Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: ednever on April 17, 2019, 04:06:20 pm
-
A thought I had today (not very original I am sure)
Fair - Market Square :: $4 / $3
Barracks - Village :: $6 / $3
Canal - Highway :: $7 / $5
NA - Lab :: NA / $5
Thoughts:
- They kind of scale the same way (order of value)
- Village is likely underpriced for what it does - but for a good reason - the game is a lot more fun with cheap villages
- Unclear why there isn't a Project for +1 card. Too much overlap with Flag and Hireling?
- +buy is obviously the weakest - except when it is the most important. When there is no other way to get +1 buy Fair is likely the best deal of the bunch. I'll bet it could have been priced higher and it would still be worth buying - when it is worth buying at all
Ed
-
Interesting. So the price ratios get higher the more useful the effect is.
In that case, a +1 card project would be at least $9, and I might even put it at $10, since +1 card is even better when it's at the start of your turn.
Considering Poacher is $4, a +$1 project would be $6 or $7. I'd put it at $6 since $ is much less useful than actions at the start of your turn.
Also, Cathedral could probably stand a price raise. It gets docked a few $ for the non-optionality, but I still think it could end up higher when compared to the others.
What other vanilla bonuses are there? Hmmm... what about a +1 VP project? The closest we have to cantrip +VP is Groundskeeper, but the real deal is probably better. I'd put it at $9, since +VP isn't useful at the start of your turn.
-
A +1 Card project would be an insta-buy - you'd always get it. At least with Barracks you sometimes don't get it in Village-heavy games.
-
A +1 Card Project is very close to Hireling. I believe that’s the reason it wasn’t seriously considered.
-
Also, Cathedral could probably stand a price raise. It gets docked a few $ for the non-optionality, but I still think it could end up higher when compared to the others.
Not really. Cathedral is good because you can open with it. I guess you could put it at $4, but that just leads to 4/3 getting a significant advantage over 3/4 and otherwise doesn't do much.
-
- Unclear why there isn't a Project for +1 card. Too much overlap with Flag and Hireling?
Crop Rotation and Road Network are more interesting than an auto-Hireling.
-
In that case, a +1 card project would be at least $9, and I might even put it at $10, since +1 card is even better when it's at the start of your turn.
This is not the Project - Events parallels thread, but I would think $9 would be enough since Pathfinding is $8 while Lost Arts is at the same price as Barracks. With Innovation and Hireling in the Kingdom, I'd probably ignore a +1 Project at >$7.
-
So... is Barracks overpriced?
-
In that case, a +1 card project would be at least $9, and I might even put it at $10, since +1 card is even better when it's at the start of your turn.
This is not the Project - Events parallels thread, but I would think $9 would be enough since Pathfinding is $8 while Lost Arts is at the same price as Barracks. With Innovation and Hireling in the Kingdom, I'd probably ignore a +1 Project at >$7.
I disagree. Citadel is nearly always better than +1 Card (if you Throne a mere Pearl Diver Citadel is +1 Card and +1 Action) so Hireling as Project would probably be too expensive at $8 and would have to cost $7.
-
So... is Barracks overpriced?
If there's another splitter in the kingdom, I think that Barracks will be ignored a lot of times. In games where people are clinging to their Necropolis, the price point is about ok. I would in most cases prefer Lost Arts to Barracks as it gives you the extra action exactly when needed.
-
In that case, a +1 card project would be at least $9, and I might even put it at $10, since +1 card is even better when it's at the start of your turn.
This is not the Project - Events parallels thread, but I would think $9 would be enough since Pathfinding is $8 while Lost Arts is at the same price as Barracks. With Innovation and Hireling in the Kingdom, I'd probably ignore a +1 Project at >$7.
I disagree. Citadel is nearly always better than +1 Card (if you Throne a mere Pearl Diver Citadel is +1 Card and +1 Action) so Hireling as Project would probably be too expensive at $8 and would have to cost $7.
Hireling is $6 and is stackable. The Hireling effect is delayed by a shuffle and costs an extra action. To make up for it, one coin seems to be too little, but since it is harder to spike and not stackable I agree that it'd be ok at $7.
-
I would in most cases prefer Lost Arts to Barracks as it gives you the extra action exactly when needed.
Apart from potential edge cases, this is never true. Barracks gives you the extra action at the best moment possible, which is at the start of your turn. The big advantage of Lost Arts is that it can give you multiple actions per turn. Sometimes the thing you put Lost Arts on is the only terminal you want to play, in which case it doesn't matter, but as far as timing is concerned, Lost Arts is never better than Barracks.
-
Smithy, Bridge, Faithful Hound and Goons are typical examples of cards that I like to be non-terminal rather than have this one extra action per turn. If there is only one terminal I want to play, I would bother with neither the Event nor the Project.
-
Barracks gives you the extra action at the best moment possible, which is at the start of your turn.
Fishing Village, Coin of the Realm and Cards/Landmarks that give Villagers are alternative ways to get extra actions at the start of your turn. All of them are cheaper than the $6 that Barracks costs.
-
Barracks gives you the extra action at the best moment possible, which is at the start of your turn.
Fishing Village, Coin of the Realm and Cards/Landmarks that give Villagers are alternative ways to get extra actions at the start of your turn. All of them are cheaper than the $6 that Barracks costs.
Few of them draw. Barracks could perhaps get away with costing $5 but you could also argue that a lot of Actions that cost $5 should cost $6. Not really a big difference between $5 and $6 anyway.
-
Landmarks that give Villagers
Did I miss something?
-
You missed the bit where I clearly meant Projects despite saying Landmarks.
-
interesting parallels with player tokens from Adventures as well....
A thought I had today (not very original I am sure)
Fair - Market Square :: $4 / $3 | Seaway $4
Barracks - Village :: $6 / $3 | Lost Arts $6
[s]Canal - Highway :: $7 / $5[/s]
NA - Lab :: NA / $5 | Pathfinder $8
-
Considering Poacher is $4, a +$1 project would be $6 or $7. I'd put it at $6 since $ is much less useful than actions at the start of your turn.
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) each turn is strictly worse than Canal. Enough worse that I don't think a +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) project could exist at any price (too strong for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), too weak for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)).
-
Not strictly worse, for two reasons: (a) debt-cost cards, and (b) trash-for-benefit cards.
-
Not strictly worse, for two reasons: (a) debt-cost cards, and (b) trash-for-benefit cards.
It's close enough to strictly better to be considered strictly better, though. Bridge would be roughly the same strength as Woodcutter otherwise, but that's obviously not the case.
-
The +Buy baked into Bridge amplifies the advantage of cost reduction over coin, though. Bridge is better than Woodcutter by a larger margin than Highway is better than Peddler.
(As well as debt-cost cards and trash-for-benefit, coin is also preferable when you want to buy an Event/Project.)
-
Not strictly worse, for two reasons: (a) debt-cost cards, and (b) trash-for-benefit cards.
It's close enough to strictly better to be considered strictly better, though. Bridge would be roughly the same strength as Woodcutter otherwise, but that's obviously not the case.
Applying the term "strictly better" for something which is not strictly better in more than just fringe cases is pretty dubious.
Just say something like "most of the times Canal is better the Project version of Key/Treasury" or whatever.
-
Not strictly worse, for two reasons: (a) debt-cost cards, and (b) trash-for-benefit cards.
It's close enough to strictly better to be considered strictly better, though. Bridge would be roughly the same strength as Woodcutter otherwise, but that's obviously not the case.
Applying the term "strictly better" for something which is not strictly better in more than just fringe cases is pretty dubious.
Just say something like "most of the times Canal is better the Project version of Key/Treasury" or whatever.
Cards that give +Buy, making cost reduction better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png): 53
Cards that want cards to cost more, making cost reduction worse than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png): 9
Cards that cost Debt, making cost reduction worse than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png): 9
The cases where cost reduction isn't strictly better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) is more of a fringe case than the cases where it is. 53 / 394 ~= 13%; and since there are 10 Kingdom cards in each game, the average game will have ~1.3 cards that give +Buys, making cost reduction better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png). Not exactly a fringe case. Especially when the cards that make cost reduction worse than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) are combined 1/3rd as common as the cards that make cost reduction better.
-
Yes, but "strictly better" means better in any situation, according to the game theory definition. So one may be strictly better than the other on certain boards, because you are narrowing the possibilities. But as a whole, you cannot say either one is strictly better, even if there were only one possible board in which the roles were reversed.
-
Not strictly worse, for two reasons: (a) debt-cost cards, and (b) trash-for-benefit cards.
It's close enough to strictly better to be considered strictly better, though. Bridge would be roughly the same strength as Woodcutter otherwise, but that's obviously not the case.
Applying the term "strictly better" for something which is not strictly better in more than just fringe cases is pretty dubious.
Just say something like "most of the times Canal is better the Project version of Key/Treasury" or whatever.
Cards that give +Buy, making cost reduction better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png): 53
Cards that want cards to cost more, making cost reduction worse than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png): 9
Cards that cost Debt, making cost reduction worse than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png): 9
The cases where cost reduction isn't strictly better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) is more of a fringe case than the cases where it is. 53 / 394 ~= 13%; and since there are 10 Kingdom cards in each game, the average game will have ~1.3 cards that give +Buys, making cost reduction better than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png). Not exactly a fringe case. Especially when the cards that make cost reduction worse than +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) are combined 1/3rd as common as the cards that make cost reduction better.
Strictly better means more or less the same as always better. As you just pointed out, the cases in which an auto-Peddler is better than an auto-Highway occur relatively frequently. Less frequently than 1/4 as you ignored gainers but nonetheless often enough to not call these instances fringe cases.
That's why it makes no sense to say that Canal is strictly better than Treasury as a Project but more sense to say that Canal is more often than not or on average better than Treasury as a Project which indicates that Treasury as a Project might have to cost less than $7.
Strictly better makes only sense for something like Mining Village > Village as there is no instance (somebody could probably construct a weird exception) in which the former is worse than the latter.
-
Strictly better makes only sense for something like Mining Village > Village as there is no instance (somebody could probably construct a weird exception) in which the former is worse than the latter.
There can be instances where Mining Village is equal to Village, because you will never use the optional trash ability. However, because the optional trash ability is optional, Mining Village can never be worse than Village. And if it could, as you point out, it wouldn't be strictly better anymore.
-
Strictly better means more or less the same as always better.
That's not what people normally mean when they say strictly better, though; the number of card pairs where one is truly strictly better than the other becomes infinitesimal if that's your definition. What people normally mean is that card X is strictly better than card Y if card X is better commonly enough that it would be bad game design for both cards to cost the same.
That's why it makes no sense to say that Canal is strictly better than Treasury as a Project but more sense to say that Canal is more often than not or on average better than Treasury as a Project which indicates that Treasury as a Project might have to cost less than $7.
For example, what you've said in italics is what people normally mean by "strictly better."
-
Strictly better means more or less the same as always better.
That's not what people normally mean when they say strictly better, though; the number of card pairs where one is truly strictly better than the other becomes infinitesimal if that's your definition. What people normally mean is that card X is strictly better than card Y if card X is better commonly enough that it would be bad game design for both cards to cost the same.
This is not what strictly better means and not how the majority of people apply the term (as there is already a term, on average better or just better without an absolutey predicate like strictly in front of it). In game theory it means the same as choice/strategy A dominates choice/strategy B independent of what the opponent does. So using this for Dominion means that a card A is strictly better than a card B when there is no Kingdom in which this is not the case.
Hunting Party is on average better than Laboratory but not strictly better. Just like Highway is on average better than Peddler but not strictly better.
By the way, I am totally against constructing weird fringe cases that occur with a very small probability to prove that something is not strictly better; that's just pointless nonsense.
One example the Diadem-Storyteller thing in the other thread and another would be the claim that e.g. Farming Village is not strictly better than Village due to Shepherd or Oppulent Castle. I'd categorize this under insignificant.
Another example to illustrate (this really no so hard to understand difference between absolutes and averages) is comparing cards of roughly equivalent strength. For example it makes absolutely no sense to claim that Mountain Village is strictly better than Farming Village but I guess most people would agree that it is on average the better card.
-
Strictly better makes only sense for something like Mining Village > Village as there is no instance (somebody could probably construct a weird exception) in which the former is worse than the latter.
Possession :P
-
Strictly better means more or less the same as always better.
That's not what people normally mean when they say strictly better, though; the number of card pairs where one is truly strictly better than the other becomes infinitesimal if that's your definition. What people normally mean is that card X is strictly better than card Y if card X is better commonly enough that it would be bad game design for both cards to cost the same.
That's why it makes no sense to say that Canal is strictly better than Treasury as a Project but more sense to say that Canal is more often than not or on average better than Treasury as a Project which indicates that Treasury as a Project might have to cost less than $7.
For example, what you've said in italics is what people normally mean by "strictly better."
I would add to your common usage definition the fact that the "strictly better" and "strictly worse" card have to also be somewhat similar (so e.g. adding +1 Card or changing +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) to cost reduction by (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)). Because Laboratory is on average better than, say, an Amulet, but nobody would call it strictly better, even by the looser definition, because they aren't similar to each other. On the other hand, you could take Poacher < Peddler < Highway as an example. You could imagine a situation where you wanted to discard a card, such as Tunnel, but usually it's a downside. And you could imagine a situation where you wanted the pure +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) instead of the cost-reduction, such as tfb, you usually prefer the cost-reduction. And all of these are similar enough that they can be called "strictly better" by the common usage. And I won't argue with the common usage, because language is supposed to evolve.
-
people are confusing a common vernacular definition with a specific game theory term