Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Game Reports => Topic started by: WanderingWinder on December 08, 2012, 02:32:14 pm
-
I'm starting a series of reports, maybe once a week or so, of analyzing games I've played, similar to what used to go on the main blog. I'll post the set, let there be some discussion, then talk about what happened in the game.
The following cards come from a game I played recently against Stef. Please feel free to discuss the strategy you would go for here. I'll post my thoughts and the game later this week. Probably like Tuesday.
cards in supply: Bazaar, Cache, Colony, Forge, Gardens, Hamlet, Pawn, Platinum, Secret Chamber♦, Tournament, Worker's Village, Workshop, and Young Witch
-
I'd be shocked if it's not a Gardens game, but there's so many possible enablers that I don't know what to do. Workshop, WV, Hamlet, Pawn, and Secret Chamber are all great at the <$5 level, and Cache is great if you hit an early $5.
My guess is open WS/WS, go Gardens on $4, WS on #4, and Hamlet on $2, always using the Hamlet for a +Buy/Copper unless that stops you from getting a Gardens.
-
I'd be shocked if this was a gardens game. Colony is too strong and workshop is a mediocre gardens enabler. How many turns do you think it would take to empty 3 piles? I'm guessing 18-20ish. I need maybe 3 Colonies in that time. Very doable.
Actually it could come down to gardens points if curses start flying early and fast and I can't get up to $7 or $9 quickly enough. But there's no way you can ignore YW.
-
I'd be happy to be wrong, since it would mean I'm learning something useful. But I'm just not seeing a quick way to Colonies.
There's no net card draw, so lining up Forge to get rid of low-value cards is very tough. The only cards that give money are cantrip coppers or worse (Bazaar, Tournament, Pawn). So the economy is going to be money-based, and that's slow for getting to $11.
YW is a good attack, and you're probably right that I need to adjust my strategy in light of that. But, Secret Chamber is actually a phenomenal Bane if you're going for Gardens, since SC is a guaranteed $4.
Maybe a combination of YW/SC going into Gardens with Hamlet support? YW's cursing will make Colonies even slower and will provide useful cycling for the Gardens deck.
-
I solitaired Workshop/Worker's Village a few times and it is very very fast. I had most games end in 16-18 turns with 6 point Gardens. Seems like using Young Witch would make it even easier for the Gardens player to end the game early. Normally I would also advise against Gardens on a Colony board, and I think if there was any sort of card draw here then Colonies would be a must, but without that I'm not sure you can actually get enough Colonies in time.
-
I solitaired Workshop/Worker's Village a few times and it is very very fast. I had most games end in 16-18 turns with 6 point Gardens. Seems like using Young Witch would make it even easier for the Gardens player to end the game early. Normally I would also advise against Gardens on a Colony board, and I think if there was any sort of card draw here then Colonies would be a must, but without that I'm not sure you can actually get enough Colonies in time.
Well if you're getting 6 point gardens in 18 turns forget what I said.
-
I played a little more, and I probably exaggerated a bit with the 16-18 estimation, 16-20 turns seems more likely. I still think it would take pretty good luck from the Colony player to win.
-
I think I would be tempted to change my strategy in second seat based on my opponent's opening purchase.
-
Hmm, not quite sure how to respond to this. But I don't like it, so I'll just try to describe how I feel.
This friday I was sick. Saturday morning still at home I wanted to do something and although I knew I wouldn't play great I ended up playing Dominion. Becuase, well, I like playing Dominion. I was matched against WanderingWinder, and I played this game really very very badly. After the game I said something like "gg. Very nicely played. I sort of bought random cards and had really no clue what I was doing."
Now you can respond to that in several different ways. First of all, I would appreciate it if you said something back at all in the chat. It kind of a feels awkward when I type 4 different lines in the chat (including the 'hi, good luck') and don't get anything back. If you don't feel like that, you could go and post something like "Hey, you can get to the #1 spot even though you play terrible from time to time" or maybe something like "I played against Stef and won by a mile and I'm very happy about it". Those would be ok with me for sure; I mean it's me who decided to play anyway and then I have to live with the consequences.
But to turn it into an annotated game?
Those are for great games, where both players play good and maybe make very few mistakes that can be analyzed.
That said, I really like the idea of annotating games, just please pick a different one. This might have been an interesting set, it definitely wasn't an interesting game.
-
Hmm, not quite sure how to respond to this. But I don't like it, so I'll just try to describe how I feel.
This friday I was sick. Saturday morning still at home I wanted to do something and although I knew I wouldn't play great I ended up playing Dominion. Becuase, well, I like playing Dominion. I was matched against WanderingWinder, and I played this game really very very badly. After the game I said something like "gg. Very nicely played. I sort of bought random cards and had really no clue what I was doing."
Now you can respond to that in several different ways. First of all, I would appreciate it if you said something back at all in the chat. It kind of a feels awkward when I type 4 different lines in the chat (including the 'hi, good luck') and don't get anything back. If you don't feel like that, you could go and post something like "Hey, you can get to the #1 spot even though you play terrible from time to time" or maybe something like "I played against Stef and won by a mile and I'm very happy about it". Those would be ok with me for sure; I mean it's me who decided to play anyway and then I have to live with the consequences.
But to turn it into an annotated game?
Those are for great games, where both players play good and maybe make very few mistakes that can be analyzed.
That said, I really like the idea of annotating games, just please pick a different one. This might have been an interesting set, it definitely wasn't an interesting game.
We all play bad sometimes. Good players get a lot of crap when they lose. I don't know why people do that, bu it happens. I'm pretty sure it has happened more to me than anyone in this game. And I'm not doing that here. I'm not saying 'man, this is the best this guy can play, he must suck.' I think we all know that you DON'T in fact suck, that you're one of the handful of very best players there is.
Sometimes, I am just playing a lot and not saying anything to my opponent. In fact, that happens a LOT nowadays. I don't chat so much. Man, I could complain about these guys annoying me all the time by trying to talk to me during the game. But I don't, you know, it's okay. They do things differently from me, and I can live with that - it just doesn't matter that much, you should let some stuff slide.
You don't have the right to tell me I can't annotate one of my own games. It's an unrealistic request. I firmly disagree that annotated games are for 'great games, where both players play good and maybe make very few mistakes that can be analyzed.' Man, that just doesn't happen. If you had such a strict requirement, no games would make it. If you let opponent have right of refusal, and if everyone were as uptight as you, again, no annotated games. So I'm going to post this anyway. Look at the games which have been annotated on the blog, and there were big errors in all of them.
To me, the great thing about the annotated games is you get big debates as to how to best play 'interesting' sets, and then you get a breakdown of how one game played out with a couple of those strategies. And how you can get into those strategies, how games progress, and whatnot.
Anyway, they won't all be against you. But I did know that I would likely annotate this one before we played it - the set was interesting.
-
While I agree, WW, that it is true that you have every right to annotate one of your games, Stef is just asking for some common courtesy. It does seem like a rather strange request, to not annotate a game, but it is one for sure.
He says it's not an interesting game, one not worthy of annotating. You say there should be no requirements. Except for, ya know, this:
To me, the great thing about the annotated games is you get big debates as to how to best play 'interesting' sets, and then you get a breakdown of how one game played out with a couple of those strategies. And how you can get into those strategies, how games progress, and whatnot.
Now if you think that's interesting, then go ahead. But all Stef was saying is that he didn't think it worthy of deep analysis.
Also this: Sometimes, I am just playing a lot and not saying anything to my opponent. In fact, that happens a LOT nowadays. I don't chat so much. Man, I could complain about these guys annoying me all the time by trying to talk to me during the game. But I don't, you know, it's okay.
Please, I just don't think anyone in their right mind would say they can complain about someone being friendly/chatty by saying "hi" or "good luck." You don't have to respond, yeah, but do not complain about someone saying something as innocent as that. That just looks like you making BS arguments to support your larger point about having a right to annotate a game.
Having said all of that, I hope it is an interesting game, worthy of the annotation and controversy surrounding.
-
I think this is a game for gardens. Gardens counter young witch and followers very well...
Also, while I agree with Stef about the chat discussion, I think this set worth an annoted game. Even if both players played very poorly, we learn of our mistakes. And this set is definitely interesting.
-
While I agree, WW, that it is true that you have every right to annotate one of your games, Stef is just asking for some common courtesy.
This is not common courtesy. He's asking for uncommon courtesy.
It does seem like a rather strange request, to not annotate a game, but it is one for sure.
One... request? I don't disagree that it's a request. But just because its' a request doesn't mean there is necessarily an obligation to honor it.
He says it's not an interesting game, one not worthy of annotating. You say there should be no requirements. Except for, ya know, this:
To me, the great thing about the annotated games is you get big debates as to how to best play 'interesting' sets, and then you get a breakdown of how one game played out with a couple of those strategies. And how you can get into those strategies, how games progress, and whatnot.
Now if you think that's interesting, then go ahead. But all Stef was saying is that he didn't think it worthy of deep analysis.
Well this is the point I am making. I don't think there should be *no* requirements. I think it is an interesting enough board to merit analysis. He can disagree, of course, but I am the one doing the annotating.
Also this: Sometimes, I am just playing a lot and not saying anything to my opponent. In fact, that happens a LOT nowadays. I don't chat so much. Man, I could complain about these guys annoying me all the time by trying to talk to me during the game. But I don't, you know, it's okay.
Please, I just don't think anyone in their right mind would say they can complain about someone being friendly/chatty by saying "hi" or "good luck." You don't have to respond, yeah, but do not complain about someone saying something as innocent as that.
THAT is not what I am talking about. I mean people who do more than this. "I read your comments and can you tell me this about yourself." "Where are you from" "How old are you" "I want you to make a video about topic X/Y/Z" "(endless complaining about luck factors" "Man, that was a really bad beat you took" - Again, it's not that I think they are mean-spirited, and I don't complain - that is my point, I don't complain. All I am saying is that you should also not complain about NOT saying anything.
That just looks like you making BS arguments to support your larger point about having a right to annotate a game.
Having said all of that, I hope it is an interesting game, worthy of the annotation and controversy surrounding.
Well, I would guess that Stef is upset because he did not play it as well as he would have liked. But such is the case for most games I play, yet it's totally unwarranted for me to request nobody to comment.
-
I would take it upon myself to avoid every obvious strategy in sight and then proceed to lose.
Kidding aside (sort of), I think I would open Young Witch/Silver on 4/3. Buy Silver on 3,4, Gold on 6, Bazaar on 5, Hamlet on 2 until reaching 7 then buy a Forge (maybe pick up a second if opportunity arises). Forge into Platinums/Colonies, thin deck, go for buying Colonies. If ahead (lol), Forge Colonies into Colonies to end the game. Also, I would not buy more than one YW, and Forge it away well before emptying the Curse pile if my opponent went Workshop/Gardens.
As far as annotated games go, when I read one, I hope there is one main lesson or takeaway I can learn from it and the game clearly illustrates that point. I don't care if the players are good players, bad players, or good players who had a bad day, or someone tried something silly that didn't work. I just want to learn something from it which may improve my own play: what's interesting about the kingdom or a player's strategy? Were there tactics that went awry?
-
I admit my main thought is "this community was actually nicer without WW".
-
I think it's common courtesy to at least respond to an opening line in the chat such as "gl" or "hf" to acknowledge the other player.
Now I'm not that chatty myself and I rarely started off saying "hi", but if my opponent took a couple of seconds to jot something down, I would always respond with a simple "hf gl" or something like that. I wouldn't let them wait for an answer that was never coming. Often enough I would play a game with both parties not saying anything the entire game and I was fine with that as well.
But I understand that you'll probably get more crap than the rest, because you put yourself out there, WW, so I understand when you don't feel like talking. That doesn't mean you can just sit there without acknowledging the other person. Well, you can, I just don't think it's very polite.
I think Stef just feels disrespected and that's part of the reason he doesn't want this game annotated, but he's also not saying: "I would like to forbid you from annotating this game." No, he just says: "Pick another, more interesting one."
So I don't know what actually happened here, but this thread derailed way too quickly without it needing to. Sure, it's not fun when your opponent doesn't respond to you in the chat and you might feel "cheated" seeing your opponent wants to turn that game into an annotated game. And also you might get suspicious when an opponent requests not to annotate your game.
But you're both being way too defensive here.
-
But you're both being way too defensive here.
-
I admit that when i play lately, the chat window might as well not exist. My brain just blanks it out like an ad. I don't get any satisfaction out of exchanging "hi gl gg" with faceless nameless strangers that i probably will never see again, and if i want to talk strategy, there's this forum.
I'm not defending WW's reaction to Stef's overreaction, but at least on the charge of being impolite...I can't make myself care. The "can i annotate this game" topic has come up before, and the general consensus was that if you have an indication that your opponent doesn't want to be known, you can obscure his name.
Do that. It's obviously too late for this game, but it's no trouble at all to search/replace in game logs before you start your annotations.
-
Do that. It's obviously too late for this game, but it's no trouble at all to search/replace in game logs before you start your annotations.
Huh? The files are online - I can't change them. Can I?
If this were possible, I'd do it, obviously.
-
Make a copy, find/replace, host it somewhere? Dropbox makes hosting files super easy.
-
I'm not going to host anything.
-
If you wanted a sure fire and not too limiting way to make sure you don't upset people, only annotate games you lose.
-
It's not really you hosting it, dropbox hosts it. It's probably easier than uploading videos to youtube. It would also let you annotate the game inline.
-
So... this sort of spins out of control.
There's no need to host anything yourself, or even try to anonymize this game if you could without hosting anything. My name being in there is not the problem. If you really want to annotate it... go right ahead. The worst that could happen now is that you annotate a rather boring game. One player plays well and the other rather stupid, probably worse then the Goko bots would play it. He loses badly, as he should. End of story.
The psychology of this discussion is already far more interesting then the game itself. I chat to you that I played this game horribly, and in stead of responding and having a good laugh about it together, you move away silently and announce analyzing the game. I really don't understand your actions here, but the great thing about this life is: I don't have to. As long as I can live with my own actions, and am capable of expressing my own feelings, all will be well.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.
-
I don't think annotated games should require permission from both players, since sometimes you have an interesting set even if one person mucks up the game.
Maybe it's a bit rude to ignore someone in chat and then annotate a win against them where they played really poorly, and heck I'd be pretty annoyed by that too. But whatever, some people just don't ever chat, and we all have bad games sometimes, so I don't think anyone would think worse of you, -Stef-.
Ideally you would immediately ask your opponent if it's OK for you to write up the game. If they really don't want to, then erase their name from the log or whatever, or propose the set to them again. But sometimes you don't think to write it up until afterwards, and then you don't necessarily have a chance to talk about it with the opponent.
-
One of these days I'll work on getting my level up so i can actually play against one of these decent players instead of missing out because of the +/- 45 skill level setting!
-
If you wanted a sure fire and not too limiting way to make sure you don't upset people, only annotate games you lose.
Not true! I have definitely had games I won where I played very poorly, and had players be very upset at me for gg-ing them when they won, because they had played poorly.
-
So... this sort of spins out of control.
There's no need to host anything yourself, or even try to anonymize this game if you could without hosting anything. My name being in there is not the problem. If you really want to annotate it... go right ahead. The worst that could happen now is that you annotate a rather boring game. One player plays well and the other rather stupid, probably worse then the Goko bots would play it. He loses badly, as he should. End of story.
This is a bit of a drama queen play. I mean, come on dude.
The psychology of this discussion is already far more interesting then the game itself. I chat to you that I played this game horribly,
Honestly, I don't remember that. I don't even know if I read the chat that game. At some point yesterday, I remember someone saying that they had messed the game up, or basically played the wrong strategy, but by no means does this make a game unfit to analyze. The idea hadn't even crossed my mind - people have done it to me plenty of times. Sure, I don't like that I played bad, but I'm not at all upset with them. And if all you're worried about is a boring annotated game, I'm definitely okay with that. But I also don't understand why you had such a cow over it.
-
I admit my main thought is "this community was actually nicer without WW".
Boo. I think that is too far. I'm not saying that your "main thought" is too far (as you have every right to think it), but sharing it doesn't really help the discussion or anyone participating in it, and is pretty disrespectful. To say that is basically to say that this site is better off without one of its most contributing members. I'm no fanboy of WW, but I'm not going to want to do anything that might make someone feel excluded from this community (except if they are permatrolls). If you're making the case that WW is a permatroll, well, we have joke threads for stuff like that.
Even if one is convinced that WW is being disrespectful, it doesn't give anyone the right to be disrespectful back. Period.
I say this, of course, trying to be totally respectful to you (but not to your post).
-
...
The psychology of this discussion is already far more interesting then the game itself. I chat to you that I played this game horribly,
Honestly, I don't remember that. I don't even know if I read the chat that game. At some point yesterday, I remember someone saying that they had messed the game up, or basically played the wrong strategy, but by no means does this make a game unfit to analyze. The idea hadn't even crossed my mind - people have done it to me plenty of times. Sure, I don't like that I played bad, but I'm not at all upset with them. And if all you're worried about is a boring annotated game, I'm definitely okay with that. But I also don't understand why you had such a cow over it.
I don't know, WW -- you're saying you want to annotate a game, which is to say "pour over the details of a game for the purpose of analysis." However, you have lost one of the details of this game -- the interaction with your opponent. You're saying you can't/don't remember the particular interactions over chat with Stef.
If you were thinking about annotating the game while it was taking place, why did you not pay attention to this particular component? Obviously, it's not in the Dominion rules... but it is still a part of playing a game with another person.
Am I saying every annotated game should include analysis of chatboxes? Of course not. I'm just saying that opponent interaction (or legitimate lack thereof) IS a part of the game. If any opponent interaction of note occurs, it should be considered in your assessment of the game, right? The problem here seems to be that Stef is saying that there was some interaction of note, whereas you don't remember any such thing, or at least from this game in particular.
Anyhoo, I can see both sides here. It's frustrating for me, and I'm just a spectator -- I can only imagine that it would be frustrating for both of you!
-
Why not play the same set against another high level player, then annotate that instead? Same interesting set, nobody has to be upset by poor play. Unless the new player plays poorly as well, in which case, gg.
-
I admit my main thought is "this community was actually nicer without WW".
That... may be the weirdest thing I've heard about this community lately. Like, how does that even work?
-
I admit my main thought is "this community was actually nicer without WW".
That... may be the weirdest thing I've heard about this community lately. Like, how does that even work?
If I understand the tone of Kirian's post correctly, I agree. I mean, come on people, let's be friendly here.
Anyway, I think that eHalcyon's suggestion is a good one, although I don't think it would be disastrous if WW annotated the game he already played. The chat box thing, well, let's just say I have no opinion, as I am known to reply to chats 5 minutes after they were chatted.
If it would truly make a better annotation, I would go for eHalcyon's suggestion, but I'm pretty sure -Stef- playing terribly would still crush me.
-
Before the annotation is written up, WW and -Stef- could replay the exact same set and then we'd have both games to analyze but one to (probably) draw better play data from.
This might be a bit of a contrived solution and there's probably no problem with the original plan of just posting it, but if we really want to see two great players play at their best, this might be a good way to achieve that.
-
Ideally you would immediately ask your opponent if it's OK for you to write up the game. If they really don't want to, then erase their name from the log or whatever, or propose the set to them again. But sometimes you don't think to write it up until afterwards, and then you don't necessarily have a chance to talk about it with the opponent.
I mean, at least this. If I were to do an annotated game, I would not even ask but collaborate with the other player to hear their thoughts on the kingdom and on their play, so that the annotated game isn't all one-sided. If they say no, then drop the game! There are plenty of great kingdoms out there. We shouldn't cause a fuss over just one of them.
-
You know, dealing with all this kerfuffle (I thought the word was 'kerfluffle', but little red wiggly line tells me otherwise), and because I have had some life events be time-draining on me here recently (more on that later perhaps), I won't go into annotating. It's just better this way. I do still think it's an unreasonable request to make, but on the other hand (as I've said before, a la with the video thing), it just doesn't mean that much to me. It's not worth it.
But okay, I don't want to leave you guys TOTALLY hanging (and since I won't be able to annotate the next one until probably next Sunday), I will give you my impressions on the set.
There is workshop/gardens. But I think this will lose, in general, to tournament (never gonna be blocked) with bazaar and/or forge at the right moment, probably bazaar at the right moment and young witch at some point. However, *that* strategy is extremely susceptible to young witch... which in turn will not do so well against workshop/gardens. But I think that some hybrid between Young Witch/Secret Chamber (bane!) and workshop/gardens is best. I also ended up grabbing some worker's villages to supplement, which was nice for all the terminals and the extra buys. I think the other strong options here, to go against, are a more straight workshop/gardens (but you can only do this if you are sure they are not going for the province-colony-tournament kind of thing), in which case you REALLY need to win that gardens split, probably rather definitively, as you have no other recourse, or something with young witches and banes that can cobble its way up to provinces, but if you go THAT route, you really need to not contest gardens, until late anyway, where you have a province or preferably two on them.
I also want to note that I think I have worked out a way of making these things anonymous. And of course I would love to have opponents' feedback on these, but direct collaboration is just not feasible.
Anyway, last but certainly not least, I want to apologize to Stef for any unpleasantness I have caused him. It was not my intention.
-
OK, apologies accepted. Thanks for resolving it this way.
If you feel like it you could still just post the log to show how you played it.