better than anything else in Dominion...
Really?
You guys?
Forum.dominionstrategy.com, come together, and a strong majority decided to redefine a gaming term to fit dominion better...and there wasn't a substantial, loud and prominent dissenting block of respected members of the community?
I mean, if so: *mind blown*
However, if you actually look at the citation for that definition on the gamepedia wiki, MaRo doesn't say that definition, he says "'Strictly better' means that one card is in all occurrences (within reason) better than another". In the context of Dominion, this means that Bazaar is still strictly better than Village even though your opponent might play Possession, but it doesn't mean that gaining a Gold is strictly better than nothing because you only want that Gold if you're planning to have it in your deck, which is far from being always the case.
And yeah. We guys. Between having a term that means something and a term that doesn't, we wanted the former.
-
Threads like these are why I stay on Discord.
-
I like that Skulk comes with a Gold. Having a Gold in your deck makes up for the lack of +coin provided by Skulk.
Where have you been, man? Golds are basically curses, with occasional utility as tfb fuel.
What can I say, I’m old school. I was not buying Scouts before you were born, son.
-
It makes no sense to redefine the Magic term; it just leaves you communicating poorly with Magic players, all so that you can say something dull about Ruined Market or whatever. You get zilch out of it other than communicating poorly; zilch I say.
"Strictly better" is when one card is always better than another, ignoring stuff like "what if I take control of your thing, now you want the worse thing." In Magic, strictly better/worse cards appear in most sets. In Dominion, I don't make them. Magic initially had some, for a while tried to avoid them, then gave up as it was impossible and hurting the sets. Dominion has a tiny fraction of the cards and isn't trying to sell people stuff they already have.
If you want to talk about how one Dominion card is better than another, say "better" and you will do a better job of communicating.
Now Dominion does have printed cards that are strictly better than others, just going by the printed wording; for example 2E Throne Room is strictly better than 1E. However the idea is that you play the 1E version as the 2E version, leaving them the same.
-
It makes no sense to redefine the Magic term; it just leaves you communicating poorly with Magic players, all so that you can say something dull about Ruined Market or whatever. You get zilch out of it other than communicating poorly; zilch I say.
"Strictly better" is when one card is always better than another, ignoring stuff like "what if I take control of your thing, now you want the worse thing." In Magic, strictly better/worse cards appear in most sets. In Dominion, I don't make them. Magic initially had some, for a while tried to avoid them, then gave up as it was impossible and hurting the sets. Dominion has a tiny fraction of the cards and isn't trying to sell people stuff they already have.
If you want to talk about how one Dominion card is better than another, say "better" and you will do a better job of communicating.
Now Dominion does have printed cards that are strictly better than others, just going by the printed wording; for example 2E Throne Room is strictly better than 1E. However the idea is that you play the 1E version as the 2E version, leaving them the same.
Well I disagree, because defining "strictly better" to include cost in a Dominion context is completely meaningless because then no card is strictly better than another other than E1/E2 variants.
Simply "better" can't communicate the meaning across. For example most players would say e.g Mountebank is better than Beggar, but of course isn't strictly better because Beggar's abilities are different from Mountebank's.
-
Well I disagree, because defining "strictly better" to include cost in a Dominion context is completely meaningless because then no card is strictly better than another
we aren't defining "strictly better" to include cost. that ship has long sailed. if you want "strictly better" to not include cost, that only happens with redefining it.
there are plenty of good synonyms of "strictly" that would get a similar point across without as much confusion.
Maybe:
"Naturally better" assuming that in your deck is the natural state
"Characteristically better" which doesn't imply everything
"Rigorously better" which implies almost the same harshness without the absolutism
"Specifically better" which could easily apply to just 1-2 major items, ignoring cost
"Decisively better" perhaps you think the best comparison is when it's in your deck, and that's what's important
-
Well I disagree, because defining "strictly better" to include cost in a Dominion context is completely meaningless because then no card is strictly better than another other than E1/E2 variants.
No-one's requiring you to use "strictly better" in a Dominion context. Why would you want to? Similarly you don't need to redefine "checkmate" so that you can use that when talking about Dominion.
-
Well I disagree, because defining "strictly better" to include cost in a Dominion context is completely meaningless because then no card is strictly better than another other than E1/E2 variants.
No-one's requiring you to use "strictly better" in a Dominion context. Why would you want to? Similarly you don't need to redefine "checkmate" so that you can use that when talking about Dominion.
The only reason is because it makes for interesting discussions, puzzles, and thought experiments among the type of people who like to spend their time on a forum dedicated to Dominion strategy. Yes, we could have avoided the term "strictly better" whenever it was first brought up, but that would have just meant coming up with some other term... And it's really not redefining the term; it's just clarifying the scope. The discussions are about which card effects are strictly better than others. So thus, we can say that Worker's Village has a strictly better card effect than Village.
We have a thread somewhere that lists all strictly better cards. It led to a lot of interesting discussion; especially given that it requires figuring out certain Dominion puzzles in order to see why an effect is not strictly better than another. For example, when Seaside was first released, Bazaar's effect was strictly better than Village's effect. But after Adventures came along, that stopped being true, because now there's a cool edge case where you play your Village, then Storyteller, but really only want to draw exactly 1 card, either to avoid a reshuffle or because the next card down would be much better for your next turn instead of now.
That's why we use the phrase.
-
The Hexes are more hurtful than the Boons are beneficial, though. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Yes, but the Hex-dealers suck (apart from Vampire), and the Boon-givers are all kinda good.
Whoa, Werewolf sucks? Since when?
Skulk sucks too????????????
-
The only reason is because it makes for interesting discussions, puzzles, and thought experiments among the type of people who like to spend their time on a forum dedicated to Dominion strategy. Yes, we could have avoided the term "strictly better" whenever it was first brought up, but that would have just meant coming up with some other term... And it's really not redefining the term; it's just clarifying the scope. The discussions are about which card effects are strictly better than others. So thus, we can say that Worker's Village has a strictly better card effect than Village.
It's a lot of work to come up with another term? Rather than co-opt a term but have it mean something different? I am not seeing it.
-
It's OK for jargon to have different precise meaning in different fields, according to what concepts are useful to encode in each field. A mathematician can use "class" to mean a "collection of sets" while a software developer uses "class" to mean "a template for objects", and that's great, they both get to express a concept using a short word and nobody is confused because it's obvious from context what people are talking about.
I figure hardly anyone is confused by "strictly better" in a Dominion context. If they are, they can go look at the wiki, which explains how the term is typically used (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Strictly_better):
A card in Dominion is informally referred to as strictly better than another if, in some sense, having or using the former confers all the same advantages as the latter as well as some added benefit, with no potential additional disadvantages.
-
I don't get the problem of using the termin "strictly better" for Dominion; probably because I never played Magic.
All the $4 villages are strictly better than village which is why they cannot cost $4.
Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Most cards are not strictly better though, they are just better in most circumstances. Like Laboratory-Fugitive or Peddler-Oasis.
-
Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time when I have $4 and I need a card that doesn't do anything aside from giving $2 and +buy, I'd actually rather buy Woodcutter than Nomad Camp because what I want on the top of my deck is not the Woodcutter, it's my engine components, and I want the Woodcutter to be as far down the shuffle as it can be.
-
I agree with your main point but I wouldn't use the nomad camp example. That topdecking works like a self attack more than you'd expect.
EDIT: what awaclus said.
-
It's a lot of work to come up with another term? Rather than co-opt a term but have it mean something different? I am not seeing it.
Can we release a new edition of Dominion where the words draw, trash, hand, etc.. are restored to their primary dictionary definitions and we replace them with our own terms? Even if you didn't create those secondary uses, somewhere along the line some jerk decided that we can draw cards instead of just paintings (or weapons..) and completely ruined that term by co-opting it. We shouldn't be supporting them.
Also I tried to discard my hand and it REALLY HURT. Do not recommend.
-
The f.ds cycle
1. The thread starts.
2. Everyone eventually tries to one up each other by making jokes and earning upvotes.
3. Someone says something potentially hot takeish without any reasons or examples, and an argument starts over that. Word count goes up exponentially.
4. Passions flare as people argue past each other. Some people notice this and start talking about definitions.
5. An argument about definitions to a seemingly indefinable game begins. More passions flare. Some people recognize the futility and make more joke posts, cementing the death of the thread.
6. Some complain about the cycle of redundancy in order to earn internet points instead of correctly ignoring it. (This is me)
7. Either Theory locks the entire shit show, or eventually everyone gives up until the next thread, where the cycle is repeated.
-
The f.ds cycle
1. The thread starts.
2. Everyone eventually tries to one up each other by making jokes and earning upvotes.
3. Someone says something potentially hot takeish without any reasons or examples, and an argument starts over that. Word count goes up exponentially.
4. Passions flare as people argue past each other. Some people notice this and start talking about definitions.
5. An argument about definitions to a seemingly indefinable game begins. More passions flare. Some people recognize the futility and make more joke posts, cementing the death of the thread.
6. Some complain about the cycle of redundancy in order to earn internet points instead of correctly ignoring it. (This is me)
7. Either Theory locks the entire shit show, or eventually everyone gives up until the next thread, where the cycle is repeated.
If we did all those things but also everyone got respect for the posts, then the thread would be strictly better.
-
but seriously, the boon-givers are all pretty good. None of them earth-shattering, but pretty good.
-
It's a lot of work to come up with another term? Rather than co-opt a term but have it mean something different? I am not seeing it.
Can we release a new edition of Dominion where the words draw, trash, hand, etc.. are restored to their primary dictionary definitions and we replace them with our own terms? Even if you didn't create those secondary uses, somewhere along the line some jerk decided that we can draw cards instead of just paintings (or weapons..) and completely ruined that term by co-opting it. We shouldn't be supporting them.
Also I tried to discard my hand and it REALLY HURT. Do not recommend.
I do not find this argument at all convincing. Endless games talk about a hand of cards, would you believe. "Strictly better" is from Magic: The Gathering communities.
When I see someone saying "strictly better" in this awful way, as a Magic player of many years, I think, "what? but they cost different amounts. Oh this is that thing where people want to use that Magic term and be confusing." When I see "hand" I don't think "ha ha it's not a hand duh."
-
I do not find this argument at all convincing. Endless games talk about a hand of cards, would you believe. "Strictly better" is from Magic: The Gathering communities.
Isn't it from game theory? It also doesn't mean anything close to how it's been used in the Magic communities.
-
It's a lot of work to come up with another term? Rather than co-opt a term but have it mean something different? I am not seeing it.
Can we release a new edition of Dominion where the words draw, trash, hand, etc.. are restored to their primary dictionary definitions and we replace them with our own terms? Even if you didn't create those secondary uses, somewhere along the line some jerk decided that we can draw cards instead of just paintings (or weapons..) and completely ruined that term by co-opting it. We shouldn't be supporting them.
Also I tried to discard my hand and it REALLY HURT. Do not recommend.
I do not find this argument at all convincing. Endless games talk about a hand of cards, would you believe. "Strictly better" is from Magic: The Gathering communities.
When I see someone saying "strictly better" in this awful way, as a Magic player of many years, I think, "what? but they cost different amounts. Oh this is that thing where people want to use that Magic term and be confusing." When I see "hand" I don't think "ha ha it's not a hand duh."
But you’ve made sure that no card is strictly better than another in Dominion in the Magic sense, so it’s not a useful definition in this forum.
I also don’t think Magic has a monopoly on the use of “strictly better”. You use those terms in other contexts too, with a different meaning.
-
It's a lot of work to come up with another term?
Do you have a suggestion?
(I'm out of ideas.)
-
Words and phrases used for discussion are created out of convenience. Its pretty intuitive what "strictly better" means. Clearly no one in Dominion will use strictly better to include cost. I also find it hard to believe the term came from Magic.
What's wrong with "strictly better" having a different definition in Magic and Dominion? Words are meaningless without context anyway.
I can tell you that if I say "Workers Village is strictly better than Village", nobody is going to argue with me that " but Workers Village costs more".
-
I'm pretty confident the term came from Magic. I've played it since 97, and I recall that term coming to use sometime shortly after I started playing.
-
It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
-
Words and phrases used for discussion are created out of convenience. Its pretty intuitive what "strictly better" means. Clearly no one in Dominion will use strictly better to include cost. I also find it hard to believe the term came from Magic.
What's wrong with "strictly better" having a different definition in Magic and Dominion? Words are meaningless without context anyway.
I can tell you that if I say "Workers Village is strictly better than Village", nobody is going to argue with me that " but Workers Village costs more".
Worker's village costs more so so you can't upgrade or remake estates into worker's villages, so they're not strictly better, whatever strictly better means.
-
I think nothing is strictly better than anything else, even disregarding costs. Since each card has a different name, you might want one over the other in order to activate Menageries or gain better stuff with Horns of Plenty.
-
I think nothing is strictly better than anything else, even disregarding costs. Since each card has a different name, you might want one over the other in order to activate Menageries or gain better stuff with Horns of Plenty.
But that is true in Magic as well. So when Magic players talk about strictly better; they're ignoring the card name (and card set, rarity, etc).
-
It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.
-
It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.
When you play a card from your hand in Dominion, the only resources you spend are a card and sometimes an action.
-
Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.
-
Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.
Both of those statements are false.
-
Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.
Both of those statements are false.
Nope. You seem to suffer from "all Kingdoms enable engines" delusion.
You also cannot ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening. Well, of course you can just like you can buy 5 villages and no terminals.
-
Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.
Both of those statements are false.
Nope. You seem to suffer from "all Kingdoms enable engines" delusion.
You also cannot ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening. Well, of course you can just like you can buy 5 villages and no terminals.
All kingdoms in which you want Nomad Camp are engines. And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening, because more than half of the time you'll just hit $4 again, in which case you're opening a $4 card plus a Woodcutter which topdecked itself, which is really bad, and sometimes you're opening a $5 card plus a Woodcutter which topdecked itself, which is also really bad.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
-
It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.
When you play a card from your hand in Dominion, the only resources you spend are a card and sometimes an action.
I can only imagine you felt like this post contributed something to the conversation. It didn't do anything for me.
Which I mean, if that's what I've got to say, I'm sure not getting much value from posting myself.
-
When talking about costs, there are two separate concepts:
1) The cost to add the card to your deck
2) The cost to play the card
In MTG, cards all cost the same to add them to your deck, i.e. nothing. (meta-game financial costs notwithstanding)
In Dominion, cards usually cost the printed coin cost and a buy. Of course, gainers can change this calculation.
In MTG, the cost to play the card is highly variable.
In Dominion, actions can be considered to cost an Action to play, most other cards can be considered free once drawn. (All cards can be considered to cost "a card" to play.)
So trying to equate the "cost" of a card between the two games doesn't make much sense.
When people say that they'd rather have a Mining Village in their deck because it's "strictly better" than having a Village in their deck, it's actually the same as the MTG concept (since in MTG, cards start in your deck). Both cards cost the same to play (the card itself and 1 Action), with Mining Village having an additional effect.
But saying that this therefore means that Mining Village is "strictly better" than Village is incorrect, because the $3 price point of Village could be an advantage over the $4 price point of Mining Village.
So it depends on your frame of reference. When talking about cards in the Supply, you have to factor in the cost for the "strictly better" comparison. But when talking about cards in your deck, you do not.
When talking about the cards in general, they are not in your deck, so cost should be factored in. And by this view, there are no two cards in Dominion with one "strictly better" than another.
But when talking about cards in your deck, I don't think just saying "better" always captures what you want to convey. For example, Mountebank might be "better" than Fortune Teller, but it's not "strictly better", even when it's in your deck.
However, a Bazaar in your deck would be "strictly better" than a Village in your deck. If anyone has a term that conveys this difference more eloquently, when a card is like, pretty much always better (but maybe not in edgecases), but we're talking specifically about when it's in your deck and not just in the Supply or another pile, and without using the word "strictly"... please share it.
-
It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.
Do you mean in my example or in Dominion? In my example; it’s net gains being talked about. If you mean in Dominion; the question being discussed isn’t “is there a strictly better option to do on my turn right now?” The question is “what cards have effects that are strictly better than other card effects?”
-
When talking about costs, there are two separate concepts:
1) The cost to add the card to your deck
2) The cost to play the card
In MTG, cards all cost the same to add them to your deck, i.e. nothing. (meta-game financial costs notwithstanding)
In Dominion, cards usually cost the printed coin cost and a buy. Of course, gainers can change this calculation.
In MTG, the cost to play the card is highly variable.
In Dominion, actions can be considered to cost an Action to play, most other cards can be considered free once drawn. (All cards can be considered to cost "a card" to play.)
So trying to equate the "cost" of a card between the two games doesn't make much sense.
I’m almost sure I said something like this before; now that I see it. But either way I strongly agree. The cost of a Dominion card is much more equivalent to the literal money cost of buying a Magic card. And, Magic players do NOT consider that when talking about strictly better. The cost to cast a spell is much more like the action you have to spend (and it’s the same cost for all Dominion Action cards).
-
All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0
Um, unless I’m misreading it, Awaclus is taking the opposite stance in that thread...
-
Lots of apples and oranges in this thread.
-
All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0
Um, unless I’m misreading it, Awaclus is taking the opposite stance in that thread...
Yeah, I have changed my mind.
-
When talking about costs, there are two separate concepts:
1) The cost to add the card to your deck
2) The cost to play the card
In MTG, cards all cost the same to add them to your deck, i.e. nothing. (meta-game financial costs notwithstanding)
In Dominion, cards usually cost the printed coin cost and a buy. Of course, gainers can change this calculation.
In MTG, the cost to play the card is highly variable.
In Dominion, actions can be considered to cost an Action to play, most other cards can be considered free once drawn. (All cards can be considered to cost "a card" to play.)
So trying to equate the "cost" of a card between the two games doesn't make much sense.
I’m almost sure I said something like this before; now that I see it. But either way I strongly agree. The cost of a Dominion card is much more equivalent to the literal money cost of buying a Magic card. And, Magic players do NOT consider that when talking about strictly better. The cost to cast a spell is much more like the action you have to spend (and it’s the same cost for all Dominion Action cards).
No, that isn't how it is at all.
Magic is a game of building up a tableau. You pay the cost of a card to put it into your tableau. In your tableau it may have abilities you can use; often this has a cost of tapping the card.
Dominion is a game of building up a deck. You pay the cost of a card to put it into your deck. When you draw it there is a cost to using it, an Action (not Action card).
The deck in Dominion is analogous to the tableau in Magic.
-
All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0
See you all back here in 2021. If Awaclus hasn't changed his mind again I'll be disappointed.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
If you open with Nomad Camp, you have a 40% chance of opening $5/Woodcutter, and a 60% chance of opening $4/Woodcutter. The latter is super bad and the former is probably on-par with the best regular 4/3 opening you can have. It's a really bad idea to go for it. Silver/Silver is also really bad for engines so being potentially better than that is not proof of being good.
Want to play a cage match?
-
The f.ds cycle
1. The thread starts.
2. Everyone eventually tries to one up each other by making jokes and earning upvotes.
3. Someone says something potentially hot takeish without any reasons or examples, and an argument starts over that. Word count goes up exponentially.
4. Passions flare as people argue past each other. Some people notice this and start talking about definitions.
5. An argument about definitions to a seemingly indefinable game begins. More passions flare. Some people recognize the futility and make more joke posts, cementing the death of the thread.
6. Some complain about the cycle of redundancy in order to earn internet points instead of correctly ignoring it. (This is me)
7. Either Theory locks the entire shit show, or eventually everyone gives up until the next thread, where the cycle is repeated.
If we did all those things but also everyone got respect for the posts, then the thread would be strictly better.
Thank you for taking us back to step 2.
-
The cost to cast a spell is much more like the action you have to spend (and it’s the same cost for all Dominion Action cards).
Plus other costs like in Oasis, Horse Traders, Death Cart etc.
I am not convinced though. Getting a card on the table in M:tG is much more like getting a card into your deck in Dominion, because that's the main threshold to climb before the card works for you. Most Dominion cards can be utilised when they are in hand (at the possible expense to leave another terminal in hand) while that Force of Nature does nothing for you until you have the green Mana to spend to Summon it.
Edit: What Donald said (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18297.msg748178#msg748178). The tableau is the deck.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0
See you all back here in 2021. If Awaclus hasn't changed his mind again I'll be disappointed.
I am looking forward to it.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
Your reasoning is truly mesmerizing.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
Your reasoning is truly mesmerizing.
Awaclus claimed two things, that Nomad Camp is a bad choice in the opening and that during the game he'd prefer Woodcutter. That boils down to claiming that Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter which implies that it'd have to cost $2 which implies that DXV made a big blunder while designing Nomad Camp.
Obviously this is wrong and I don't know why I am even responding to him or you.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
Your reasoning is truly mesmerizing.
Awaclus claimed two things, that Nomad Camp is a bad choice in the opening and that during the game he'd prefer Woodcutter. That boils down to claiming that Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter which implies that it'd have to cost $2 which implies that DXV made a big blunder while designing Nomad Camp.
Obviously this is wrong and I don't know why I am even responding to him or you.
So if card A is worse then card B, then card A must cost less then card B?
So Sentry should really cost $1 since it is worse than Chapel.
-
So Sentry should really cost $1 since it is worse than Chapel.
Dude, you might want to do yourself a favour and read the entire thread. It is kind of very remotely about the notion of "strictly better", whether it should include costs or not and comparing very similar cards like Walled Village and Village or, big surprise, Nomad Camp and Woodcutter with each other.
Well, I guess you already know that and, like some infamous other poster, just play for deflection.
-
So Sentry should really cost $1 since it is worse than Chapel.
Dude, you might want to do yourself a favour and read the entire thread. It is kind of very remotely about the notion of "strictly better", whether it should include costs or not and comparing very similar cards like Walled Village and Village or, big surprise, Nomad Camp and Woodcutter with each other.
Well, I guess you already know that and, like some infamous other poster, just play for deflection.
I know what this thread is about. I don't see how this backs up your argument that one card CANNOT be worse than another if it costs more. That, mind you, was the argument you were making.
-
Fun fact: I once knew another guy whose username started with "Ho" and ended in some digit. You remind me of him.
-
I know what this thread is about.
Doubtful given that went on a tangent and compared Sentry with Chapel.
I don't see how this backs up your argument that one card CANNOT be worse than another if it costs more. That, mind you, was the argument you were making.
Nope. All I did was to point out that Awaclus basically claimed that Nomad Camp is always worse than Woodcutter which implies that it would have to be cheaper (unless you ignore "strictly better" rules and would be fine with Walled Village costing $3) which is simply wrong.
Fun fact: I once knew another guy whose username started with "Ho" and ended in some digit. You remind me of him.
If this is some veiled "hoe" insult better let it be.
-
Awaclus claimed two things, that Nomad Camp is a bad choice in the opening and that during the game he'd prefer Woodcutter. That boils down to claiming that Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter which implies that it'd have to cost $2 which implies that DXV made a big blunder while designing Nomad Camp.
Obviously this is wrong and I don't know why I am even responding to him or you.
I've made lots of mistakes, so I wouldn't end with "...implies that DXV made a big blunder" as if that got you anywhere. You have to figure out how good a card is separate from that.
A key thing to understand here is that costs in the $2-$4 range are very similar. The differences for most cards boil down to 1) openings, 2) +Buys, and 3) perception. Here you don't want to load up on either, so +Buys isn't a factor (even though the card itself means we know they're available), and the Nomad Camp opening is deceptive, it does give you a shot at a Woodcutter/$5 opening but it passes it off as a $4/$5 opening, which it isn't. What really matters though is perception. Nomad Camp looks like Woodcutter with a bonus, and so has to cost more than $3... because there are some people who hate strictly better cards! I got to use the term the way I like to. There are people who hate it if one card is strictly better than another, and there's no pull the other way, no reason I need to make strictly better cards. So, Nomad Camp costs $4.
I said "most cards" because sometimes the cost is relevant to the power level in some sneaky way; the example I always think of first is, Border Village was too weak, so I raised its cost from $5 to $6.
Anyway Nomad Camp is of course intended to be Woodcutter with a bonus. Most players do not regularly draw their deck, even if they'd like to. Sometimes you are lamenting not having +Buy, and Nomad Camp gets it into your next hand. But when you're drawing your deck and decide oops now you need +Buy, putting Nomad Camp on top hurts your chance of drawing your deck next turn, since it's a "stop card." And some players draw their deck often enough that therefore overall Nomad Camp looks worse than Woodcutter to them.
Nomad Camp is of course worse than lots of $2's and $3's, including some that give +1 Buy. It's impossible to avoid, especially when e.g. you can't make cards strictly better than Woodcutter.
-
Anyway Nomad Camp is of course intended to be Woodcutter with a bonus. Most players do not regularly draw their deck, even if they'd like to. Sometimes you are lamenting not having +Buy, and Nomad Camp gets it into your next hand. But when you're drawing your deck and decide oops now you need +Buy, putting Nomad Camp on top hurts your chance of drawing your deck next turn, since it's a "stop card." And some players draw their deck often enough that therefore overall Nomad Camp looks worse than Woodcutter to them.
To be fair I also think that back when you made Nomad Camp engines occured a bit more rarely in games than today. Or is that just my distorted perception due to Adventures and the second editions featuring less terminals?
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
You want to play that cage match?
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
You want to play that cage match?
Will you play IRL tho?
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
You want to play that cage match?
Will you play IRL tho?
If he's in Joensuu, then sure.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
You want to play that cage match?
Will you play IRL tho?
If he's in Joensuu, then sure.
Problem is there's no Woodcutter on Shuffle IT
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
You want to play that cage match?
Will you play IRL tho?
If he's in Joensuu, then sure.
Problem is there's no Woodcutter on Shuffle IT
Woodcutter doesn't have to be there, there's Nomad Camp.
-
And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.
Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
You want to play that cage match?
Will you play IRL tho?
If he's in Joensuu, then sure.
Problem is there's no Woodcutter on Shuffle IT
Woodcutter doesn't have to be there, there's Nomad Camp.
It would have to be to do a proper cage match. He is claiming that Nomad Camp is better than Woodcutter, not that it’s better than nothing. You would have to buy at least one to prove them wrong.
-
It would have to be to do a proper cage match. He is claiming that Nomad Camp is better than Woodcutter, not that it’s better than nothing. You would have to buy at least one to prove them wrong.
The only requirement for a proper cage match is that Nomad Camp is always present in the kingdom. The purpose of cage matches isn't to prove anyone wrong in the first place, it's to learn how to play a card better.
-
It would have to be to do a proper cage match. He is claiming that Nomad Camp is better than Woodcutter, not that it’s better than nothing. You would have to buy at least one to prove them wrong.
The only requirement for a proper cage match is that Nomad Camp is always present in the kingdom. The purpose of cage matches isn't to prove anyone wrong in the first place, it's to learn how to play a card better.
Yeah, perhaps if we were talking about "is Witch or Cultist stronger", then a game that has both, where each player agrees to not buy a different one of them would be a good judge. But when we're talking about Woodcutter vs Nomad Camp, then the correct play in the vast majority of games is to not buy either when both are available. So for Awaclus to demonstrate what he's intending to; he just needs to play a game where he doesn't buy Nomad Camp, while the other player does.
-
Yeah, perhaps if we were talking about "is Witch or Cultist stronger", then a game that has both, where each player agrees to not buy a different one of them would be a good judge. But when we're talking about Woodcutter vs Nomad Camp, then the correct play in the vast majority of games is to not buy either when both are available. So for Awaclus to demonstrate what he's intending to; he just needs to play a game where he doesn't buy Nomad Camp, while the other player does.
I never got the idea of buy restrictions in cage matches. Just have the card(s) present and see what happens — if you lose games while following your own advice, then your advice is probably bad, and if you don't even follow your own advice yourself (within reason), then your advice is also probably bad. I mean, if someone is claiming that you never want to buy Cultist when Witch is present, and someone else is claiming the opposite, then the buy restriction would at least match with the respective claims they're making, but it would still be unnecessary because those people wouldn't buy the other card anyway if they're following their own advice. In this case however, I'm not claiming that you never want Nomad Camp, and Holunder isn't claiming that you always do, so that buy restriction doesn't even match with what we're trying to demonstrate.
-
Yeah, perhaps if we were talking about "is Witch or Cultist stronger", then a game that has both, where each player agrees to not buy a different one of them would be a good judge. But when we're talking about Woodcutter vs Nomad Camp, then the correct play in the vast majority of games is to not buy either when both are available. So for Awaclus to demonstrate what he's intending to; he just needs to play a game where he doesn't buy Nomad Camp, while the other player does.
I never got the idea of buy restrictions in cage matches. Just have the card(s) present and see what happens — if you lose games while following your own advice, then your advice is probably bad, and if you don't even follow your own advice yourself (within reason), then your advice is also probably bad. I mean, if someone is claiming that you never want to buy Cultist when Witch is present, and someone else is claiming the opposite, then the buy restriction would at least match with the respective claims they're making, but it would still be unnecessary because those people wouldn't buy the other card anyway if they're following their own advice. In this case however, I'm not claiming that you never want Nomad Camp, and Holunder isn't claiming that you always do, so that buy restriction doesn't even match with what we're trying to demonstrate.
The Cultist vs Witch example is more in the context of 2 players both trying to figure out which is stronger, as opposed to 2 players starting out with different opinions / advice on which one you should buy.
-
I felt like Holunder was claiming that Nomad Camp was better than Woodcutter, and you were claiming the opposite. If Woodcutter is not in the set, then the cage match wouldn’t be able to prove nor disprove either of the statements. At best, it would just prove whether Nomad Camp is better than nothing (or silver, I guess) or not. But maybe I misunderstood Holunder’s initial position?
In either case, this discussion is not sufficiently interesting for me to argue either way nor go back to fish for quotes.
-
I felt like Holunder was claiming that Nomad Camp was better than Woodcutter, and you were claiming the opposite. If Woodcutter is not in the set, then the cage match wouldn’t be able to prove nor disprove either of the statements. At best, it would just prove whether Nomad Camp is better than nothing (or silver, I guess) or not. But maybe I misunderstood Holunder’s initial position?
In either case, this discussion is not sufficiently interesting for me to argue either way nor go back to fish for quotes.
You can simulate well enough with Messenger, where Alms is on the board to simulate its cost of $3 and you never use the deck discard ability.
The point of contention seemed to be whether or not topdecking a Woodcutter on gain makes it better or worse.
-
I think the main purpose would be to show that Nomad opening isn't good.
-
I felt like Holunder was claiming that Nomad Camp was better than Woodcutter, and you were claiming the opposite. If Woodcutter is not in the set, then the cage match wouldn’t be able to prove nor disprove either of the statements.
It sure would. I'm saying that it's only ever a good idea to buy Nomad Camp when the topdecking is bad. While this does mean that Woodcutter is better, it's not in any way dependent on Woodcutter's existence.
-
Anyway Nomad Camp is of course intended to be Woodcutter with a bonus. Most players do not regularly draw their deck, even if they'd like to. Sometimes you are lamenting not having +Buy, and Nomad Camp gets it into your next hand. But when you're drawing your deck and decide oops now you need +Buy, putting Nomad Camp on top hurts your chance of drawing your deck next turn, since it's a "stop card." And some players draw their deck often enough that therefore overall Nomad Camp looks worse than Woodcutter to them.
To be fair I also think that back when you made Nomad Camp engines occured a bit more rarely in games than today. Or is that just my distorted perception due to Adventures and the second editions featuring less terminals?
This is true. Nomad Camp was released in Hinterlands, the last expansion on isotropic, and the last expansion before Dark Ages. In that era, engines were often good, but not always, and sometimes would require top-notch piloting to outperform more straightforward strategies. In the end game of non-engine strategies, when you miss Duchy at $4, then buying a Nomad Camp can be an OK way to increase the chance of Duchy or Province the next turn.
IGG also came out in Hinterlands and IGG rushes were often strong. Spending your first turn's $4 on Nomad Camp is a pretty reasonable thing to do in an IGG kingdom.
Nomad Camp was always considered a weak card, but at the time I think it would have been rated above Woodcutter. Qvist's 2012 ranking (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4054.0) put Nomad Camp at 133 and Woodcutter at 151. Oops, that was a "favorite" list, not a "best" list.
-
Anyway Nomad Camp is of course intended to be Woodcutter with a bonus. Most players do not regularly draw their deck, even if they'd like to. Sometimes you are lamenting not having +Buy, and Nomad Camp gets it into your next hand. But when you're drawing your deck and decide oops now you need +Buy, putting Nomad Camp on top hurts your chance of drawing your deck next turn, since it's a "stop card." And some players draw their deck often enough that therefore overall Nomad Camp looks worse than Woodcutter to them.
To be fair I also think that back when you made Nomad Camp engines occured a bit more rarely in games than today. Or is that just my distorted perception due to Adventures and the second editions featuring less terminals?
This is true. Nomad Camp was released in Hinterlands, the last expansion on isotropic, and the last expansion before Dark Ages. In that era, engines were often good, but not always, and sometimes would require top-notch piloting to outperform more straightforward strategies. In the end game of non-engine strategies, when you miss Duchy at $4, then buying a Nomad Camp can be an OK way to increase the chance of Duchy or Province the next turn.
IGG also came out in Hinterlands and IGG rushes were often strong. Spending your first turn's $4 on Nomad Camp is a pretty reasonable thing to do in an IGG kingdom.
Nomad Camp was always considered a weak card, but at the time I think it would have been rated above Woodcutter. Qvist's 2012 ranking (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4054.0) put Nomad Camp at 133 and Woodcutter at 151. Oops, that was a "favorite" list, not a "best" list.
The other big thing was Fool's Gold, which a Nomad Camp opening let you get two of in combination with terminal +Buy. This was pretty good for Fool's Gold money strategies which back then were really popular.
-
Treasure Map's another card where you want Nomad Camp's on-gain ability. Although it's not always easy to buy a $4 card on the turn you activate your Treasure Maps.
-
Treasure Map's another card where you want Nomad Camp's on-gain ability. Although it's not always easy to buy a $4 card on the turn you activate your Treasure Maps.
Treasure Map is another card whose topdecking is a drawback.
-
Treasure Map's another card where you want Nomad Camp's on-gain ability. Although it's not always easy to buy a $4 card on the turn you activate your Treasure Maps.
Treasure Map is another card whose topdecking is a drawback.
It needs an annuity option, where you get 1 Gold per turn over the next 4 turns. Even better if it works like Crypt, and they just come to your hand without hitting your deck.
-
Treasure Map's another card where you want Nomad Camp's on-gain ability. Although it's not always easy to buy a $4 card on the turn you activate your Treasure Maps.
Treasure Map is another card whose topdecking is a drawback.
In retrospect, it would have been cute (and sometimes stronger) if Treasure Map put the Golds at the bottom of your deck. You found the X! You've still got to dig for that gold.
(unless you are the one with the loaded gun)
-
Treasure Map's another card where you want Nomad Camp's on-gain ability. Although it's not always easy to buy a $4 card on the turn you activate your Treasure Maps.
Treasure Map is another card whose topdecking is a drawback.
In retrospect, it would have been cute (and sometimes stronger) if Treasure Map put the Golds at the bottom of your deck. You found the X! You've still got to dig for that gold.
(unless you are the one with the loaded gun)
Perfect! They'll even miss the shuffle!
But yeah, according to the secret history, Treasure Map had to go through a few changes to make it stronger to get what we have today. As is, the topdecking of the Gold is nice for the strategies that have trouble lining up the treasure maps in the first place.
-
Anyway Nomad Camp is of course intended to be Woodcutter with a bonus. Most players do not regularly draw their deck, even if they'd like to. Sometimes you are lamenting not having +Buy, and Nomad Camp gets it into your next hand. But when you're drawing your deck and decide oops now you need +Buy, putting Nomad Camp on top hurts your chance of drawing your deck next turn, since it's a "stop card." And some players draw their deck often enough that therefore overall Nomad Camp looks worse than Woodcutter to them.
To be fair I also think that back when you made Nomad Camp engines occured a bit more rarely in games than today. Or is that just my distorted perception due to Adventures and the second editions featuring less terminals?
I wasn't thinking, "how will things go for Dominion players at large when this expansion gets released." We were playing engines a lot in Hinterlands testing, due to Margrave especially. But, that wasn't a factor either. As with so many things, Nomad Camp was some card, it went over fine, no more thought went into it.
-
Nomad Camp looks like Woodcutter with a bonus, and so has to cost more than $3... because there are some people who hate strictly better cards! I got to use the term the way I like to.
Actually, a Nomad Camp at $3 wouldn't be strictly better in the Magic sense, would it? The top-decking isn't optional and can be a drawback.
For example, opening Chapel/Nomad Camp would increase the risk of Chapel missing second shuffle from 17% to 18%.
-
Nomad Camp looks like Woodcutter with a bonus, and so has to cost more than $3... because there are some people who hate strictly better cards! I got to use the term the way I like to.
Actually, a Nomad Camp at $3 wouldn't be strictly better in the Magic sense, would it? The top-decking isn't optional and can be a drawback.
For example, opening Chapel/Nomad Camp would increase the risk of Chapel missing second shuffle from 17% to 18%.
If the nomad camp costs 3$ and top decking were optional, it would be strictly better.
But the case that you don't want to top deck it is common and reasonable enough that it's fair to call them incompatible for a strictly better comparison.
However, the 17% to 18% chance of chapel missing the first shuffle is firmly in the territory of edgecase, and would not having bearing on a strictly better comparison.
-
However, the 17% to 18% chance of chapel missing the first shuffle is firmly in the territory of edgecase, and would not having bearing on a strictly better comparison.
Nooooo why did you have to say that
-
For example, opening Chapel/Nomad Camp would increase the risk of Chapel missing second shuffle from 17% to 18%.
I picked that example because it's easy to analyse and incontrovertibly true, not because it's the most significant potential downside to Nomad Camp's top-decking being mandatory.
-
Nomad Camp looks like Woodcutter with a bonus, and so has to cost more than $3... because there are some people who hate strictly better cards! I got to use the term the way I like to.
Actually, a Nomad Camp at $3 wouldn't be strictly better in the Magic sense, would it? The top-decking isn't optional and can be a drawback.
Correct, but Donald already mentioned perception. The average person who buys Hinterlands would have seen that card and thought of the top-decking as a bonus, and would have gotten mad that it was better than Woodcutter but cost the same.
-
Treasure Map's another card where you want Nomad Camp's on-gain ability. Although it's not always easy to buy a $4 card on the turn you activate your Treasure Maps.
Treasure Map is another card whose topdecking is a drawback.
In retrospect, it would have been cute (and sometimes stronger) if Treasure Map put the Golds at the bottom of your deck. You found the X! You've still got to dig for that gold.
(unless you are the one with the loaded gun)
And it would have given an actual use for Pearl Diver!
-
Correct, but Donald already mentioned perception. The average person who buys Hinterlands would have seen that card and thought of the top-decking as a bonus, and would have gotten mad that it was better than Woodcutter but cost the same.
For me, the cards which at first glance seem obviously overpowered or obviously underpowered are some of the most thought-provoking and interesting.
While more casual players may not feel the same way, I'd have expected most people who've collected expansions as far as Hinterlands to be in agreement.
-
Correct, but Donald already mentioned perception. The average person who buys Hinterlands would have seen that card and thought of the top-decking as a bonus, and would have gotten mad that it was better than Woodcutter but cost the same.
For me, the cards which at first glance seem obviously overpowered or obviously underpowered are some of the most thought-provoking and interesting.
While more casual players may not feel the same way, I'd have expected most people who've collected expansions as far as Hinterlands to be in agreement.
Card that looks overpowered or underpowered, not the same as card that looks strictly better/worse than another. Not the same.
I am not aware of a block of Dominion players who hate cards simply for looking strong/weak, though individual cards may have groupthink issues that cause players to hate them. But there is in fact a block of Dominion players that hates hates hates strictly better cards.
When Hinterlands came out, people didn't complain that Haggler was too strong, that Mandarin was too weak. But they screamed about Noble Brigand looking too much like a strictly better Thief (yes despite being able to say, but Thief can steal Platinum etc.).
-
Correct, but Donald already mentioned perception. The average person who buys Hinterlands would have seen that card and thought of the top-decking as a bonus, and would have gotten mad that it was better than Woodcutter but cost the same.
For me, the cards which at first glance seem obviously overpowered or obviously underpowered are some of the most thought-provoking and interesting.
While more casual players may not feel the same way, I'd have expected most people who've collected expansions as far as Hinterlands to be in agreement.
Card that looks overpowered or underpowered, not the same as card that looks strictly better/worse than another. Not the same.
I am not aware of a block of Dominion players who hate cards simply for looking strong/weak, though individual cards may have groupthink issues that cause players to hate them. But there is in fact a block of Dominion players that hates hates hates strictly better cards.
When Hinterlands came out, people didn't complain that Haggler was too strong, that Mandarin was too weak. But they screamed about Noble Brigand looking too much like a strictly better Thief (yes despite being able to say, but Thief can steal Platinum etc.).
I wasn't here for that, but considering how awful Thief was it seems odd to me that anyone would complain about a better version of it.
About Mandarin, though, did people complain that Count was a strictly (way, way) better version of it without the on-gain?
-
About Mandarin, though, did people complain that Count was a strictly (way, way) better version of it without the on-gain?
Not that I recall; you can do your own research. There's no reason for strictly-better-haters to hate Count for one-upping Mandarin; they don't hate cards being better, just strictly better, and Mandarin full-on does a thing Count doesn't do. There's no Count / Capital deck.
-
Would Nomad Camp at $2 have been fine? Maybe this will make people go ooh a card better than Woodcutter... wait why is this cheaper? Oh, the top-decking is a drawback? Never would have thought of that!
It's like how the mandatory putting back of a card in Secret Passage may seem like a benefit to some until you compare it to Laboratory.
-
I feel like something missing in this perennial discussion is the question: why do we need this particular term at all?
There is no use for a phrase that means "option X is better than option Y under all circumstances." I'm not sure there's a use for that in real life; you can nearly always find an edge case.
I see two uses of this phrase commonly:
X is strictly better than Y, if you ignore cost.
X is strictly better than Y, if you ignore edge cases.
The first can be useful if all you're doing is comparing costs. All other things being equal, would you rather have a single Goons or a single Militia in your deck? Obviously a Goons; it has the same effects as Militia, plus other positive effects. Therefore, Goons must cost more than Militia. While I suspect this might be useful for Donald when creating cards, and can be useful for comparing power levels, it has little utility when playing the game. The only use I can imagine is something making a decision between, say, Village and Worker's Village when you have $4, or things like that.
In the second sense, this is a theoretically more powerful tool, but it effectively requires a definition of all the possible edge cases. So just... toss this out. It's a garbage phrase that is of no use except debating its use. It's like a sign that says "DO NOT TOUCH THIS SIGN." Like, why even put the sign there?
"X is usually better than Y" is just fine for discussing strategy. Perhaps even "almost always." Then you can include things like "unless" or "especially".
Warehouse is usually better than Cellar, unless you have a large hand.
Worker's Village is almost always better than Village unless you need unique cards or to end the game.
Count is almost always better than Mandarin unless you're using Mandarin's on-gain ability.
Heck, you could even expand on those opinions. It might require more writing or defending your position.
----
As to the OP though: I tend to agree Boons range from basically nothing to really really good, depending on situation. The draw 2, discard 2 sucks if it causes a reshuffle (and the Cartographer one), and of course the gain a Silver can be actively harmful, but almost everything else is good. So yeah, Bard is almost always better than a hypothetical terminal Silver with no bonus. Is it better than other terminal Silvers? You'll have a harder time convincing me of that.
-
I feel like something missing in this perennial discussion is the question: why do we need this particular term at all?
The term is useful in magic. For instance:
"have you seen card X? it's like Y, but strictly better because it also gains you energy"
or
"it's wild that cancel is so oppressive in this meta, when it's strictly worse than counterspell. I didn't realize counterspell was so strong."
It's very fair to ask what it's value is in dominion, since there are no examples under the actual definition.
There is no use for a phrase that means "option X is better than option Y under all circumstances." I'm not sure there's a use for that in real life; you can nearly always find an edge case.
I see two uses of this phrase commonly:
X is strictly better than Y, if you ignore cost.
X is strictly better than Y, if you ignore edge cases.
You also are confusing the definition. It has never meant "...under all circumstances" and has always meant "...if you ignore edgecases".
That last part is critical, because the phrase is just about unusable, as you have surmised, if it was as strict as "under all circumstances".
The actual definition, that ignores edgecases, is actually useful for short handing information, when it is used correctly. See my examples above.
-
There is no use for a phrase that means "option X is better than option Y under all circumstances." I'm not sure there's a use for that in real life; you can nearly always find an edge case.
I see two uses of this phrase commonly:
X is strictly better than Y, if you ignore cost.
X is strictly better than Y, if you ignore edge cases.
You also are confusing the definition. It has never meant "...under all circumstances" and has always meant "...if you ignore edgecases".
That last part is critical, because the phrase is just about unusable, as you have surmised, if it was as strict as "under all circumstances".
The actual definition, that ignores edgecases, is actually useful for short handing information, when it is used correctly. See my examples above.
Except is has never meant that on this forum. Not in over seven years. Edge cases abound; it's one of our hobbies here, and it has always accompanied the term "strictly better" because the edgecases are so numerous.
-
Except is has never meant that on this forum. Not in over seven years. Edge cases abound; it's one of our hobbies here, and it has always accompanied the term "strictly better" because the edgecases are so numerous fun.
FTFY
-
About Mandarin, though, did people complain that Count was a strictly (way, way) better version of it without the on-gain?
Back to the "Perception is key" idea: my reaction at the time was that Count was really unique. Between the whole "Choose one bad effect, Choose one good effect" thing, and having a card that straight up said "Trash Your Hand", it didn't occur to me that it might be a better Mandarin. In fact, when the full set of spoilers came out, I distinctly remember thinking that it was one of the craziest cards of the set. Though I was only lurking back then, and I don't recall other people's reactions to Count outside of some IRL friends who also thought it was bananas, FWIW.
-
Honestly, I think the only real use for "strictly better" is when critiquing people's fan cards i.e. "This made-up card is no good because it's strictly better/worse than this other actual card."
-
It really does feel like these forums need a term for "disregarding the cost, better in every respect in all but utterly pathological circumstances", though. And maybe also another weaker term for "all but abnormal circumstances".
I think most people would be happy to say that a good card isn't suddenly a bad card just because their opponent holds King's Court and Possession. Unless the card interacts with Possession as egregiously as something like Ambassador or Masquerade, we can ignore Possession as pathological.
In the weaker category, "abnormal" circumstances, I'd include things like preferring a Ruined Library to a Smithy because you don't want to trigger a reshuffle.
Shorthand terms would be useful, even if they couldn't be given rigorous meanings.
-
Honestly, I think the only real use for "strictly better" is when critiquing people's fan cards i.e. "This made-up card is no good because it's strictly better/worse than this other actual card."
Funny, I always thought the main use of the term was to discuss it in threads like this.
-
Honestly, I think the only real use for "strictly better" is when critiquing people's fan cards i.e. "This made-up card is no good because it's strictly better/worse than this other actual card."
I've used it another way before when teaching. "Bridge and Highway make cards cheaper. If you play enough of them, Mining Village becomes strictly better than regular Village". Other than my example and yours, I can't think of any other ways I would use it.
-
About Mandarin, though, did people complain that Count was a strictly (way, way) better version of it without the on-gain?
Back to the "Perception is key" idea: my reaction at the time was that Count was really unique. Between the whole "Choose one bad effect, Choose one good effect" thing, and having a card that straight up said "Trash Your Hand", it didn't occur to me that it might be a better Mandarin. In fact, when the full set of spoilers came out, I distinctly remember thinking that it was one of the craziest cards of the set. Though I was only lurking back then, and I don't recall other people's reactions to Count outside of some IRL friends who also thought it was bananas, FWIW.
This illustrates why having a "strictly better" concept is useful. It's good for estimating the strength of new cards by relating them to cards you already understand. Knowing "Count is strictly better than Mandarin, apart from the on-gain effect" tells you something because you already have some idea how Mandarin plays.
Unlike "usually better"/"almost always better" or whatever term, you can determine what's "strictly better" reasonably unambiguously by just reading the card. Although it's true that Mountebank is almost always better than Scout, you don't really know that until you've played with them. On the other hand, I can look at Hunting Grounds and Smithy and know that I'd always prefer a Hunting Grounds in my deck, because Hunting Grounds's text is a strict improvement on Smithy's text.
What this term is called doesn't matter that much--the point is that is _is_ a useful term (for some people), and it _does_ mean something that isn't easily captured by waffle terms like "almost always better".
-
I would like a term that allows me to say that Market is [adverb] better than Pawn though. Some of the edge cases are too edgy.
-
Typically better? Situationally better? Strictly better, 90-93% of the time?
-
Smoother = better without consider edgy edge cases.
-
Maybe:
"Naturally better" assuming that in your deck is the natural state
"Characteristically better" which doesn't imply everything
"Rigorously better" which implies almost the same harshness without the absolutism
"Specifically better" which could easily apply to just 1-2 major items, ignoring cost
"Decisively better" perhaps you think the best comparison is when it's in your deck, and that's what's important
"Isolationally better" implies no edge-cases?
Which is the best at excluding costs? My opinion is that excluding costs is the prime directive of creating a new term, since the non-edgecase characteristic already exists in "strictly better"s definition.
It's not just the name though. We'd have to agree on a definition. I'm throwing this one into the ring:
______ better describes a card which, in isolation from other cards and ignoring purchase cost, is both of:
* superior to another card in at least one respect
* worse in zero respects.
I'm curious what the more experienced players would propose though.
-
"Categorically better"?
Proposed requirements for Card A to be categorically better than Card B:
1. Everything Card B does that is usually good is also done by Card A.
2. Everything Card A does that is usually bad is also done by Card B.
3. Card A does at least one usually good thing that Card B doesn't OR Card B does at least one usually bad thing that Card A doesn't.
Note that this would require determining which abilities are "usually good," which are "usually bad," and which are "situationally good or bad," which would also depend on the purpose of the card in question (e.g., mandatory trashing is more likely to be "usually good" on a trasher and "situationally good or bad" on a card that provides large non-trashing benefits). For example, is Nomad Camp's topdecking "usually good" (making it categorically better than Woodcutter) or is it "situationally good or bad"?
Of course, optional abilities are always "usually good," since if they're bad you just don't use them (edge case that's basically irrelevant in practice: choosing not to use it lets your opponent know you didn't want to use it). In fact, optionality can be a "usually good" ability in its own right: for example, 2nd Edition Throne Room is categorically better than 1st Edition Throne Room because it has the optional ability to do nothing instead of playing a card (though it's arguably not strictly better due to edge cases where you want to Throne an action but you don't want your opponent to know you wanted to Throne it and would rather your opponent assume you were Throning it against your will).
-
This illustrates why having a "strictly better" concept is useful. It's good for estimating the strength of new cards by relating them to cards you already understand. Knowing "Count is strictly better than Mandarin, apart from the on-gain effect" tells you something because you already have some idea how Mandarin plays.
I don't think that tells anyone much of anything about Count!
I personally get use out of the term "strictly better" - I need to avoid making strictly better cards, so it comes up sometimes. No, at $3 that's strictly better than Woodcutter, it has to cost $4.
-
"Categorically better"?
No. "Categorically" either means "absolutely, without exception" or "relating to a category". That's a pretty bad ambiguity to have in such a term!
"Better within its category" is clearer, but lumpier.
It feels like we're really close to grasping a good term, though. What's a close synonym for "category" which turns into an adverb better? "Kind"? No. "Genre"? No. "Group"? No. "Set"? No.
Damn. )-8
-
"Orthogonally better"?
i.e. better considering each "axis" independently? At least as good down every axis, and better down at least one.
It's a term people wouldn't understand without explanation, but in a specialist term that may be no bad thing, as it would avoid misunderstandings whereby people thought they knew what it meant when it didn't.
-
Typically better? Situationally better? Strictly better, 90-93% of the time?
There we go. Everyone stop saying strictly better and start saying "Better 90-93% of the time."
-
"Better (p < 0.05)"
-
Everyone stop saying strictly better and start saying "Better 90-93% of the time."
No! I'm pretty sure that what we're grasping towards isn't characterising a particular magnitude or certainty of better, but a particular sense of better.
We need a word for the sense in which Smithy is better than Ruined Library (it does more of the same good thing), as distinct from the sense in which Wharf is better than Spy (we all agree Wharf is better, but they're not at all the same kind of card).
-
Something like "quantitatively better" or something that expresses the idea that one card provides all the resources of another card and more from the perspective of countable effects without a natural drawback.
-
A fancy term obscures the meaning. You want to convey "better in at least one way; worse in no ways", with an emphasis on the "worse in no ways" part, I believe. So why not flip it around, "never worse"? Festival is never worse than Woodcutter. Worker's Village is never worse than Village.
Now, you could complain that "never worse" is not technically correct, because of edge cases. But the same thing applies to "strictly better", since "strictly" means "with no exceptions; completely or absolutely". You could also complain that two cards that are identical could be compared using "never worse", but when are you ever comparing two identical cards?
-
A friend has just suggested the term "bigger". I like it. Thoughts?
-
Everyone stop saying strictly better and start saying "Better 90-93% of the time."
No! I'm pretty sure that what we're grasping towards isn't characterising a particular magnitude or certainty of better, but a particular sense of better.
We need a word for the sense in which Smithy is better than Ruined Library (it does more of the same good thing), as distinct from the sense in which Wharf is better than Spy (we all agree Wharf is better, but they're not at all the same kind of card).
You know that the 90-93% isn't intended as quantitative right? It's a joke.
-
A fancy term obscures the meaning. You want to convey "better in at least one way; worse in no ways", with an emphasis on the "worse in no ways" part, I believe. So why not flip it around, "never worse"? Festival is never worse than Woodcutter. Worker's Village is never worse than Village.
Now, you could complain that "never worse" is not technically correct, because of edge cases. But the same thing applies to "strictly better", since "strictly" means "with no exceptions; completely or absolutely". You could also complain that two cards that are identical could be compared using "never worse", but when are you ever comparing two identical cards?
I like "never worse" because it means the same thing as "strictly better" (well, modulo equality), and the goal here seems to be to come up with a term other than "strictly better" that can be used to mean 'strictly better'.
-
A fancy term obscures the meaning. You want to convey "better in at least one way; worse in no ways", with an emphasis on the "worse in no ways" part, I believe. So why not flip it around, "never worse"? Festival is never worse than Woodcutter. Worker's Village is never worse than Village.
Now, you could complain that "never worse" is not technically correct, because of edge cases. But the same thing applies to "strictly better", since "strictly" means "with no exceptions; completely or absolutely". You could also complain that two cards that are identical could be compared using "never worse", but when are you ever comparing two identical cards?
I like "never worse" because it means the same thing as "strictly better" (well, modulo equality), and the goal here seems to be to come up with a term other than "strictly better" that can be used to mean 'strictly better'.
"Never" is a strong enough word that people will absolutely argue about it. "X is never worse than Y", "oh yeah, how about in this edge case?"
"Rarely worse" would get the point across just as well and probably cause less arguments
-
Honestly, if this forum wasn’t this forum, I would say that Market is better than Pawn, Worker’s Village is strictly better than Village, and Mountebank is stronger than Scout.
-
You know that the 90-93% isn't intended as quantitative right? It's a joke.
Well, I kinda inferred that, yes. What I was taking issue with was the notion that the concept being grasped for was in any sense to do with how rare it is for one thing to be worse than the other.
"Rarely worse" would get the point across just as well and probably cause less arguments
Again, "rarely worse" is a completely different concept from the notion of "strictly better". Nothing like the same thing.
Fortune is rarely worse than Pearl Diver. That's not the point. Fortune is not "[mumble] better than" Pearl Diver. We're not looking for a word for the way Fortune is better than Pearl Diver. We're looking for a word for the way Festival is better than Woodcutter which distinguishes it from the way Fortune is better than Pearl Diver.
-
Actually, this may be a good analogy: think about how card costs work in Dominion, including Debt and Potions. Dominate doesn't cost more than Vineyard.
That's similar to the kind of sense of betterness of card effect we're looking to succinctly describe.
-
Alternatively, we could just take an existing term and have it mean what it actually means: a card is weakly better than another card when there are no situations in which it is worse, and some situations in which it is better.
-
"Better (p < 0.05)"
I'm totally down to start p-hacking all of my Dominion arguments from now on.
"Buying a Duration within the first 3 shuffles while Baker is in the Kingdom causes Player 1 to be up a Province on Turn 16, Researchers say"
-
"Rarely worse" would get the point across just as well and probably cause less arguments
Fortune is rarely worse than Pearl Diver
If that's how you would choose to define "rarely", then I can't argue with that. It's not what I meant when I said it though.
So then setting the "rarely" idea aside: What I'm saying is that "never worse" is untrue, and just like "strictly better", people will argue about the technicalities. That doesn't mean I don't get what we're going for with this discussion. I get the goal, I just don't think it has been achieved by "never worse".
-
Upon further reflection, I think the term I'd be using is that one card is a better version of another. "Festival is a better version of Woodcutter", "Mining Village is a better Village", etc. That term doesn't imply that the costs are the same, so I feel like it's close to what people are after.
But I could be totally off with how others would interpret it. Plus, I'm not completely convinced there could ever be one term that would totally satisfy everyone.
-
Upon further reflection, I think the term I'd be using is that one card is a better version of another. "Festival is a better version of Woodcutter", "Mining Village is a better Village", etc. That term doesn't imply that the costs are the same, so I feel like it's close to what people are after.
As I say, a friend suggested "bigger", and I like it.
"Festival is a bigger Woodcutter"; "Mining Village is a bigger Village". Not bad. Not bad at all.
-
Upon further reflection, I think the term I'd be using is that one card is a better version of another. "Festival is a better version of Woodcutter", "Mining Village is a better Village", etc. That term doesn't imply that the costs are the same, so I feel like it's close to what people are after.
As I say, a friend suggested "bigger", and I like it.
"Festival is a bigger Woodcutter"; "Mining Village is a bigger Village". Not bad. Not bad at all.
I think "bigger" has the implication of one of the numerical stats being "more". Like, Hunting Grounds is a bigger Smithy. But would you say "2E Throne Room is a bigger 1E Throne Room"? Probably not, even though it's in fact strictly better. So it seems to be natural English sometimes but not in all cases you might want this kind of comparison.
I think the "A is a better B" construction is great. Simple, concise, carries the connotation that A does everything B does, but also does something more, which is probably what you are trying to convey most of the time you are using this type of comparison.
-
I think the "A is a better B" construction is great. Simple, concise, carries the connotation that A does everything B does, but also does something more, which is probably what you are trying to convey most of the time you are using this type of comparison.
Hunting Party is a better Lab, but does not do everything Lab does plus extra.
-
I think the "A is a better B" construction is great. Simple, concise, carries the connotation that A does everything B does, but also does something more, which is probably what you are trying to convey most of the time you are using this type of comparison.
Hunting Party is a better Lab, but does not do everything Lab does plus extra.
Ah, but the same folks who want to call Worker's Village strictly better than Village wouldn't dare call Hunting Party strictly better than Laboratory
-
That's because it's easy to come up with situations where you'd rather have a Lab in hand than a Hunting Party. (Example: the top two cards of your deck are both Grand Markets.)
-
I think looking for another term is kind of missing the point. There already is a term, which is "strictly better". The term can either be applied to a card-in-the-supply or a card-in-your-deck.
Dominion doesn't have cards that have a strictly better relationship in the supply, so for players, the only useful way to apply the term is to compare cards-in-your-deck. That's the sense in which Worker's Village is strictly better than Village.
Card designers may create strictly-better-in-the-supply relationships while designing cards. For them, it's useful to have both terms available.
If clarification is necessary, consider "strictly better in the supply", "strictly better including cost" for the supply pile; and "strictly better in your deck", "strictly better excluding cost", "strictly better effect" for card-in-deck.
Remember that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to satisfy language police.
-
A friend has just suggested the term "bigger". I like it. Thoughts?
Bigger is definitely better.
-
I think "bigger" has the implication of one of the numerical stats being "more". Like, Hunting Grounds is a bigger Smithy. But would you say "2E Throne Room is a bigger 1E Throne Room"?
Right now, no, I wouldn't say that. But it wouldn't be much of a stretch to agree that one could. "Bigger" feels much closer to what we're trying to express than anything else, and though it's not exactly the normal meaning of "bigger", it's also not a million miles away.
-
I think looking for another term is kind of missing the point. There already is a term, which is "strictly better". The term can either be applied to a card-in-the-supply or a card-in-your-deck.
Dominion doesn't have cards that have a strictly better relationship in the supply, so for players, the only useful way to apply the term is to compare cards-in-your-deck. That's the sense in which Worker's Village is strictly better than Village.
Card designers may create strictly-better-in-the-supply relationships while designing cards. For them, it's useful to have both terms available.
Speaking as someone who has designed a bunch of cards, I have never needed to say that a card was "strictly better in your deck" than some other card. It is not a thing that comes up. "Strictly better in the supply," yes, that one comes up.
I guess it's fair to say, I will talk about things like "village with a bonus." Well, there you go: "with a bonus."
Remember that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to satisfy language police.
I bet I push that position more than anyone here, and yet somehow when someone says "Bazaar is strictly better than Village" it just sounds like poor communicating to me. Bazaar costs $5 dude. It's not strictly better, it may not even be better. I mean there you go, the idea here is to use strictly better in such a way that a card may actually not be better, but people are still saying it's strictly better.
-
I think Donald is coming from a different perspective to this discussion than everybody else. He doesn't want to design strictly better cards, and can change the cost of cards to be tested. So of course he cares about costs.
Pretty much everybody else here spends much more time playing Dominion than designing Dominion (but maybe not as much as the time they spend discussing Dominion). For us, coins are commodity, but we don't set prices. So, I have 5 coins, is there any reason I should consider a Village over the Bazaar? We're not here wondering if the price is right, we just wonder what to buy.
Example: I want to buy a TV. There's one for 100€ and one for 120€.
I might ask the seller: so what are the differences? "TV B is better for this and this reason."
Ok, is there a reason to prefer TV A? "No, not really, TV B is better in every regard".
Also, prices in Dominion work real weird, since you cannot usually save money and often cannot make multiple purchases. It's like buying a TV while knowing that when you get home your partner is going to take all your money from you and spend it all on booze. Might as well get a nice TV then.
The TV maker, at the same time, knows that selling TV A and TV B at the same price would be a disaster, but that's not something the buyer ever thinks about.
-
I think looking for another term is kind of missing the point.
Imho, the whole thread is missing the point since page 2.
-
Remember that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to satisfy language police.
I don't think that the reason that most people here are looking for a term is to satisfy language police. I think it's precisely because this concept has been hard to communicate in the past. People usually think that everyone will get what they mean when they say something like "strictly better", only to find an unexpected debate spring up. Then everyone starts talking past each other and it all just kind of falls apart. So when people are trying to figure out a term we could all agree on, I think they really are attempting to figure out how to use the language to communicate. Any "policing" taking place is (I think) an attempt to be proactive and say "Is this term really going to avoid debates like you think it will?"
And, speaking as somebody who tends to be too long winded, I think it's reasonable to want to try to find a succinct way to convey an idea. The bigger your wall of text, the less likely people are to read it and the more likely they are to miss some of the nuances of what you're saying. It'd be easy to say that they should read more carefully, but it's just an internet forum. Some people can't even get coworkers to read important emails, let alone pay attention to some very specific pedantic wording on a forum. People got stuff to do, so there's value in brevity.
-
I think Donald is coming from a different perspective to this discussion than everybody else. He doesn't want to design strictly better cards, and can change the cost of cards to be tested. So of course he cares about costs.
You make a good point, although I don't think that his different perspective devalues any of the objections he has raised here. Whether you're sitting in the designer's seat or the player's, Donald's point about Dominion cards not actually being "Strictly Better" still applies. Case in point:
So, I have 5 coins, is there any reason I should consider a Village over the Bazaar?
Yeah there could be some reasons. How many buys do you have? If you have 2 or more buys, is there a $2 Card in the Kingdom? If so, does Village + that $2 Card work better with your deck than one Bazaar? Are you planning on using Forge and need some very specific costs in your deck? Do you want the option of turning those Villages into Duchies late in the game with Farmlands if you fall behind? Of course these are all edge cases, and the general rule of thumb is you'd rather have the Bazaar, but still, Dominion is a game of edge cases.
-
I think looking for another term is kind of missing the point.
Imho, the whole thread is missing the point since page 2.
Well, that depends. Does anyone know what the point of this thread was in the first place?
-
I think looking for another term is kind of missing the point.
Imho, the whole thread is missing the point since page 2.
Well, that depends. Does anyone know what the point of this thread was in the first place?
That's easy! The point is that boons are good.
-
I think looking for another term is kind of missing the point.
Imho, the whole thread is missing the point since page 2.
Well, that depends. Does anyone know what the point of this thread was in the first place?
That's easy! The point is that boons are good.
yes!! yes! that's exactly what i was getting at