Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Count Grishnakh on December 07, 2013, 06:21:56 pm
-
I'm wondering what people think about this topic, specifically, what do people think about intentionally draining three piles for a win? Is this somehow less noble than letting two decks duke it out?
For me, the only time I get annoyed in Dominion is when there are a lot of powerful cards and a lot of buys (i.e. Kings court and goons, market, bridge, etc.) and no other attack cards to slow these potent cards down.
The game becomes almost entirely luck-based, the first person to string together a couple kings courts and action cards is able to drain all the piles before the other player gets a mega-turn
The longer the game is allowed to continue, the less the outcome is determined by draw luck. So I feel as though deliberately ending the game as early as possible after you get a couple great draws is cowardly, and an undue exploitation of lucky draws. Also, it's annoying to try to build a good deck and also have to buy victory cards as insurance against people using this tactic against you
As an aside, I would personally have a house rule of 4 piles need to be drained when King's Court is in play
I realize how much of a whiner I sound right now but I'm just curious what other people think about this topic.
-
No.
In long form, it's all Dominion. Sure you can blame luck, but that's part of the game. And face it - when you get that Goons engine running smoothly and pulling in 10+ VP per turn, it's worth the times when it's used against you, and you can appreciate when something like that is pulled off well by someone else.
-
No.
In long form, it's all Dominion. Sure you can blame luck, but that's part of the game. And face it - when you get that Goons engine running smoothly and pulling in 10+ VP per turn, it's worth the times when it's used against you, and you can appreciate when something like that is pulled off well by someone else.
Yeah, but it's annoying when it's a mirror match and basically whoever lines up two kings courts and some action cards can end the game
I was just curious if anyone thinks there is such thing as "honor" when playing Dominion, or does anything go? I realize how laughable this may sound but I'm curious.
-
I'm wondering what people think about this topic, specifically, what do people think about intentionally draining three piles for a win? Is this somehow less noble than letting two decks duke it out?
Intentionally draining three piles is extremely unethical, especially when I didn't see it coming. I have less of a problem with people doing it by accident, provided they are behind.
-
Three-piling for the win is an interesting and strategic move, and I think it's not bad.
Something that is bad however (at least in my mind), is dragging on the game when you easily can end it. If I have a mega engine going on and my opponent is floundering and can't do anything, it's better for me to end the game on a three pile if I can easily do it rather than slowly going through the Provinces.
-
I think spotting a 3-pile can be a really clever and elegant way of winning.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
-
3-pile endings are my special technique.
Also, you make your own shuffle luck. It isn't an easy task to line up two KCs and lots of Actions, a lot more than just buying KCs and Actions and waiting for the perfect shuffle luck is required: trashing helps, a functioning engine helps, deck manipulation (Inn, Herald, etc) helps, Tactician helps, keeping track of your deck and reshuffle control (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9906.0) helps, knowing how to get those KCs and Actions faster helps, etc. A huge amount of skill is involved in mega turn games, and the more skilled player has a tendency to win, even though the difference in skill might not be as big as the difference in score suggests.
EDIT:For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Well, what was he supposed to do? Buy 6 Wishing Wells and a Curse?
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
I mean, that was absolutely the right play. If you can end the game with a win, you should. If you believe any differently then the problem is with the rules of the game, not how some people play it. Also, Dominion can be a swingy game, and KC a really swingy card. If you don't like this sort of thing happening, the problem is with KC, again not with how some people play the game.
For the record, I don't think there is a problem here. I absolutely love KC and I definitely wouldn't change the 3-pile rule.
-
I'm wondering what people think about this topic, specifically, what do people think about intentionally draining three piles for a win? Is this somehow less noble than letting two decks duke it out?
Intentionally draining three piles is extremely unethical, especially when I didn't see it coming. I have less of a problem with people doing it by accident, provided they are behind.
lol
-
I understand what you are saying. However there are games where trashing and tactician are not available. Thus the only way to improve your odds is to buy as many action cards as possible to maximize your odds of a mega turn. The thing is a competent player will employ all of the aforementioned techniques, so once again, it boils down to luck. I don't mean to bemoan this, I'm just curious about what people think about players who exploit their first or second really good draw with powerful cards and use that leverage to end the game.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
I mean, that was absolutely the right play. If you can end the game with a win, you should. If you believe any differently then the problem is with the rules of the game, not how some people play it. Also, Dominion can be a swingy game, and KC a really swingy card. If you don't like this sort of thing happening, the problem is with KC, again not with how some people play the game.
For the record, I don't think there is a problem here. I absolutely love KC and I definitely wouldn't change the 3-pile rule.
Okay, fair enough. I really feel as though King's court should = four pile rule, though.
I guess it is me who is the eccentric one, as I play Dominion with a "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" mentality.
-
I understand what you are saying. However there are games where trashing and tactician are not available. Thus the only way to improve your odds is to buy as many action cards as possible to maximize your odds of a mega turn. The thing is a competent player will employ all of the aforementioned techniques, so once again, it boils down to luck. I don't mean to bemoan this, I'm just curious about what people think about players who exploit their first or second really good draw with powerful cards and use that leverage to end the game.
I would consider myself a somewhat competent player (level 42 on Isotropish), and I don't think I've ever played any megaturn game optimally.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Im not quite sure what your saying the other player should do here?
Discard his winning turn and let you have a turn at winning?
You both were aiming for the same thing...he just got there first
You say its how you play the game, but you were playing in the same way as your opponent?
-
I think the only bad ways to win at Dominion are (1) cheating (2) beating someone with a rules adjudication after you knowingly let them go into error (3) acting as kingmaker to unfairly decide the order of other players.
-
I don't mean to bemoan this, I'm just curious about what people think about players who exploit their first or second really good draw with powerful cards and use that leverage to end the game.
You're probably in the wrong place to get any feeling other than "yes, that's the way the game works." Of course you use that leverage to end the game. Dominion is about creating your own luck: your moves create a deck that can get to that endgame status!
-
I think the only bad ways to win at Dominion are (1) cheating (2) beating someone with a rules adjudication after you knowingly let them go into error (3) acting as kingmaker to unfairly decide the order of other players.
And that last one isn't a bad way of winning, it's a bad way of losing.
-
I love three-piling actually. I love winning a game with negative points, stuff like that. The only "bad" way of winning at Dominion is when you're unnecessarily drawing it out.
-
I think the only bad ways to win at Dominion are (1) cheating (2) beating someone with a rules adjudication after you knowingly let them go into error (3) acting as kingmaker to unfairly decide the order of other players.
And that last one isn't a bad way of winning, it's a bad way of losing.
Well, I don't really enjoy winning as the result of someone else kingmaking much.
-
Even if 3-piling didn't end the game, the player that get the KC-megaturn first will almost always win...
-
I think the only bad ways to win at Dominion are (1) cheating (2) beating someone with a rules adjudication after you knowingly let them go into error (3) acting as kingmaker to unfairly decide the order of other players.
And that last one isn't a bad way of winning, it's a bad way of losing.
Well, I don't really enjoy winning as the result of someone else kingmaking much.
I don't enjoy losing as the result of someone else kingmaking a lot more...
-
I think being the kingmaker is still the worst position.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Im not quite sure what your saying the other player should do here?
Discard his winning turn and let you have a turn at winning?
You both were aiming for the same thing...he just got there first
You say its how you play the game, but you were playing in the same way as your opponent?
I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck. Just personal preference, I don't mean to be judgmental. If I were in a tournament I would have done as my opponent had done in this case.
We were playing the same way, more or less. He had a few more markets than I did. I had a few more KC's than he did. We played equally well and progressed at a more or less equal rate, what it came down to was he drew two KC's and some markets, which led to more markets and bridges.
Whereas, I drew two KC's and some coppers. And there was no trashing available in that game.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Im not quite sure what your saying the other player should do here?
Discard his winning turn and let you have a turn at winning?
You both were aiming for the same thing...he just got there first
You say its how you play the game, but you were playing in the same way as your opponent?
I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck.
I personally would consider that offensive if it was apparent that you were doing it on purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H367O_T4DU
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Im not quite sure what your saying the other player should do here?
Discard his winning turn and let you have a turn at winning?
You both were aiming for the same thing...he just got there first
You say its how you play the game, but you were playing in the same way as your opponent?
I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck. Just personal preference, I don't mean to be judgmental. If I were in a tournament I would have done as my opponent had done in this case.
We were playing the same way, more or less. He had a few more markets than I did. I had a few more KC's than he did. We played equally well and progressed at a more or less equal rate, what it came down to was he drew two KC's and some markets, which led to more markets and bridges.
Whereas, I drew two KC's and some coppers. And there was no trashing available in that game.
Sorry, im still confused.
You built a deck thats aiming for a KC KC megaturn, but you wouldn t do the mega turn if it came up?
Why build the deck that way?
-
Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.
But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.
For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.
-
I think the only bad ways to win at Dominion are (1) cheating (2) beating someone with a rules adjudication after you knowingly let them go into error (3) acting as kingmaker to unfairly decide the order of other players.
And that last one isn't a bad way of winning, it's a bad way of losing.
Well, I don't really enjoy winning as the result of someone else kingmaking much.
I don't enjoy losing as the result of someone else kingmaking a lot more...
Yes, but the point was that the kingmaker isn't going to be the one winning in any case.
-
Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.
But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.
For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.
The 3-pile rule is in place so that players don't dance around the Provinces indefinitely.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Im not quite sure what your saying the other player should do here?
Discard his winning turn and let you have a turn at winning?
You both were aiming for the same thing...he just got there first
You say its how you play the game, but you were playing in the same way as your opponent?
I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck. Just personal preference, I don't mean to be judgmental. If I were in a tournament I would have done as my opponent had done in this case.
We were playing the same way, more or less. He had a few more markets than I did. I had a few more KC's than he did. We played equally well and progressed at a more or less equal rate, what it came down to was he drew two KC's and some markets, which led to more markets and bridges.
Whereas, I drew two KC's and some coppers. And there was no trashing available in that game.
Sorry, im still confused.
You built a deck thats aiming for a KC KC megaturn, but you wouldn t do the mega turn if it came up?
Why build the deck that way?
Is a mega-turn by definition a turn that ends the game? If so, I take that back. I just wanted to have huge turns and accumulate a lot of cards and provinces, not shut the game down with one huge turn
-
I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.
If I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)
-
Aahh ok thats where the confusion is then.
-
Also, without the 3-pile rule we'd lose our rush strategies too. No more Workshop/Gardens rushes?
To the OP:
The situation you're describing is different though, as it involves one player's mega-turns going off before another players. You were hoping for an epic game, right? I think the problem is more that KC is a mega-turn card, as is Goons. And there was +buy in that game too. There will be other games where a player is playing KC-Saboteur every turn and for that player to empty out the piles would be an act of mercy.
I think it's inevitable that there are certain kinds of Dominion games that we just aren't going to like, as there are so many ways that a Dominion game can play out. Some are just bound to be more luck based that others, too.
But uh, what's this about not getting a few VP cards as insurance to protect you from 3 pile endings like that? That's like, a whole extra layer of the awesome complexity of Dominion that you just have to get used to.
A word of caution: I'm one of those players that would do something like you described. I tend to pay particular attention to how a game can end in 3-piles, sometimes many turns in advance. In fact, I'm glad that 3-pile endings do exist to sweep the rug below players that could otherwise take advantage of their luck to build a super engine. As it's been said, a player who gets their megaturn to go off tends to win anyway. Is it any more fair if a player with a lucky turn could just empty out all the Cities instead of greening, because they don't have to worry about 3-pile endings? Sometimes, the threat of 3-pile endings actually balances out the game a bit.
-
Is a mega-turn by definition a turn that ends the game? If so, I take that back. I just wanted to have huge turns and accumulate a lot of cards and provinces, not shut the game down with one huge turn
You must be rather new to Dominion, then - megaturns are a time-honored tradition in this community. It's one of Wandering Winder's five core strategies. It's considered an art to be able to pull one off, and discovering a new one is heralded with great joy.
-
Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.
But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.
For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.
The 3-pile rule is in place so that players don't dance around the Provinces indefinitely.
That's essentially what he said. If that is indeed the reason for the three pile rule I don't see why it would be unreasonable to house rule 4 pile for KC games. I just hate that feeling of a "fragile" game that can be so easily ended. It can be very frustrating too because some games players are neck and neck and people conveniently drain the piles on their turn to beat you by that one or two points they gained in their extra turn.
-
I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.
If I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)
You're assuming that draining the third pile after a really good turn early is a "true win" when I'm disputing that.. it's arguably a very munchkin way to end a game in some cases so I wouldn't be insulted if my opponent refused to win that way.
It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?
-
I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.
If I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)
You're assuming that draining the third pile after a really good turn early is a "true win" when I'm disputing that.. it's arguably a very munchkin way to end a game in some cases so I wouldn't be insulted if my opponent refused to win that way.
It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?
Most people would be insulted by the runner who is out to a strong lead, then in the last 100 meters turns around and walks backward for the win. "Refusing to win" is just silly. Win if you can win.
Seriously, I once again can't tell if we're being trolled. You've heard the same answer, with justification, multiple times.
-
Hmm I think I see what you're getting at. Speculating, the 3-pile ending rule may have been originally conceived as a way to bring sloggy games to an end without requiring players to build up to Province-buying capability. In 3/4-player IRL Dominion, I imagine that's mostly what it does, because it's too hard to keep track of score in such games, so it'd be hard to know when you can safely end the game with a win.
But in 2-player games, or really in any game where it's feasible to track points, it has a side effect of giving explosive engines a way to win while buying almost no VP. This bypasses the usual Province buying and the associated deck slowdown.
For me, I like the 3-pile rule a lot because it adds interesting endgame tactics, increasing the skill in the game. Sure, sometimes it's luck as to who has the ability to do the 3-pile, but players miss 3-piling opportunities all the time. And if 3-piling weren't an option, it can be just as lucky who wins the Province split.
The 3-pile rule is in place so that players don't dance around the Provinces indefinitely.
That's essentially what he said. If that is indeed the reason for the three pile rule I don't see why it would be unreasonable to house rule 4 pile for KC games. I just hate that feeling of a "fragile" game that can be so easily ended. It can be very frustrating too because some games players are neck and neck and people conveniently drain the piles on their turn to beat you by that one or two points they gained in their extra turn.
Then pick a different game to play. Some games are going to be faster than others. DoubleJack games tend to be rather quick. Mountebank/Cultist/Colony games tend to be rather slow.
-
I'd say it's the other way around. It's dishonorable to drag the game on when you could end it with a win.
If I'm playing against someone and they deliberately let a win pass by them - knowing they could end it - the rest of the game is sort of unsatisfying. We could go on for a bunch more turns before my opponent wins, and then I feel like they just dragged it on for no good reason. And if I win, I feel like I was "gifted" the game - I mean, I'll take the win I guess, but it doesn't feel right at all. (If the other person didn't *see* the three-pile, that's different, then I feel like I took advantage of their mistake and that's all well and good. But if they saw it and just deliberately decided to deliberately not win? That's just weird.)
You're assuming that draining the third pile after a really good turn early is a "true win" when I'm disputing that.. it's arguably a very munchkin way to end a game in some cases so I wouldn't be insulted if my opponent refused to win that way.
It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?
It depends on the rule of the fight doesnt it? If someones trying to kill me and i get in a lucky blow ...too bloody right ill end it there and then!!
But instead of a vague far fetched scenario, lets try for a little more practical that we actually know the rules for
Your in a boxing match (not for a title or anything, think the end of Rocky III)
You hit the opponent and he is staggered.
Do you
A) apply the knockout punch and win
B) allow him a bit of time to get his breath back, knowing you could knock him out at any time you want
C) Allow him enough time to get fully rested and out the fight on an even keel again
-
I don't know. If my turn was so good that I can win now, or I can win ten turns from now, am I not doing a favour by ending the game early? Or, if I can forfeit now by causing a 3-pile on a loss now or have the game go on for another 10 turns of sloggyness, am I in the wrong to end the game on a loss when I don't want to try winning the game anymore?
-
It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?
Yeah. I would consider that extremely arrogant and disrespectful, and I would feel that I was being treated like an animal in a typical video in which animals aren't treated very nicely, I won't post a link here but I'm sure you can use your imagination or google "torturing a cat" or something.
-
It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?
Yeah. I would consider that extremely arrogant and disrespectful, and I would feel that I was being treated like an animal in a typical video in which animals aren't treated very nicely, I won't post a link here but I'm sure you can use your imagination or google "torturing a cat" or something.
See also the Firefly episode "Shindig."
-
I don't know. If my turn was so good that I can win now, or I can win ten turns from now, am I not doing a favour by ending the game early? Or, if I can forfeit now by causing a 3-pile on a loss now or have the game go on for another 10 turns of sloggyness, am I in the wrong to end the game on a loss when I don't want to try winning the game anymore?
If it's a one-sided game, I agree with you.
If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.
-
It's comparable to when two warriors are sparring and one guy get's a lucky strike, knocking the other warrior on his back. If I let you get up to finish the fight in an honorable way would you feel insulted because I didn't slit your throat when I had you cornered on the ground?
Yeah. I would consider that extremely arrogant and disrespectful, and I would feel that I was being treated like an animal in a typical video in which animals aren't treated very nicely, I won't post a link here but I'm sure you can use your imagination or google "torturing a cat" or something.
What? It's the honorable thing to let a man get back on his feet....rather than die cornered with a blade to his neck. If however, he is already seriously wounded, then a mercy kill would be more respectful.
-
If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.
That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Sometimes, the strength of the deck is entirely in setting up for a mega-turn, or creating a deck that goes for a fast three-pile. That's not a technicality, that's a strategy unto itself and enriches the game by presenting a different strategic choice.
-
If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.
That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Sometimes, the strength of the deck is entirely in setting up for a mega-turn, or creating a deck that goes for a fast three-pile. That's not a technicality, that's a strategy unto itself and enriches the game by presenting a different strategic choice.
Technicality: a small detail in a rule, law, etc., and especially one that forces an unwanted or unexpected result
When I say I'd rather win on the strength of my deck, I'd rather put it to the test and show that I can consistently control the game and consistently stay ahead of my competition, rather than win by being a munchkin about the rules...
Thats just my personal preference. The shorter you force the game to be the more it is about luck. And if you give the decks time to express their merits then the outcome is determined more by skill.
Think about it from the standpoint of statistics.. the smaller the sample size the more randomness... the larger the sample size, the less randomness.. so by allowing a longer game your win is more "valid"... This is all just my opinion... I am not trying to convince anyone.. I was more curious about what everyone else thought.
-
3 piling is a de facto strategy. Look at it this way, the correct etiquette is to end the game when you can (aka don't draw it out when you can win). Seeing as a 3 pile ending can easily happen ahead of single piling the Provinces or whatever then it is correct etiquette to 3 pile.
I didn't know that 3 piling was even debatable as a tactic. That it is up for debate is obnoxious to me.
-
3 piling is a de facto strategy. Look at it this way, the correct etiquette is to end the game when you can (aka don't draw it out when you can win). Seeing as a 3 pile ending can easily happen ahead of single piling the Provinces or whatever then it is correct etiquette to 3 pile.
I didn't know that 3 piling was even debatable as a tactic. That it is up for debate is obnoxious to me.
There can be obnoxious ways to three-pile your way to victory though. Let's be real here.
There's strategy and then there's exploiting rules a bit too much.
-
In this game each player has access to the exact same resources and abides by the exact same rules. There is no exploitation of the rules with equal access.
-
In this game each player has access to the exact same resources and abides by the exact same rules. There is no exploitation of the rules with equal access.
If you go out of your way to drain three piles on a big turn early in the game you are exploiting your own luck and giving yourself an extra turn by manipulatio of the rules...
I'm not saying its wrong but it is purposely skewing the game in the direction of randomness.. Read my remark above regarding statistics
-
Expoiting luck is a lot different from exploiting rules....and there is no manipulation of the rules. The rules do not change at all, and winning on a three pile is a perfectly acceptable way to win as described in thise rules.
Pretty sure Donald X Vaccinarino 3 piled me once...
-
Expoiting luck is a lot different from exploiting rules....
You're right. I should have said exploiting your luck for the biggest possible pay off, through deft manipulation of the rules.
And I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just not how I play because I take pride in attributing my wins to playing well, not by ending the game on a personal high point before anyone else gets their high point..
-
Expoiting luck is a lot different from exploiting rules....
You're right. I should have said exploiting your luck for the biggest possible pay off, through deft manipulation of the rules.
And I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just not how I play because I take pride in attributing my wins to playing well, not by ending the game on a personal high point before anyone else gets their high point..
I think you're just a sore loser. Try working on your game so that you hit the megaturn first next time.
-
Again, there is no deft manipulation of rules. Those ARE the rules.
You entire argument could be said in the same way by someone buying more VP's than you.
You can pride yourself on whatever you like and play however you like, but your reasoning behind is unfortunately based on a false premise that the other person is doing something unfair because they got lucky, and your blaming it on underhanded behaviour.
Id love to play poker with you sometime....
-
That whole discussion of honor sounded vaguely Klingon...
To the OP, think of Dominion kind of like Poker. If I have Pocket Aces (Texas Hold Em') the odds are with me, and I'll bet accordingly. I might still lose, even if I make the right play. You and your opponent played correctly, but he won the odds. It happens. It's annoying. I don't like it when someone opens Treasure map+Great Hall and beats me, but hey, he got lucky and drew his Treasure maps together. Be satisfied knowing that over 100 games like that, you would win more often than him.Your KC game would end up close to 50/50 win rate.
And I guarantee you would not be starting this discussion if you had got the mega turn, no matter how much you say it's a "cheap" way to win.
EDIT: sort of ninja'd by oozle on the poker thing.
-
That whole discussion of honor sounded vaguely Klingon...
And I guarantee you would not be starting this discussion if you had got the mega turn, no matter how much you say it's a "cheap" way to win.
Thank you for your response
But you are wrong about me. I don't use dirty tactics. I try to play honorably, and win through subterfuge and strategem, rather than sucker punching someone and running away
The only time I three pile for a win is when other players are hoarding cards, and they drain the frist two piles, in which case they are being punished for their greed.
-
Again, there is no deft manipulation of rules. Those ARE the rules.
You entire argument could be said in the same way by someone buying more VP's than you.
You can pride yourself on whatever you like and play however you like, but your reasoning behind is unfortunately based on a false premise that the other person is doing something unfair because they got lucky, and your blaming it on underhanded behaviour.
Id love to play poker with you sometime....
I didn't use the word "unfair" I said they are willfully skewing the game in favor of luck... And my prejudices are such that such strategies are morally inferior to those strategies which allow everyone to let their decks do the talking, rather than chance
I abhor poker it is offensive to my sensibilities. Dominion is a gentleman's game. I would like to invite you into my cigar room for a game of dominion, but my house rule is that you can not intentionally buy or gain a card for a three pile win.
-
No love for the Star Trek reference :(
That whole discussion of honor sounded vaguely Klingon...
And I guarantee you would not be starting this discussion if you had got the mega turn, no matter how much you say it's a "cheap" way to win.
Thank you for your response
But you are wrong about me. I don't use dirty tactics. I try to play honorably, and win through subterfuge and strategem, rather than sucker punching someone and running away
The only time I three pile for a win is when other players are hoarding cards, and they drain the frist two piles, in which case they are being punished for their greed.
I don't know what to say. If you actually never consider an IGG rush, or a Gardens rush, or Duke/Duchy strategy, then you are legitimately playing the game badly. It's like asking to lose those games. If you play Monopoly, you try to negotiate for the orange properties, because they are statistically the most landed on in the game. You could avoid buying them and say it's honorable, but actually its just a dumb play.
And you sound very high and mighty with the "punish for their greed" talk. Maybe you don't realize this, but you aren't doing anyone any favors. You aren't even helping yourself. Someone already said that runners don't wait at the finish line for the others. If you're ahead, well then you're ahead. If the one person stumps, the race isn't restarted to give him another chance.
Oh yeah, and it's a game...yeah...Dominion is a game.
-
Honorable? I absolutely love 3-piling when I am behind on an engine game, my opponent doesn't see it coming, and I win by a single vp on a tricky 3-pile.
-
No love for the Star Trek reference :(
That whole discussion of honor sounded vaguely Klingon...
And I guarantee you would not be starting this discussion if you had got the mega turn, no matter how much you say it's a "cheap" way to win.
Thank you for your response
But you are wrong about me. I don't use dirty tactics. I try to play honorably, and win through subterfuge and strategem, rather than sucker punching someone and running away
The only time I three pile for a win is when other players are hoarding cards, and they drain the frist two piles, in which case they are being punished for their greed.
I don't know what to say. If you actually never consider an IGG rush, or a Gardens rush, or Duke/Duchy strategy, then you are legitimately playing the game badly. It's like asking to lose those games. If you play Monopoly, you try to negotiate for the orange properties, because they are statistically the most landed on in the game. You could avoid buying them and say it's honorable, but actually its just a dumb play.
And you sound very high and mighty with the "punish for their greed" talk. Maybe you don't realize this, but you aren't doing anyone any favors. You aren't even helping yourself. Someone already said that runners don't wait at the finish line for the others. If you're ahead, well then you're ahead. If the one person stumps, the race isn't restarted to give him another chance.
Oh yeah, and it's a game...yeah...Dominion is a game.
Definitely a lot of love for the Star Trek reference. It made me smile :)
The problem with the "runners" analogy is that everyone is running simultaneously.
In dominion, the person who three piles gets to act and deny everyone their turn... If it is truly a race (which implies simultaneous activity) then when the game ends each of the other players should be allowed to play their hands and buy whatever VPS are up for grabs. This introduces all kinds of other problems but this is why the running analogy fails is because actions are not simultaneous and there will always be a person with an extra turn
I assure you I have done "three pile" strategies such as gardens, vineyards, duchies.. In fact that's how I earned my nickname "the count"
my Pro ranking on GOKO is 4.5K I've been playing Dominion for 5 months.. is that good or bad?
... What I don't do, is this: I don't prematurely end a game by gratuitously draining decks.. She can't say No said that doing so is extremely unethical and She can't say no is in the top 10 pro rankings
-
She can't say No said that doing so is extremely unethical and She can't say no is in the top 10 pro rankings
Shecan'tsayNo was joking. Sarcasm that it's unethical to do this when he is losing.
-
I love a good 3-pile win - it can take a lot of skill to see it coming, and to realize exactly what you need to leave behind so that your opponent doesn't get the opportunity.
The only wins I consider "bad" in Dominion are inferior strategies that win due to shuffle luck. I'm not talking about a mirror match swinging one way or the other, or even strategies that are comparable in their win rates. I'm talking about losing to people who open Village for no apparent reason, or buy a potion on the first turn when only Possession is on the board. Low-percentage strategies can be the right move in some 3+ player games (especially if you go last), but I don't play a whole lot of those. I understand that even a great strategy will lose to a Lucky Chancellor from time to time, but it just irks me when it happens.
-
... What I don't do, is this: I don't prematurely end a game by gratuitously draining decks.. She can't say No said that doing so is extremely unethical and She can't say no is in the top 10 pro rankings
Hahahahahahaha...
*breath*
hahahaha... heh. Hah.
You need to get your sarcasm meter checked. Go read what SCSN actually said. Then read it again, assuming sarcasm.
-
I'm talking about losing to people who open Village for no apparent reason, or buy a potion on the first turn when only Possession is on the board.
Much like my Treasure Map+Great Hall example
-
... What I don't do, is this: I don't prematurely end a game by gratuitously draining decks.. She can't say No said that doing so is extremely unethical and She can't say no is in the top 10 pro rankings
Hahahahahahaha...
*breath*
hahahaha... heh. Hah.
You need to get your sarcasm meter checked. Go read what SCSN actually said. Then read it again, assuming sarcasm.
Well I'm glad I made someone laugh, even if it was unintentional. I didn't mean to incite controversy or offend anyone.
I was taught growing up "its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game".. I feel guilty for winning by draining decks
But now I see winning is all that matters... *logs onto goko with two accounts on two laptops and hosts a three player game*
-
I'm talking about losing to people who open Village for no apparent reason, or buy a potion on the first turn when only Possession is on the board.
Much like my Treasure Map+Great Hall example
Well I'm new here but you're my favorite poster so far. Blueblimp also seems like a most judicious man of discerning tastes and that I would welcome into my cigar room for a game of dominion any day of the week.
Also I know for a fact we have played eachother on Dominion, I remember your name
-
But now I see winning is all that matters... *logs onto goko with two accounts on two laptops and hosts a three player game*
If you are going to do that, make sure you do it well (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9763.0). There are high standards out there.
-
I was taught growing up "its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game".. I feel guilty for winning by draining decks
But now I see winning is all that matters... *logs onto goko with two accounts on two laptops and hosts a three player game*
The idea you are looking for is between these two extremes:
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -- Reiner Knizia
-
One thing that I really love about Dominion is that you can have a really strong board, with players building steadily towards a massive megaturn... only for one player to 3-pile and win 1-0. Brilliant!
Count Grishnakh, it sounds like you simply don't like the 3-pile rule. That's fine, and when you're playing IRL it's totally fine to play a variant. But here you'll definitely find yourself in a minority. To me it's no different than saying you don't like the game ending when the Provinces run out because another player might still have a chance to catch up with Duchies and/or alternate VP.
A hugely important element to a game of Dominion is timing. That is, knowing roughly how long the game has to go and knowing when to keep building your deck and when to maximise your points. Another element to that is ensuring that another player cannot end the game in the lead. If all players are keeping track of piles, as they definitely should be, a 3-pile win is not a sneaky move, because you should know roughly how many cards your opponent can gain in one turn as well as how many cards it would take to end the game. Surely taking this out of the game and having one less thing to worry about would reward skilled players less rather than more, right? If you understand the game and are paying attention, a 3-pile isn't dirty or underhanded, it's simply playing the game.
-
One thing that I really love about Dominion is that you can have a really strong board, with players building steadily towards a massive megaturn... only for one player to 3-pile and win 1-0. Brilliant!
Count Grishnakh, it sounds like you simply don't like the 3-pile rule. That's fine, and when you're playing IRL it's totally fine to play a variant. But here you'll definitely find yourself in a minority. To me it's no different than saying you don't like the game ending when the Provinces run out because another player might still have a chance to catch up with Duchies and/or alternate VP.
A hugely important element to a game of Dominion is timing. That is, knowing roughly how long the game has to go and knowing when to keep building your deck and when to maximise your points. Another element to that is ensuring that another player cannot end the game in the lead. If all players are keeping track of piles, as they definitely should be, a 3-pile win is not a sneaky move, because you should know roughly how many cards your opponent can gain in one turn as well as how many cards it would take to end the game. Surely taking this out of the game and having one less thing to worry about would reward skilled players less rather than more, right? If you understand the game and are paying attention, a 3-pile isn't dirty or underhanded, it's simply playing the game.
you're right I just really hate that rule
Like somehow the world magically ends and the army I built no longer matters? get outta here.. The thing you love most about Dominion is the only thing I don't like about it
-
In a mirror mega-deck game, the three-pile ending acts as a check against over-extending yourself. If you spend too long building your deck before you pull the trigger, you leave yourself vulnerable to sudden game-ends. I like this, because it means that even mega-decks have a balancing act to play. I think this makes the game more interesting. Having to navigate around the three-pile raises the skill ceiling in a mega-deck game, whereas without that constraint the game is often pretty straightforward.
-
In a mirror mega-deck game, the three-pile ending acts as a check against over-extending yourself. If you spend too long building your deck before you pull the trigger, you leave yourself vulnerable to sudden game-ends. I like this, because it means that even mega-decks have a balancing act to play. I think this makes the game more interesting. Having to navigate around the three-pile raises the skill ceiling in a mega-deck game, whereas without that constraint the game is often pretty straightforward.
Thank you for addressing exactly what I'm talking about. And I know what you mean about spending too much time building but there are cases where people will go for ridiculous three pile endings a turn or two after you have BOTH bought your kings courts. (i.e. you are keeping pace with eachother, its not like one person bought kings courts faster, its just a player takes advantage of the fact that he was the first to have his KC line up with some good actions)
-
By the way: Welcome to the forum Count Grishnakh. As you can see we really like discussing things on this forum, hopefully it won't scare you away that many posters here have a different opinion than you have.
I see your argument, and sometimes I feel the same. Sometimes I just want to build up a big engine, without the need to green or watch for 3-piling early. I think it would be a lot of fun to play the following variant a few times. You choose a kingdom where a big engine is possible, but where you let EVERY pile have, say, 50 cards in it. You can then build until you have a very very strong engine, and then have turns where you can buy like 8 provinces a turn. I think it would be hilarious to play that once or twice.
On the other hand, I do agree with most others here that the 3-piling rule increases the amount of strategy of the game, and wouldn't want to get rid of it.
PS: Congrats on the #1-position of "posts per day" for the next couple of days :)
-
By the way: Welcome to the forum Count Grishnakh. As you can see we really like discussing things on this forum, hopefully it won't scare you away that many posters here have a different opinion than you have.
I see your argument, and sometimes I feel the same. Sometimes I just want to build up a big engine, without the need to green or watch for 3-piling early. I think it would be a lot of fun to play the following variant a few times. You choose a kingdom where a big engine is possible, but where you let EVERY pile have, say, 50 cards in it. You can then build until you have a very very strong engine, and then have turns where you can buy like 8 provinces a turn. I think it would be hilarious to play that once or twice.
On the other hand, I do agree with most others here that the 3-piling rule increases the amount of strategy of the game, and wouldn't want to get rid of it.
PS: Congrats on the #1-position of "posts per day" for the next couple of days :)
Thank you so much for welcoming me. In the future my posts won't be so controversial, I swear.
It's just an annoying play style to combat sometimes because they put you in a position where if you green up to stay ahead, then they will keep building their engine and out-engine you... But if you keep up with them engine wise, they buy a few VPS and drain the remaining cards with their engine
I played a game where I basically had to choose between getting a platinum or a province.. (we both stocked up on fishing villages and catacombs, draining those two piles) I chose to buy the platinum because if I bought a province he would have a platinum and I wouldn't...(we both hit 9$ on the same turn) then the next turn he turns around and buys an island and buys 6 village squares to end the game..
If I had bought the province he would have plat and I wouldn't so he'd simply buy colonies and beat me that way
so what it boils down to is this: he wins because he had the first turn
-
so what it boils down to is this: he wins because he had the first turn
That happens in games that end on Provinces/Colonies all the time.
-
so what it boils down to is this: he wins because he had the first turn
That happens in games that end on Provinces/Colonies all the time.
That'd be an interesting statistic to run: first-player advantage in games that end on Provinces vs games that end on 3-pile. My guess is that the first-player advantage is indeed a lot bigger in 3-pile games, because those tend to be the type of fast game that favours player 1 most. I can think of obvious exceptions though (Governor is super-fast and ends games on Provinces) so seeing the data would be interesting.
-
I'd rather 3-pile and have clean deck than ruin it with all those nasty green looking non-action cards.
Nah, seriously though, what I like about Dominion is that it's a constant balancing act. On the one hand you want to keep building your deck ad infinitum, but you can't because of 3-piles and your opponent may be 7 Provinces ahead when you're willing to stop building. Finding the right moments to switch gears, throw in everything and the kitchen sink, or sneakily set up a 3-pile can be very rewarding.
Managing piles adds more strategy and if you're worried about being 3-piled yourself, just grab some quick Provinces or Duchies to dissuade your opponent. Luckily, not all games feature KC-Goons or a similar megaturn strategy, in fact, I think I play more games without megaturns than I do with.
I just don't see how 3-piling would be less honorable, it's just a rule that all players have to keep in mind.
-
Thank you so much for welcoming me. In the future my posts won't be so controversial, I swear.
It's just an annoying play style to combat sometimes because they put you in a position where if you green up to stay ahead, then they will keep building their engine and out-engine you... But if you keep up with them engine wise, they buy a few VPS and drain the remaining cards with their engine
I played a game where I basically had to choose between getting a platinum or a province.. (we both stocked up on fishing villages and catacombs, draining those two piles) I chose to buy the platinum because if I bought a province he would have a platinum and I wouldn't...(we both hit 9$ on the same turn) then the next turn he turns around and buys an island and buys 6 village squares to end the game..
If I had bought the province he would have plat and I wouldn't so he'd simply buy colonies and beat me that way
so what it boils down to is this: he wins because he had the first turn
Or, you could have played expertly and bought an island and six "village squares" to win. Don't be annoyed about losing when you admit that you arbitrarily refuse to win in a particular way.
-
The problem with the "runners" analogy is that everyone is running simultaneously.
In dominion, the person who three piles gets to act and deny everyone their turn... If it is truly a race (which implies simultaneous activity) then when the game ends each of the other players should be allowed to play their hands and buy whatever VPS are up for grabs. This introduces all kinds of other problems but this is why the running analogy fails is because actions are not simultaneous and there will always be a person with an extra turn
I don't think anyone's specifically addressed the extra turn yet in this thread. First, there might not have been an extra turn at all: if the second player (in 2P Dominion) ends the game then each player has had the same number of turns.
But you can get around that by saying that we just finish the round, so that everyone has had the same number of turns. The end result of this is swapping a first player advantage for a second player advantage, as the first player now never has a way to end the game on his turn. (The closest substitute would be having more than half the total available VP in their deck.)
This has been discussed a few times, including here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9791.msg313875#msg313875) recently.
-
Thank you so much for welcoming me. In the future my posts won't be so controversial, I swear.
It's just an annoying play style to combat sometimes because they put you in a position where if you green up to stay ahead, then they will keep building their engine and out-engine you... But if you keep up with them engine wise, they buy a few VPS and drain the remaining cards with their engine
You mean... it gives you a strategic choice ? The horror ! *shudders*
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
Well, you ARE playing to win (at least I think most people here are, who are playing competitevely), so of course you are going to "use luck to the fullest". Sure, if you are playing with friends and you'd rather than you have a longer, nicer game than you winning, than play sub-optimally, if you want to win, you need to play optimal.
As much as people here do not like the guy, Sirilin wrote a nice article called "playing to win". It's a good article about competitive mindset, might be worth a read. Your philosophy reminds me of his "scrub mentality". http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/
EDIT: Sigh, I've posted this and I totally missed 3 pages of discussion, I though it only had 1.
-
Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.
However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest
I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck. Just personal preference, I don't mean to be judgmental. If I were in a tournament I would have done as my opponent had done in this case.
We were playing the same way, more or less. He had a few more markets than I did. I had a few more KC's than he did. We played equally well and progressed at a more or less equal rate, what it came down to was he drew two KC's and some markets, which led to more markets and bridges.
Whereas, I drew two KC's and some coppers. And there was no trashing available in that game.
I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but here's the game (http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20131207/log.516d167de4b082c74d7ad14b.1386453554700.txt) that the OP mentioned involving King's Court, Bridge, Market, and Wishing Well.
His opponent actually bought 4 Wishing Wells to end the game, not 7 as he reported. Looking at their decks, his opponent actually had more King's Courts, and way more Markets (8-2). The OP bought many Silvers and Pillages instead of Wishing Wells and Markets, which makes it no surprise that he drew some dead KCs (along with a Silver, which could have been a Wishing Well).
He also failed to mention that this happened the turn after the OP bought a Possession. Not that ending in a win is ever a bad move, but sticking around to see what your opponent does with KC-Possession when you have the better deck is plain stupid.
-
I'd open Wishing Well/Island there. You want zero Silvers and even less Pillages. This loss had nothing whatsoever to do with luck, it was poor play from the beginning till the end.
Blaming things on luck that are entirely under your control, to the point that you complain about them on a forum, is the most effective way to stunt your growth as a player.
-
My favorite version of the 3-pile ending is absorbing all the curses while I drain an alt VP and something else.
Bonus points for buying the last curse because my opponent saw it coming and skipped handing out the curse.
-
I don't see how the three piling rule is a technicality - it's a major part of the game! It enables all kinds of strategies and curbs others. It actually adds tons of strategic depth. It's why you see players skirting around how much they build their engines and buying what look like random duchies at weird points. It's a huge part of the interaction in the game.
Moreover, this:
I was playing against a guy in a pretty typical city game
he managed to get his hands on more cities than I did and we were both playing some pretty big turns
However I had two bridges in my deck and two smugglers
He was purchasing provinces more consistently than me (every turn) but with the help of bridge I was able to smuggle 6$ provinces, much to my delight and much to his chagrin
"that was bullshit" he said
seems like waaaay more of a technicality to me than one of the fundamental rules of the game.
It sounds to me like you should go play solitaire, so you don't have to worry about those pesky opponents ruining your plans (and there's no shame in that). Or just play another game, if it's luck you are concerned about.
But like, is it a technicality in chess that I just happened to checkmate you even though you had way more pieces? Or that I ground you down and ended up with a winning king-and-pawn ending? In American football, if I kneel down at the end of the game and kick a last-second field goal to win, is that a technicality because I didn't try to score a touchdown? In association football (the one the world plays), if I score off of a free kick, is that a technicality because it isn't in normal play? At the end of a basketball game, is it a technicality if I foul you to make you hit free throws so that there's enough time left for me to possibly come back? Or failing that, if I would just hold the ball to run out the clock (considering there's a shot clock), is that a technicality? In poker, if I hit my flush draw, am I just winning because my hand is "technically" stronger than yours?
So what's the deal about technicalities? Basically, it's that they're unintended, yeah? So like, if Goko has a glitch and you take advantage of it purposefully, that is a case I'd be with you. I absolutely believe that how you play is super important. But steering to a 3 pile is not a cheap, cheesy, or at all unethical way of playing. And it's also a competitive game, so you should expect that people will generally, you know, try to win.
-
I'd say a technicality is something which is within the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The three-pile rule is certainly within the spirit of Dominion, but deliberate fouling in Basketball, is that something professional players actually do? I hope fouling doesn't necessarily mean hurting a player on the other team, it would be extremely perverse if there were a strategic advantage in doing that.
-
Also I know for a fact we have played eachother on Dominion, I remember your name
It's certainly possible we played each other, but I split the card cost with my brother, so he uses the account sometimes too. Maybe you played him and not me :P
-
WW, I love the chess analogy.
-
Well I'm new here but you're my favorite poster so far. Blueblimp also seems like a most judicious man of discerning tastes and that I would welcome into my cigar room for a game of dominion any day of the week.
The other posters don't dislike you. They just don't agree with you. You notice this because you have some +respect from another post somewhere.
You have to realize that you're coming onto a forum where people really enjoy Dominion, and then saying how they're all dishonorable for winning a certain way.
-
She can't say No said that doing so is extremely unethical and She can't say no is in the top 10 pro rankings
Shecan'tsayNo was joking. Sarcasm that it's unethical to do this when he is losing.
Thanks for clearing that up, actually.
-
I'd say a technicality is something which is within the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The three-pile rule is certainly within the spirit of Dominion, but deliberate fouling in Basketball, is that something professional players actually do? I hope fouling doesn't necessarily mean hurting a player on the other team, it would be extremely perverse if there were a strategic advantage in doing that.
Of course they do? Have you never watched the last 20 seconds of an NBA game where the team with the ball is up by 1-3 points? I guess not if you don't know that fouling does not in fact mean necessarily hurting the guy. Typically, they try to intercept an inbounds pass, and then when they fail, they'll go after a steal, but in a way that almost always means they end up having physical contact with the other guy, and most physical contact is enough for a foul call. Sometimes it just looks like a bear hug, sometimes it's more like a slap on the wrist. If it's actually physically dangerous, it would be a flagrant foul, which has a harsher in-game penalty (potentially out-of-game too), which makes it grossly unprofitable.
-
Basketball, and all physical sports, are far outside my introvert bubble which protects me from the real world.
-
I'd say a technicality is something which is within the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The three-pile rule is certainly within the spirit of Dominion, but deliberate fouling in Basketball, is that something professional players actually do? I hope fouling doesn't necessarily mean hurting a player on the other team, it would be extremely perverse if there were a strategic advantage in doing that.
See that's just it the three-pile rule was made for the purpose of preventing slogs from going on forever, to put an end to games where players would take forever to get to province buying capacity
The three pile rule was made in this spirit not in the spirit of pile-draining to win. This is a deck-building game, not a pile draining game
-
I'd open Wishing Well/Island there. You want zero Silvers and even less Pillages. This loss had nothing whatsoever to do with luck, it was poor play from the beginning till the end.
Blaming things on luck that are entirely under your control, to the point that you complain about them on a forum, is the most effective way to stunt your growth as a player.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep that in mind.
Now that I see the log I can see where I went wrong.
I just really, really hate wishing well but I see where it would have benefitted me here.
-
I'd say a technicality is something which is within the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The three-pile rule is certainly within the spirit of Dominion, but deliberate fouling in Basketball, is that something professional players actually do? I hope fouling doesn't necessarily mean hurting a player on the other team, it would be extremely perverse if there were a strategic advantage in doing that.
See that's just it the three-pile rule was made for the purpose of preventing slogs from going on forever, to put an end to games where players would take forever to get to province buying capacity
The three pile rule was made in this spirit not in the spirit of pile-draining to win. This is a deck-building game, not a pile draining game
Actually the three-pile-rule was made for the purpose of preventing boring Duchy rush games - the original rule was the 1-pile-rule.
The most important change was the end condition. In the original game, if two other people went for Duchies, you had to go for Duchies too; I knew this but it didn't seem like an issue, because all you could do was make the game boring, it didn't just win for you. It turns out that being able to make the game boring is not great. I had already changed the end condition from "any empty pile" to "any empty victory pile," to save on cards. Instead of 12 cards per pile there were 10, except for victory piles; but it played the same as it previously had, because to stop the game from ending you used to have to leave two cards in a pile (if you just left one then whoever was ahead would buy it to lock in the win). Anyway I further modified this to "Provinces empty or 3 piles empty," to make sure that rushing Duchies didn't just end the game without help from something. It was fine if sometimes it was a thing, as long as normally you got to build up your deck. I also raised Province from 5 VP to 6 VP.
EDIT: 1337 posts and 1111 respect! Yay! ;D
-
Ok, read the whole topic.
It seems that you've constructed these imaginary rules that restrict your play and ability to win, and you expect other people to be bind by the same rules. It doesn't work like that. People, especially on-line, cannot know what you expect of the game and what do you find "fair". Even if they did, why would they care? They play to win not to make you feel good.
Moreover, the game doesn't care how you won. It doesn't give points for style or elegancy or fairness or whatever. You win the same whether you bought the last province on turn 32 in a slog or you emptied the whole supply turn 4.
Most importantly, where do you draw the line?
First, how do you define "no piledriving early"? How early is too early? No provinces bought? one province? two? Than, if that is not fair, why is opening Mountebank/Chapel or Mint/Fool's Gold on 5/2 opening fair? Isn't that exploiting luck too? How about drawing your Treasure maps both on turn 5? If you play them, is that exploiting the luck too? You may say it's not, and MIGHT think it is. Now, what makes you right and not me? I might feel it's very unfair and that you are exploiting your luck. Same goes to your little 'rule'. It is impossible to make adopt one universal rule of subjective "fairness". If it is in the rules, it's fair. Making subjective, superfluous rules will make playing the game impossible if everybody is playing what they theselves feel "fair", and expect everybody else to obey. You'll end up with game where nobody is allowed to buy a village along with 2 torturers cause double torturer chain is unfair, unfun and doesn't let the other person play out their deck.
-
Ok, read the whole topic.
It seems that you've constructed these imaginary rules that restrict your play and ability to win, and you expect other people to be bind by the same rules. It doesn't work like that. People, especially on-line, cannot know what you expect of the game and what do you find "fair". Even if they did, why would they care? They play to win not to make you feel good.
Moreover, the game doesn't care how you won. It doesn't give points for style or elegancy or fairness or whatever. You win the same whether you bought the last province on turn 32 in a slog or you emptied the whole supply turn 4.
Most importantly, where do you draw the line?
First, how do you define "no piledriving early"? How early is too early? No provinces bought? one province? two? Than, if that is not fair, why is opening Mountebank/Chapel or Mint/Fool's Gold on 5/2 opening fair? Isn't that exploiting luck too? How about drawing your Treasure maps both on turn 5? If you play them, is that exploiting the luck too? You may say it's not, and MIGHT think it is. Now, what makes you right and not me? I might feel it's very unfair and that you are exploiting your luck. Same goes to your little 'rule'. It is impossible to make adopt one universal rule of subjective "fairness". If it is in the rules, it's fair. Making subjective, superfluous rules will make playing the game impossible if everybody is playing what they theselves feel "fair", and expect everybody else to obey. You'll end up with game where nobody is allowed to buy a village along with 2 torturers cause double torturer chain is unfair, unfun and doesn't let the other person play out their deck.
How early is too early? No provinces bought is too early IMO unless its a slog
I understand where you and others are coming from. I'm not here to shove my opinion down anyone's throats.
There is a difference between exploiting luck with cards and exploiting luck by ending the game on your first big lucky draw, thus denying anyone the opportunity to have such a turn.
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Now more than anything I wanted to understand the mentality of the Dominion community. I see everyone is quite accepting of three-piling, no matter how early in the game you do it. That's fine.
I guess more than anything I disagree with the three pile rule. I would suggest the following amendments to the rules:
1.) If a player ends the game in any manner other than purchasing the last province, the other players have the opportunity to play their hands and buy whatever is up for grabs.
2) When KC is on the table there should be a 4 pile rule. That's my own house rule, anyway.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
-
As previously mentioned: house rules are fine. They are not real rules, but rules you pay by to make the game more enjoyable for you and your friends. In fact there is a whole section on the forum (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=11.0)dedicated to variants and fan cards for people like you who have different ideas about the game beyond what Donald X created. But always remember that. It is not the game as Donald X made it, it is his game with your modifications. I (and I am sure others will agree) prefer the game without any of these variants, but prefer the rules made by Donald X.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.
Well, you're not going to be playing your house rules on Goko either, so why did you suggest them as solutions?
-
Ok, read the whole topic.
It seems that you've constructed these imaginary rules that restrict your play and ability to win, and you expect other people to be bind by the same rules. It doesn't work like that. People, especially on-line, cannot know what you expect of the game and what do you find "fair". Even if they did, why would they care? They play to win not to make you feel good.
Moreover, the game doesn't care how you won. It doesn't give points for style or elegancy or fairness or whatever. You win the same whether you bought the last province on turn 32 in a slog or you emptied the whole supply turn 4.
Most importantly, where do you draw the line?
First, how do you define "no piledriving early"? How early is too early? No provinces bought? one province? two? Than, if that is not fair, why is opening Mountebank/Chapel or Mint/Fool's Gold on 5/2 opening fair? Isn't that exploiting luck too? How about drawing your Treasure maps both on turn 5? If you play them, is that exploiting the luck too? You may say it's not, and MIGHT think it is. Now, what makes you right and not me? I might feel it's very unfair and that you are exploiting your luck. Same goes to your little 'rule'. It is impossible to make adopt one universal rule of subjective "fairness". If it is in the rules, it's fair. Making subjective, superfluous rules will make playing the game impossible if everybody is playing what they theselves feel "fair", and expect everybody else to obey. You'll end up with game where nobody is allowed to buy a village along with 2 torturers cause double torturer chain is unfair, unfun and doesn't let the other person play out their deck.
How early is too early? No provinces bought is too early IMO unless its a slog
This is entirely capricious and selective. Define "a slog". Also, why is it different? What if it's a colony game? Rushing out a bunch of Silk Roads or gardens isn't okay? etc.
There is a difference between exploiting luck with cards and exploiting luck by ending the game on your first big lucky draw, thus denying anyone the opportunity to have such a turn.
How? I completely don't understand what the difference is. You've had a mega-turn that you somehow mythically weren't allowed to actually do what you wanted on, so now I can? You realize that the situation is basically now flipped, as the first guy didn't really have a chance to mega-turn, since he's artificially prevented from doing so.
Let me offer an analogy.
Great! I love analogies (as you can tell above).
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
I've never known anyone who considers this bad form. On the other hand, I don't know anybody (personally) who's rich enough (stupid enough?) to be willing to bet $100 on a single hand of poker, particularly in a cash game. Certainly if I go to the casino and rip a good hand on the first go (poker, blackjack, slots... doesn't matter), they don't care if I quit at that point.
Now, if I played a cash game of poker with my friends, and I quite after the first hand, it would be weird. You wouldn't do it. But the thing here is, the reason you're playing poker is to have fun, and it feels weird to quit so fast. So LF is right here, you just play the next game.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
What? This doesn't make sense. How are the mechanics of the cards different than the mechanics of the game? I don't even understand which is which. Of course you're doing self-serving - it's a competitive game and you're trying to win. Ending the game while you're ahead is the ENTIRE POINT. Doing it on provinces is no different from doing it on piles in this respect. You always deny other players a reprisal. I really really don't understand what the basis for any of this differences you see is, other than you were unhappy that it happened to you.
Of course feel free to play with whatever house rules you want. I think they make the game worse, but be my guest. Just don't get upset at other people when they play by the published rules.
-
As much as people here do not like the guy, Sirilin wrote a nice article called "playing to win". It's a good article about competitive mindset, might be worth a read. Your philosophy reminds me of his "scrub mentality". http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/
For further reading, see the TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub). It's written specifically about video games but the principles still apply.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.
If you're offering a rematch and he declines, then your original analogy almost stands, but even then, it's possible that your opponent just really needs to leave - maybe he has to leave for work, maybe his son just fell from a table, or maybe he has just been playing Dominion for 6 hours and needs to take a break. It isn't necessarily like he's been waiting for a game in which he gets lucky and quits immediately after winning that game. Plus, you're not playing Goko Dominion for money, so it doesn't even matter who wins the game.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.
Well, you're not going to be playing your house rules on Goko either, so why did you suggest them as solutions?
I suggested them as solutions because they are solutions when not playing on Goko. My proposed solutions may be futile for Goko but just because my solutions aren't practical in my case doesn't mean I'm not correct in diagnosing the problem.
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
It is problematic because it makes the game more than just a province rush.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
He pointed out reasons. We must accept them.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
It is problematic because it makes the game more than just a province rush.
But the game is meant to be more than just a province rush....
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
-
For further reading, see the TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub).
The TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Scrubs)?
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
It is problematic because it makes the game more than just a province rush.
But the game is meant to be more than just a province rush....
And the game is also meant to be more than a "drain the last pile with one more VP than your opponent" rush
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
Isnt there a mercy rule in baseball?
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
It is problematic because it makes the game more than just a province rush.
But the game is meant to be more than just a province rush....
And the game is also meant to be more than a "drain the last pile with one more VP than your opponent" rush
It is .
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
I'd say when your opponent can't take any more turns, they've definitely been rendered powerless :P
Do you also feel it's wrong to beat an opponent whose only points are from playing a bunch of Monuments every turn? If they haven't greened at all, they're definitely far from "powerless."
Re:baseball, the rules of the game specify 9 innings (or 8.5 if the home team is already ahead at that point), so you play 9 (or 8.5) innings...the Dominion rules specify empty Provinces, Colonies, or any 3 piles, so you play till that point. A second inning walk-off grand slam is more like buying a Province on turn 3 and declaring victory than it is like a sudden 3-pile ending.
-
so what it boils down to is this: he wins because he had the first turn
That happens in games that end on Provinces/Colonies all the time.
That'd be an interesting statistic to run: first-player advantage in games that end on Provinces vs games that end on 3-pile. My guess is that the first-player advantage is indeed a lot bigger in 3-pile games, because those tend to be the type of fast game that favours player 1 most. I can think of obvious exceptions though (Governor is super-fast and ends games on Provinces) so seeing the data would be interesting.
EXACTLY. This is one of the reasons I find the three pile rule problematic. The problem is compounded in three player games, where you must pay for the mistakes of the player who is happily draining piles thinking they will get to build a deck, when you helplessly look on in horror, knowing full well he is unwittingly being a king maker and dooming himself.
-
For further reading, see the TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub).
The TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Scrubs)?
Haha, meant plural for "Scrub", not the show...at least my link did point to the right place.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
Isnt there a mercy rule in baseball?
Pretty sure there's not in MLB, but in the one summer of little league I played I think there was 10-run mercy rule. No idea about any other levels.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
I'd say when your opponent can't take any more turns, they've definitely been rendered powerless :P
Do you also feel it's wrong to beat an opponent whose only points are from playing a bunch of Monuments every turn? If they haven't greened at all, they're definitely far from "powerless."
Re:baseball, the rules of the game specify 9 innings (or 8.5 if the home team is already ahead at that point), so you play 9 (or 8.5) innings...the Dominion rules specify empty Provinces, Colonies, or any 3 piles, so you play till that point. A second inning walk-off grand slam is more like buying a Province on turn 3 and declaring victory than it is like a sudden 3-pile ending.
I'm saying imagine if the rules of Baseball were different. Imagine if it were possible to prematurely end the game legally while you were ahead.
The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile
-
I'm saying imagine if the rules of Baseball were different. Imagine if it were possible to prematurely end the game legally while you were ahead.
Then the optimal strategy would be to end while you were ahead, and it wouldn't be "premature." I doubt there would be riots, because baseball is an old game and people would be used to the rules. Or they wouldn't have liked it enough for it to be popular enough to have enough fans to get angry enough to riot. (Did I say "enough" enough times? Enough.)
The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile
::)
As much as people here do not like the guy, Sirilin wrote a nice article called "playing to win". It's a good article about competitive mindset, might be worth a read. Your philosophy reminds me of his "scrub mentality". http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/
For further reading, see the TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub). It's written specifically about video games but the principles still apply.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
Isnt there a mercy rule in baseball?
Pretty sure there's not in MLB, but in the one summer of little league I played I think there was 10-run mercy rule. No idea about any other levels.
yeah, in leagues outside the MLB though there is.
At the very least the olympics its 10 runs ahead
-
Wandering Winder, for me to qualify my statements and define everything as precisely as you wish me to, I would need to do a doctoral dissertation on why the three player rule is problematic and why it makes the game more chaotic
I define a slog as a game where there are a lot of curses or ruins floating around and little means to eliminate them. In these same games, its common for two piles to run out faster than normal, therefore it should be obvious to everyone that the game is going to be a three-pile ending, so usually the game becomes a duchy rush, which is as it should be.
To address your comments about gardens, silk roads, etc.. You should have one province or its VP equivalent
The ability to drain three piles to win is simply overpowered. It gives WAY too much advantage to the player who goes first. It skews the game too far in the direction of chaos. There are too few means to defend against it. And if there is a third player they can completely rob you of any hope of defending against people who fully exploit the three pile rule.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
Isnt there a mercy rule in baseball?
Pretty sure there's not in MLB, but in the one summer of little league I played I think there was 10-run mercy rule. No idea about any other levels.
yeah, in leagues outside the MLB though there is.
At the very least the olympics its 10 runs ahead
Well there you go! In dominion you should either give the other players a chance to play their hands and buy whatever VPs are available, or have a rule where they must either have 6 VP minimum or be 3 VP ahead minimum, something along those lines.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.
Well, you're not going to be playing your house rules on Goko either, so why did you suggest them as solutions?
I suggested them as solutions because they are solutions when not playing on Goko. My proposed solutions may be futile for Goko but just because my solutions aren't practical in my case doesn't mean I'm not correct in diagnosing the problem.
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
So you say there's a problem and suggest house rules to fix it. I suggest that in person, they are unnecessary. You then say you were talking about Goko. But when I ask why you suggested house rules, you say you were talking about IRL play. What?
I really dislike David Sirlin, but in this case he's right on the money. You, sir, are a scrub. You get beaten by a legitimate tactic, and instead of trying to adapt to it in future games, you cry "unfair!" and suggest everyone play by your house rules. I suggest you either learn to deal with 3-piling or play a different game that you see as more "fair".
-
In these same games, its common for two piles to run out faster than normal, therefore it should be obvious to everyone that the game is going to be a three-pile ending, so usually the game becomes a duchy rush, which is as it should be.
It should also be obvious that KC engine games with lots of +Buy will end in 3-piles...
(emphasis mine)
I don't see how the three piling rule is a technicality - it's a major part of the game! It enables all kinds of strategies and curbs others. It actually adds tons of strategic depth. It's why you see players skirting around how much they build their engines and buying what look like random duchies at weird points. It's a huge part of the interaction in the game.
Well there you go! In dominion you should either give the other players a chance to play their hands and buy whatever VPs are available, or have a rule where they must either have 6 VP minimum or be 3 VP ahead minimum, something along those lines.
Wasn't Ozle's point about the mercy rule that if a team did get enough runs early it would "prematurely" end the game? I don't see how the mercy rule helps your case.
-
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
(bolding mine)
Why must we admit something which is untrue?
Dominion is the only game I've played whereby you can end the game through a maneuver that doesn't kill or destroy the opponent or render him powerless. If you prematurely end the game before anyone has greened at all you are basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire world, I don't know if you should so easily give players that power.
Imagine if it were possible to get a grand slam in the second inning of baseball, then by some strange maneuver, you could cause the game to end prematurely before the opposing team had an inning to tie or surpass your score.
Fans would riot if this happened.. Cars would be flipped.. And sometimes I feel like flipping a car after this happens in Dominion
Isnt there a mercy rule in baseball?
Pretty sure there's not in MLB, but in the one summer of little league I played I think there was 10-run mercy rule. No idea about any other levels.
yeah, in leagues outside the MLB though there is.
At the very least the olympics its 10 runs ahead
Well there you go! In dominion you should either give the other players a chance to play their hands and buy whatever VPs are available, or have a rule where they must either have 6 VP minimum or be 3 VP ahead minimum, something along those lines.
Thats the complete opposite of the mercy rule
In Baseball that ends the game
To apply your analogy to baseball you would let them score a few more home runs before your started scoring to end the game.
-
In dominion you should either give the other players a chance to play their hands and buy whatever VPs are available, or have a rule where they must either have 6 VP minimum or be 3 VP ahead minimum, something along those lines.
But then you are disallowing many strategies. Many times it is not possible to buy a Province, yet you can win off Silk Roads or Gardens. Would I then have to wait around until my opponent buys a Province just so that I can buy the last Garden? That seems silly. Plus I'd just be buying Copper and gaining all kinds of cards to boost my Gardens to more points.
Look, maybe there is a reason that no one is agreeing with you. Have you considered that?
-
Well I'm new here but you're my favorite poster so far. Blueblimp also seems like a most judicious man of discerning tastes and that I would welcome into my cigar room for a game of dominion any day of the week.
The other posters don't dislike you. They just don't agree with you.
Speak for yourself.
-
I'd say a technicality is something which is within the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The three-pile rule is certainly within the spirit of Dominion, but deliberate fouling in Basketball, is that something professional players actually do? I hope fouling doesn't necessarily mean hurting a player on the other team, it would be extremely perverse if there were a strategic advantage in doing that.
See that's just it the three-pile rule was made for the purpose of preventing slogs from going on forever, to put an end to games where players would take forever to get to province buying capacity
The three pile rule was made in this spirit not in the spirit of pile-draining to win. This is a deck-building game, not a pile draining game
Actually the three-pile-rule was made for the purpose of preventing boring Duchy rush games - the original rule was the 1-pile-rule.
The most important change was the end condition. In the original game, if two other people went for Duchies, you had to go for Duchies too; I knew this but it didn't seem like an issue, because all you could do was make the game boring, it didn't just win for you. It turns out that being able to make the game boring is not great. I had already changed the end condition from "any empty pile" to "any empty victory pile," to save on cards. Instead of 12 cards per pile there were 10, except for victory piles; but it played the same as it previously had, because to stop the game from ending you used to have to leave two cards in a pile (if you just left one then whoever was ahead would buy it to lock in the win). Anyway I further modified this to "Provinces empty or 3 piles empty," to make sure that rushing Duchies didn't just end the game without help from something. It was fine if sometimes it was a thing, as long as normally you got to build up your deck. I also raised Province from 5 VP to 6 VP.
EDIT: 1337 posts and 1111 respect! Yay! ;D
You're looking at it backward. The 3-pile rule does not prevent boring Duchy rush games. Obviously, if the rule were only "Provinces empty", that would be just as effective at nerfing Duchy rushes.
Thus, there must be some problem with "Provinces empty" that caused Donald X to add on the additional "3 piles empty" condition.
-
Let me offer an analogy.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.
Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.
Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.
Well, you're not going to be playing your house rules on Goko either, so why did you suggest them as solutions?
I suggested them as solutions because they are solutions when not playing on Goko. My proposed solutions may be futile for Goko but just because my solutions aren't practical in my case doesn't mean I'm not correct in diagnosing the problem.
And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread
So you say there's a problem and suggest house rules to fix it. I suggest that in person, they are unnecessary. You then say you were talking about Goko. But when I ask why you suggested house rules, you say you were talking about IRL play. What?
I really dislike David Sirlin, but in this case he's right on the money. You, sir, are a scrub. You get beaten by a legitimate tactic, and instead of trying to adapt to it in future games, you cry "unfair!" and suggest everyone play by your house rules. I suggest you either learn to deal with 3-piling or play a different game that you see as more "fair".
I suggested rules modifications because I think they would fix a problem. Why are you getting so confused over that?
I can deal with the problem of three-piling but it's almost impossible to defend against when there is a third player who doesn't know how to defend against it, and he unwittingly aids the player who is going for a quick three pile.
-
The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile
Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."
In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.
-
I suggested rules modifications because I think they would fix a problem. Why are you getting so confused over that?
Because there is no problem.
There is something about the game that you do not like, doesn't make it a problem with the game.
It is a problem with your own style of play. And you have brought in your house rules to make it fit.
Nothing wrong with that, your house, your rules, go for it.
But what you have done is lost a game and came here to complain its unfair and the game rule is bad, simply because you personally do not like it.
What people are unanimously saying here, is that is part of the actual game and that your reasoning for not liking it is flawed and doesn't hold up.
you have already shown you have a perchance for exaggeration (Your description of your lost game today for example), so your point of view is holding very little ground.
I think if you could post some actual evidence behind some of your statements people would take it a bit more seriously, but the rest of these guys (Not me of course, I'm one of the cool kids.) are hard core maths nerds. They have done all this analysis in the last few years and can probably back up thier point of view with hard evidence.
-
I can deal with the problem of three-piling but it's almost impossible to defend against when there is a third player who doesn't know how to defend against it, and he unwittingly aids the player who is going for a quick three pile.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1204.msg54383#msg54383
-
The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile
Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."
In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.
Fair enough. Then how about if someone three piles the game the other players get to play their turn and buy whatever they can. That would be a great check and balance for the three pile rule, because as it stands it is highly exploitable in a lot of cases.
-
The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile
Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."
In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.
Fair enough. Then how about if someone three piles the game the other players get to play their turn and buy whatever they can. That would be a great check and balance for the three pile rule, because as it stands it is highly exploitable in a lot of cases.
Look, dude. Don't think for a second that the game's designer and developers didn't even think to put in a rule about equal turns for all players. They intentionally didn't make the game work that way. It just replaces first-player advantage with last-player advantage, and instead of being incentivized to end the game, players are incentivized to draw it out until they're certain the other players can't catch up. Your suggested rule change is a bad one. Period.
-
If you want to design a house rule that favors certain styles of play you enjoy, you could make a thread in the variants forum.
If you want people to help you convince yourself that whenever someone takes advantage of an aspect of a game that you personally dislike and uses that aspect to outplay and defeat you, that that makes that player less awesome than you, no one should or probably will agree with that.
-
The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile
Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."
In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.
Fair enough. Then how about if someone three piles the game the other players get to play their turn and buy whatever they can. That would be a great check and balance for the three pile rule, because as it stands it is highly exploitable in a lot of cases.
Look, dude. Don't think for a second that the game's designer and developers didn't even think to put in a rule about equal turns for all players. They intentionally didn't make the game work that way. It just replaces first-player advantage with last-player advantage, and instead of being incentivized to end the game, players are incentivized to draw it out until they're certain the other players can't catch up. Your suggested rule change is a bad one. Period.
It would give the last player an advantage, sure, but it would act as a deterrent.
Its better to remove the advantage from the player who wants to end the game. If he wants to cause the game to end the burden is on him to be significantly ahead in points that he can handle giving the last players the "advantage" of getting to have a turn also before the game ends
-
To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was. It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.
-
To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was. It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.
Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.
-
To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was. It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.
Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.
Wait, even if the player who's ending the game is last in turn order?
-
To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was. It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.
Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.
Wait, even if the player who's ending the game is last in turn order?
Only if you are first player, sorry
-
To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was. It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.
Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.
Ah, apologies for misunderstanding. In that case, I think the root issue here is that you prefer long games, whereas Dominion is designed to be a short game. Hence, it's unpleasant when the game gets unexpectedly cut short as you're ramping up your deck. I once again suggest you play a different game.
-
I'm going to mention this about house rules:
If the game was badly designed, then you can use house rules. Not too many. There's a game I've played before where we realized something that makes the best card in the game the worst card, so we added a small house rule that barely changed the game to fix it.
If the game was pretty well designed, either play by the rules or don't play. There's no middle ground.
-
Its better to
i found the problem
More seriously: This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about. Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting. If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!
-
Dominion is a card game. It has to be fairly straightforward so that players can quickly set up a game, play, and put it away having had some fun. So yes there are some problems with first player advantage and stack sizes but that's just part of the physical restriction of the game and, as far as anyone can tell, the alternatives are worse. The three pile ending rule eliminates many, many situations where games would never finish (or be so long as to be awful to be play). For that practical reason alone the rule is sensible.
Chess is probably the greatest game of the last 1000 years but people play despite the obvious 1st player advantage and nobody has a better solution than just to swap the start player after a game.
-
I'm going to mention this about house rules:
If the game was badly designed, then you can use house rules. Not too many. There's a game I've played before where we realized something that makes the best card in the game the worst card, so we added a small house rule that barely changed the game to fix it.
If the game was pretty well designed, either play by the rules or don't play. There's no middle ground.
I disagree; if a house rule makes the game more balanced and/or enjoyable (without harming the other) then there's no real reason not too just because the game isn't broken (although the only house rule I play is always shelters if rebuild is in the kingdom).
-
Its better to
i found the problem
More seriously: This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about. Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting. If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!
That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though
I love Dominion its my favorite game
-
Its better to
i found the problem
More seriously: This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about. Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting. If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!
That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though
I love Dominion its my favorite game
I know that this is a bit blunt, but what you're wanting to play isn't Dominion.
-
Its better to
i found the problem
More seriously: This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about. Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting. If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!
That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though
I think you are confusing opinion with fact. You are neither right nor wrong that the rule is flawed (and I was wrong to suggest that your house rule is flat-out bad). It is simply your opinion, one that is by-and-large not shared by this community. I think if you keep playing by the actual rules, you will eventually learn to identify when the opponent can 3-pile and take appropriate precautions. Moreover, as you get better you'll learn to build fancy decks much faster, so that your opponent won't be able to end the game before your deck is "ready".
If, on the other hand, you choose to play your house rules, you will be unlikely to develop these skills, since the game will have a completely different tempo.
-
The ability to drain three piles to win is simply overpowered. It gives WAY too much advantage to the player who goes first. It skews the game too far in the direction of chaos. There are too few means to defend against it. And if there is a third player they can completely rob you of any hope of defending against people who fully exploit the three pile rule.
Militia gives advantage to the player who goes first. Sea Hag gives advantage to the player who goes first. A lot of things give advantage to the player who goes first. There are means to defend against first-player advantage in general and there are means to defend against a three-pile ending and they are always present in every game - the means to defend against a Province ending are much rarer. And yeah, a clueless third player has a tendency to make the game awful for everyone for multiple reasons (my least favorite is Possession), but that has nothing to do with the 3-pile-rule so you are strongly advised to play strictly 2p games in the future.
You're looking at it backward. The 3-pile rule does not prevent boring Duchy rush games. Obviously, if the rule were only "Provinces empty", that would be just as effective at nerfing Duchy rushes.
Thus, there must be some problem with "Provinces empty" that caused Donald X to add on the additional "3 piles empty" condition.
Or maybe there just never was a "Provinces empty" version of the game, because Donald X. thought that the occasional Duchy rush might be interesting if it required something more. At least that's what the quote from Donald X. seems to imply. I could be wrong though; if you happen to have a quote or a link of Donald X. saying that there was a "Provinces empty" version which didn't work, please inform me about it.
That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though
True, that doesn't mean you're not right. You're wrong for whole other reasons. ;)
-
I'm going to mention this about house rules:
If the game was badly designed, then you can use house rules. Not too many. There's a game I've played before where we realized something that makes the best card in the game the worst card, so we added a small house rule that barely changed the game to fix it.
If the game was pretty well designed, either play by the rules or don't play. There's no middle ground.
Eh?
That's the very definitions of house rules surely.
If you want to make up your own rules for a game you can, irrespective of whether they make the game better or worse, shorter or longer and irrespective on how well the game is designed! Thats why they are called HOUSE rules. My house, my rules.
I could take bridge and make it so that one person doesn't sit out for 1/4 of the time. Sure, it would be a stupid thing to do, but I can do it...
-
You're looking at it backward. The 3-pile rule does not prevent boring Duchy rush games. Obviously, if the rule were only "Provinces empty", that would be just as effective at nerfing Duchy rushes.
Thus, there must be some problem with "Provinces empty" that caused Donald X to add on the additional "3 piles empty" condition.
Or maybe there just never was a "Provinces empty" version of the game, because Donald X. thought that the occasional Duchy rush might be interesting if it required something more. At least that's what the quote from Donald X. seems to imply. I could be wrong though; if you happen to have a quote or a link of Donald X. saying that there was a "Provinces empty" version which didn't work, please inform me about it.
It's irrelevant what Donald X says. He may have gone directly from "any victory pile empty" to "Provinces empty or any 3 piles empty" (although it's unimaginable that he didn't at least consider "Provinces empty" in his mind first), but this is a logical argument. "The three-pile-rule was made for the purpose of preventing boring Duchy rush games" only makes sense if the three-pile-rule somehow prevents Duchy rushes, which it doesn't at all.
-
It's irrelevant what Donald X says. He may have gone directly from "any victory pile empty" to "Provinces empty or any 3 piles empty" (although it's unimaginable that he didn't at least consider "Provinces empty" in his mind first), but this is a logical argument. "The three-pile-rule was made for the purpose of preventing boring Duchy rush games" only makes sense if the three-pile-rule somehow prevents Duchy rushes, which it doesn't at all.
It does, compared to the one-pile-rule.
-
It's irrelevant what Donald X says. He may have gone directly from "any victory pile empty" to "Provinces empty or any 3 piles empty" (although it's unimaginable that he didn't at least consider "Provinces empty" in his mind first), but this is a logical argument. "The three-pile-rule was made for the purpose of preventing boring Duchy rush games" only makes sense if the three-pile-rule somehow prevents Duchy rushes, which it doesn't at all.
It does, compared to the one-pile-rule.
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
-
Mmmmm cheap entrees......
-
I suggested rules modifications because I think they would fix a problem. Why are you getting so confused over that?
I can deal with the problem of three-piling but it's almost impossible to defend against when there is a third player who doesn't know how to defend against it, and he unwittingly aids the player who is going for a quick three pile.
Read the article on scrubs, here:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html
THERE IS NO PROBLEM. You are the guy that is screaming "you only use one move". You are just not willing to accept that 3-pilling is a legitimate tactic and actually try to play around it and counter it. Instead you whine.
Edit: And you do not get to say "it's not the same, cause this ends the game immediately". If you do so, you are just trying to find superfluous reasons to justify your stance. It's the same.
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
That's why pro poker tourneys play a set amount of hands.
Baically WW summed up everyhting, I don't understand how you don't see how your rules are EXTREMELY subjective. For example, rules on what a slog is, or, more importantly, the rule on WHAT IS ACTUALLY FAIR. You find that what is actually fair is .. well, what your subjective judgement of fair is.
When I offered some other "unfair" scenarios, you disregarded them, and said "Well, that's ok, thats different kind of luck". Don't you see the hypocrisy?
Also, less important, the sideffect of your rule would be that players that can do a huge turn will no do so, because they are not allowed to end the game as well. Instead, they buy more components and pass. Because, if they buy anything, their opponent have the chance to buy more and end the game. And than will do the same. Only time it is actually safe to make a play is when you can buy more than half of points.
And that is not importnat at all as the actual rule of "no early 3-piling" is not important as much as the fact that you are extremely .. scrubing.
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING. And it's actually fine.
Edit: Oh, and do you know about King's Court-Masquerade-Goons lock? ;D ;D
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING. And it's actually fine.
Edit: Oh, and do you know about King's Court-Masquerade-Goons lock? ;D ;D
ya i know what ur saying with Magic.. I retired from Magic after flipping a table at a tournament, believe it or not
-
By the way, kudos for sticking around Count
Most people on hearing their way of playing was wrong and rubbish would have stormed off in a huff by now, but you are still here, discussing away reasonably.
Even if we disagree completely I doff my cap to you*
*Except im not wearing a hat (and I really should, I have started thinning on top and im a bit self conscious about it, although if i wore a hat for this reason I would probably be very unlikely to doff it because this would draw attention to the very area I am wearing the hat to hide in the first place)
ARGGGH, what a dilemma, I bet this is what Plato meant when he said "ΔἚὊἴἦ ᾮᾫὖᾅ Ἶ ὔἂ ἻἫὉΦο ΕΜΞ ΞύΒ γύπ" which roughly translates as 'A man with something to hide should split no hairs.
Although that could have been Confuscious (the green dressed man from TinTin wasn't he?), I am always getting him and Plato mixed up. Which one was killed by the turtle? and not the TMNT because they would never kill anyone, heroes in a half shell you see, and hero's don't kill, thats what I learnt from the A-Team...except for that one time with General Fulbright, but that was more an omission than an actual killing by the team, im sure it wasn't part of the plan!
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING.
Except FoW (and a few others that weren't relevant the last time I followed Legacy scene).
-
By the way, kudos for sticking around Count
Most people on hearing their way of playing was wrong and rubbish would have stormed off in a huff by now, but you are still here, discussing away reasonably.
Even if we disagree completely I doff my cap to you*
*Except im not wearing a hat (and I really should, I have started thinning on top and im a bit self conscious about it, although if i wore a hat for this reason I would probably be very unlikely to doff it because this would draw attention to the very area I am wearing the hat to hide in the first place)
ARGGGH, what a dilemma, I bet this is what Plato meant when he said "ΔἚὊἴἦ ᾮᾫὖᾅ Ἶ ὔἂ ἻἫὉΦο ΕΜΞ ΞύΒ γύπ" which roughly translates as 'A man with something to hide should split no hairs.
Although that could have been Confuscious (the green dressed man from TinTin wasn't he?), I am always getting him and Plato mixed up. Which one was killed by the turtle? and not the TMNT because they would never kill anyone, heroes in a half shell you see, and hero's don't kill, thats what I learnt from the A-Team...except for that one time with General Fulbright, but that was more an omission than an actual killing by the team, im sure it wasn't part of the plan!
Thanks I'm an open-minded guy and there is a reason why my thread title is a question and not a statement. I've learned a lot from you all and I think you all make valid points. I think interacting with this community will make me a much more mature and seasoned player
-
By the way, kudos for sticking around Count
Most people on hearing their way of playing was wrong and rubbish would have stormed off in a huff by now, but you are still here, discussing away reasonably.
Even if we disagree completely I doff my cap to you*
*Except im not wearing a hat (and I really should, I have started thinning on top and im a bit self conscious about it, although if i wore a hat for this reason I would probably be very unlikely to doff it because this would draw attention to the very area I am wearing the hat to hide in the first place)
ARGGGH, what a dilemma, I bet this is what Plato meant when he said "ΔἚὊἴἦ ᾮᾫὖᾅ Ἶ ὔἂ ἻἫὉΦο ΕΜΞ ΞύΒ γύπ" which roughly translates as 'A man with something to hide should split no hairs.
Although that could have been Confuscious (the green dressed man from TinTin wasn't he?), I am always getting him and Plato mixed up. Which one was killed by the turtle? and not the TMNT because they would never kill anyone, heroes in a half shell you see, and hero's don't kill, thats what I learnt from the A-Team...except for that one time with General Fulbright, but that was more an omission than an actual killing by the team, im sure it wasn't part of the plan!
Thanks I'm an open-minded guy and there is a reason why my thread title is a question and not a statement. I've learned a lot from you all and I think you all make valid points. I think interacting with this community will make me a much more mature and seasoned player
This is not how the internet is supposed to work. wtf is wrong with f.ds for serious
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING.
Except FoW (and a few others that weren't relevant the last time I followed Legacy scene).
I didn't want to get into details, but yes, Force of Will, Misdirection and Mind Trap are the few spells (from top of my mind) that you can actually manage to play without any lands, and they keep such decks in check. (Only FoW is maindeck material, though, other two are strictly sideboard).
@Count Grishnakh - there is a combo in dominion that once it connects, you're opponent cannot do anything for the rest of the game. Basically, you trim your deck to KC, KC, Goons, Masquerade, you play KC-KC than triple goons (opponent discards to 3) than Masq. He passes you a card, and you have no cards to pass. Than, you destroy the card that he passed you. You repeat this 3 times. He is left with no hand and has to end his turn. You end up with same deck and can repeat this. Is that fair?
-
Game 2 in this thread is an example of what Wandering Winder is talking about. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9575.msg307914#msg307914) The whole strategy for the game (KC-KC-Bridge-Bridge-Bridge) relies on you being really careful about not letting piles get too low and whether to buy an Estate or Duchy "early" to put yourself in the lead. Sure, the goal is to empty all the Provinces in one turn, but how you go about doing that depends very much on avoiding giving your opponent a chance to three-pile.
Luck plays a pretty significant role in Dominion. The solution is to play more games of Dominion! Donald X. designed the game as a high skill AND high luck game -- it's why many of us (esp. me) on the forum like it. When playing games with friends it's nice that people of lower skill levels have a chance to win. And while in some games (KC games, especially) luck plays a larger than normal role, that can be fun for people.
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING.
Except FoW (and a few others that weren't relevant the last time I followed Legacy scene).
I didn't want to get into details, but yes, Force of Will, Misdirection and Mind Trap are the few spells (from top of my mind) that you can actually manage to play without any lands, and they keep such decks in check. (Only FoW is maindeck material, though, other two are strictly sideboard).
@Count Grishnakh - there is a combo in dominion that once it connects, you're opponent cannot do anything for the rest of the game. Basically, you trim your deck to KC, KC, Goons, Masquerade, you play KC-KC than triple goons (opponent discards to 3) than Masq. He passes you a card, and you have no cards to pass. Than, you destroy the card that he passed you. You repeat this 3 times. He is left with no hand and has to end his turn. You end up with same deck and can repeat this. Is that fair?
Uhh, that's a shockingly awful combo.. But if someone pulls it off, I guess it's game over. At least that would make sense to me if I lost. I would walk away with the impression "Okay, so my opponent held a masquerade, invited me to join, hired a bunch of goons to infiltrate it and they robbed me blind"
that at least makes sense to me, thematically. But a premature three pile ending to me is nonsensical.. I feel like they basically summoned Azathoth to destroy the world by buying the last two vagrants of the last pile.. just doesn't make sense to me, its a tough pill to awallow.
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING.
Except FoW (and a few others that weren't relevant the last time I followed Legacy scene).
I didn't want to get into details, but yes, Force of Will, Misdirection and Mind Trap are the few spells (from top of my mind) that you can actually manage to play without any lands, and they keep such decks in check. (Only FoW is maindeck material, though, other two are strictly sideboard).
@Count Grishnakh - there is a combo in dominion that once it connects, you're opponent cannot do anything for the rest of the game. Basically, you trim your deck to KC, KC, Goons, Masquerade, you play KC-KC than triple goons (opponent discards to 3) than Masq. He passes you a card, and you have no cards to pass. Than, you destroy the card that he passed you. You repeat this 3 times. He is left with no hand and has to end his turn. You end up with same deck and can repeat this. Is that fair?
Uhh, that's a shockingly awful combo.. But if someone pulls it off, I guess it's game over. At least that would make sense to me if I lost. I would walk away with the impression "Okay, so my opponent held a masquerade, invited me to join, hired a bunch of goons to infiltrate it and they robbed me blind"
that at least makes sense to me, thematically. But a premature three pile ending to me is nonsensical.. I feel like they basically summoned Azathoth to destroy the world by buying the last two vagrants of the last pile.. just doesn't make sense to me, its a tough pill to awallow.
Dominion as a whole doesn't make ANY sense thematically.
-
@Count Grishnakh - there is a combo in dominion that once it connects, you're opponent cannot do anything for the rest of the game. Basically, you trim your deck to KC, KC, Goons, Masquerade, you play KC-KC than triple goons (opponent discards to 3) than Masq. He passes you a card, and you have no cards to pass. Than, you destroy the card that he passed you. You repeat this 3 times. He is left with no hand and has to end his turn. You end up with same deck and can repeat this. Is that fair?
Uhh, that's a shockingly awful combo.. But if someone pulls it off, I guess it's game over. At least that would make sense to me if I lost. I would walk away with the impression "Okay, so my opponent held a masquerade, invited me to join, hired a bunch of goons to infiltrate it and they robbed me blind"
that at least makes sense to me, thematically. But a premature three pile ending to me is nonsensical.. I feel like they basically summoned Azathoth to destroy the world by buying the last two vagrants of the last pile.. just doesn't make sense to me, its a tough pill to awallow.
I love that combo. I have never successfully executed it though. Most of the game reports that you see with the KC-[discard]-masquerade appear in the "my dear opponent I am so sorry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=386.0)" thread. My favorite of these is when liopoil executed the trap in glorious fashion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=386.msg263004#msg263004).
(http://i.qkme.me/3v0fld.jpg)
-
that at least makes sense to me, thematically. But a premature three pile ending to me is nonsensical.. I feel like they basically summoned Azathoth to destroy the world by buying the last two vagrants of the last pile.. just doesn't make sense to me, its a tough pill to awallow.
Well, them's the rules.
-
My favorite of these is when liopoil executed the trap in glorious fashion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=386.msg263004#msg263004)
But that wasn't even a true pin... it didn't have a discard attack, it used outpost. And there was a non-zero chance that the pin would break if I got a hand full of KC on my outpost turn or regular turn. (I was drawing+playing my deck with KC-cantrip before playing the masq.
-
My favorite of these is when liopoil executed the trap in glorious fashion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=386.msg263004#msg263004)
But that wasn't even a true pin... it didn't have a discard attack, it used outpost. And there was a non-zero chance that the pin would break if I got a hand full of KC on my outpost turn or regular turn. (I was drawing+playing my deck with KC-cantrip before playing the masq.
you are right. But you still pulled off enough of a pin that your opponent resigned.
-
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
That's why pro poker tourneys play a set amount of hands.
To be clear, most professional poker is played in cash games, where there is most certainly not a set amount of hands. Tournament play is what's televised because it's more dramatic and has a better narrative for an audience, not because it's "better" or "more fair" or "more professional".
That said, in reference to the original example, any poker player who gets butthurt because someone did that is an idiot. Anyone is perfectly free to walk with their winnings... and if they're no good, I'm perfectly fine with taking their money some other time, or with taking someone else's money.
-
Dominion rules wise (in terms of game mechanics) is set up about as fair as any game I've seen. Yes there is P1 advantage in some games, but most of that is due to individual cards that provide a P1 advantage. I think there is room to say some cards (scout, adventurer) would be more interesting if they were slightly stronger, but those changes are minor and eh, some card has to be the worst card. I also think some unintended card combos (possession/ambassador and kc/goons/masq come to mind) the game would be better off without, but they're only present in a few games, and well it's not easy to fix them.
House rules are fine (for example, at my house in ping pong you can't lose by missing a serve) if they make it more fun for you, but in general they do not make it a better game. Often if is omitting a rule, there is a reason the designer put it in there. In this situation, it sounds like you are advocating 3 piling to be allowed in some games but not in others. However, you are unable to give firm lines as to when it would be allowed. And a rule of "You can three pile if I think its ok" is certainly the worst rule possible that is just designed because you are afraid of losing to better players. If this is what you are asking for.
-
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
That's why pro poker tourneys play a set amount of hands.
To be clear, most professional poker is played in cash games, where there is most certainly not a set amount of hands. Tournament play is what's televised because it's more dramatic and has a better narrative for an audience, not because it's "better" or "more fair" or "more professional".
That said, in reference to the original example, any poker player who gets butthurt because someone did that is an idiot. Anyone is perfectly free to walk with their winnings... and if they're no good, I'm perfectly fine with taking their money some other time, or with taking someone else's money.
My bad.
-
Dominion rules wise (in terms of game mechanics) is set up about as fair as any game I've seen. Yes there is P1 advantage in some games, but most of that is due to individual cards that provide a P1 advantage. I think there is room to say some cards (scout, adventurer) would be more interesting if they were slightly stronger, but those changes are minor and eh, some card has to be the worst card. I also think some unintended card combos (possession/ambassador and kc/goons/masq come to mind) the game would be better off without, but they're only present in a few games, and well it's not easy to fix them.
House rules are fine (for example, at my house in ping pong you can't lose by missing a serve) if they make it more fun for you, but in general they do not make it a better game. Often if is omitting a rule, there is a reason the designer put it in there. In this situation, it sounds like you are advocating 3 piling to be allowed in some games but not in others. However, you are unable to give firm lines as to when it would be allowed. And a rule of "You can three pile if I think its ok" is certainly the worst rule possible that is just designed because you are afraid of losing to better players. If this is what you are asking for.
Actually I did define when it is acceptable to to 3 pile: When you have a province or its equivalent or more
I pursue 3 pile strategies all the time, I'm just not the opportunistic buy an estate and drain the last pile kinda guy
-
And please do not try playing competitive Magic, especially not Legacy, where many decks (Belcher and Ooops, no Lands, for example) can end the game on their turn 1. Thats before you had an opportunity to play ANYTHING.
Except FoW (and a few others that weren't relevant the last time I followed Legacy scene).
I didn't want to get into details, but yes, Force of Will, Misdirection and Mind Trap are the few spells (from top of my mind) that you can actually manage to play without any lands, and they keep such decks in check. (Only FoW is maindeck material, though, other two are strictly sideboard).
@Count Grishnakh - there is a combo in dominion that once it connects, you're opponent cannot do anything for the rest of the game. Basically, you trim your deck to KC, KC, Goons, Masquerade, you play KC-KC than triple goons (opponent discards to 3) than Masq. He passes you a card, and you have no cards to pass. Than, you destroy the card that he passed you. You repeat this 3 times. He is left with no hand and has to end his turn. You end up with same deck and can repeat this. Is that fair?
Uhh, that's a shockingly awful combo.. But if someone pulls it off, I guess it's game over. At least that would make sense to me if I lost. I would walk away with the impression "Okay, so my opponent held a masquerade, invited me to join, hired a bunch of goons to infiltrate it and they robbed me blind"
that at least makes sense to me, thematically. But a premature three pile ending to me is nonsensical.. I feel like they basically summoned Azathoth to destroy the world by buying the last two vagrants of the last pile.. just doesn't make sense to me, its a tough pill to awallow.
Dominion as a whole doesn't make ANY sense thematically.
Seems like a good time to use this:
(http://i.qkme.me/3rytu1.jpg)
-
Actually I did define when it is acceptable to to 3 pile: When you have a province or its equivalent or more
I pursue 3 pile strategies all the time, I'm just not the opportunistic buy an estate and drain the last pile kinda guy
I'm sorry, but if you're beaten by someone who buys an Estate and then proceeds to empty out three piles, you deserve to lose.
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
Are blue service animals allowed in the restaraunt?
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
Are blue service animals allowed in the restaraunt?
Only when they're giving out free pizza.
-
Just wrapped up a Trader/Feodum game where I three piled the Silvers, Feoda and Duchies.
I suppose in reality it was just a boring duchy rush game wherein I proved to be a exploitative, dishonorable wretch for ending it in 3 piles while the other fool tried to run out the Provinces, because, you know it wasn't at all the tactically intelligent strategy.
-
This is a big thread that massively exploded right from it's conception, so I haven't read
anything everything - which means my following point might have been made already. But I'm going to make it anyway.
In Dominion, the objective is not to have the most points when the game ends. The objective to have the game end when you have the most points.
This fundamental understanding of the objective of the game changes a lot of the perspective on how you should play. Ending the game isn't just something which will eventually happen, but should in fact be a part of your goal. In fact, in many engine type games, you might be more concerned with the question of 'can I end the game' than 'can I score points'!
That said, the points obviously still matter. You need to have more of them before you end the game - or a means to get more when you do end the game. Therefore, getting a single Province when piles begin to run low can be a very powerful move. Now your opponent might be able to end the game, but they won't be able to have more points when they do it. Conversely they might end up with more points from their turn, but they won't end the game, giving you a chance to do so instead.
And of course as seems to be always the case in Dominion, edge cases apply. 3+ player games are fundamentally different because someone may end the game as strong second instead of possibly being overtaken. Sometimes (actually not too infrequently) racing to get 1/2 of the points is a better choice than just ending the game - once you have half the points, you can't lose. etc.
-
This is a big thread that massively exploded right from it's conception, so I haven't read anything - which means my following point might have been made already. But I'm going to make it anyway.
In Dominion, the objective is not to have the most points when the game ends. The objective to have the game end when you have the most points.
That specific point wasn't made, but I absolutely love the way you've phrased that!
-
Just wrapped up a Trader/Feodum game where I three piled the Silvers, Feoda and Duchies.
I suppose in reality it was just a boring duchy rush game wherein I proved to be a exploitative, dishonorable wretch for ending it in 3 piles while the other fool tried to run out the Provinces, because, you know it wasn't at all the tactically intelligent strategy.
Nope I applaud your strategy ANY alternate VP strategy SHOULD aim to three pile the game before all of the provinces have been pulled.. Please remember, everyone I'm referring to premature three piles, such as grabbing an estate and three-piling for the win on your turn
I finished a colony / feodum game with traders, bandit camp, journeyman and festival... My deck was so well executed that I was able to pull 3 of the 8 colonies along with 6 feodums that were worth 8 VP each
-
(http://i.qkme.me/3v0fld.jpg)
Any quote of my meme gets an upvote from me.
-
Any quote of my meme gets an upvote from me.
any
-
Just wrapped up a Trader/Feodum game where I three piled the Silvers, Feoda and Duchies.
I suppose in reality it was just a boring duchy rush game wherein I proved to be a exploitative, dishonorable wretch for ending it in 3 piles while the other fool tried to run out the Provinces, because, you know it wasn't at all the tactically intelligent strategy.
Those games are so much fun! Have you tried this with Masterpiece yet? I'd say it's easier, as you empty out the Masterpieces at the same time as the Silvers, so you don't have to worry about Duchies.
-
Dominion rules wise (in terms of game mechanics) is set up about as fair as any game I've seen. Yes there is P1 advantage in some games, but most of that is due to individual cards that provide a P1 advantage. I think there is room to say some cards (scout, adventurer) would be more interesting if they were slightly stronger, but those changes are minor and eh, some card has to be the worst card. I also think some unintended card combos (possession/ambassador and kc/goons/masq come to mind) the game would be better off without, but they're only present in a few games, and well it's not easy to fix them.
House rules are fine (for example, at my house in ping pong you can't lose by missing a serve) if they make it more fun for you, but in general they do not make it a better game. Often if is omitting a rule, there is a reason the designer put it in there. In this situation, it sounds like you are advocating 3 piling to be allowed in some games but not in others. However, you are unable to give firm lines as to when it would be allowed. And a rule of "You can three pile if I think its ok" is certainly the worst rule possible that is just designed because you are afraid of losing to better players. If this is what you are asking for.
Actually I did define when it is acceptable to to 3 pile: When you have a province or its equivalent or more
I pursue 3 pile strategies all the time, I'm just not the opportunistic buy an estate and drain the last pile kinda guy
Oh so the game you're complaining about is OK since your opponent bought the equivalent of 2 provinces. Gotcha.
-
Dominion rules wise (in terms of game mechanics) is set up about as fair as any game I've seen. Yes there is P1 advantage in some games, but most of that is due to individual cards that provide a P1 advantage. I think there is room to say some cards (scout, adventurer) would be more interesting if they were slightly stronger, but those changes are minor and eh, some card has to be the worst card. I also think some unintended card combos (possession/ambassador and kc/goons/masq come to mind) the game would be better off without, but they're only present in a few games, and well it's not easy to fix them.
House rules are fine (for example, at my house in ping pong you can't lose by missing a serve) if they make it more fun for you, but in general they do not make it a better game. Often if is omitting a rule, there is a reason the designer put it in there. In this situation, it sounds like you are advocating 3 piling to be allowed in some games but not in others. However, you are unable to give firm lines as to when it would be allowed. And a rule of "You can three pile if I think its ok" is certainly the worst rule possible that is just designed because you are afraid of losing to better players. If this is what you are asking for.
Actually I did define when it is acceptable to to 3 pile: When you have a province or its equivalent or more
I pursue 3 pile strategies all the time, I'm just not the opportunistic buy an estate and drain the last pile kinda guy
Oh so the game you're complaining about is OK since your opponent bought the equivalent of 2 provinces. Gotcha.
ya, after reviewing the log I've changed my opinion on that game
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?
Without that rule, we would have the 1-pile-rule. I think it makes perfect sense to go from 1 pile to Provinces or 3 piles with the purpose of making Duchy rushes more difficult to pull off.
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?
What's going on here is that you and Awaclus have different interpretations of what "without that rule" means. To you, it means "strike that rule from the current rulebook, leaving other rules the same as they are now"; to Awaclus, it means "return to the status quo ante before that rule was instituted".
In the latter case, what the game would be like without the 3-pile ending rule is that it would have the "game ends when any one pile is empty" rule, in which Duchy rushing is strong. The reason the game has the 3-pile rule is to eliminate that.
-
Any sensible poker player understands that it's your money and you are free to leave with it any time you want. Choosing when to cash out is an important aspect of poker strategy, and the best players know when is best to do so (hint: it's not when you have a big lead against weaker players)
-
I love three-piling actually. I love winning a game with negative points, stuff like that. The only "bad" way of winning at Dominion is when you're unnecessarily drawing it out.
I played a game with someone on the forums recently (I forget who you were, but it was fun!) that I lost 0 to -1. It was incredible.
-
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
That's why pro poker tourneys play a set amount of hands.
To be clear, most professional poker is played in cash games, where there is most certainly not a set amount of hands. Tournament play is what's televised because it's more dramatic and has a better narrative for an audience, not because it's "better" or "more fair" or "more professional".
That said, in reference to the original example, any poker player who gets butthurt because someone did that is an idiot. Anyone is perfectly free to walk with their winnings... and if they're no good, I'm perfectly fine with taking their money some other time, or with taking someone else's money.
Do they actually televise tournaments with a set amount of hands? A few years ago I went through a phase where I watched a lot of WPT and such, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have fixed number of hands. Players are free to bet within the rules, go all in, etc. They never suddenly stop on hand X and see who has the most money left -- they play all the way until someone has all the chips.
Then the game is edited to fit within the time they have to show it on TV, showing the most exciting hands and cutting out all the hands where everyone just folds all around. :P
Just wrapped up a Trader/Feodum game where I three piled the Silvers, Feoda and Duchies.
I suppose in reality it was just a boring duchy rush game wherein I proved to be a exploitative, dishonorable wretch for ending it in 3 piles while the other fool tried to run out the Provinces, because, you know it wasn't at all the tactically intelligent strategy.
Nope I applaud your strategy ANY alternate VP strategy SHOULD aim to three pile the game before all of the provinces have been pulled.. Please remember, everyone I'm referring to premature three piles, such as grabbing an estate and three-piling for the win on your turn
I finished a colony / feodum game with traders, bandit camp, journeyman and festival... My deck was so well executed that I was able to pull 3 of the 8 colonies along with 6 feodums that were worth 8 VP each
The problem with this argument is that "premature" is arbitrarily defined. 3-pile endings don't just come out of nowhere. Part of the strategy of Dominion is watching the piles as they run low and paying attention to your opponent's deck. How much buying power do they have? How many +Buys can they accumulate in a single turn? There are game recaps in the forum from top players where they talk about how these things factored into their decisions.
If a player is able to buy an Estate and then 3-pile, it's because they built a powerful deck with lots of buying power and +Buy. Or the piles got low and you didn't react properly.
Yes, sometimes it does come down to luck, but that can happen outside of the 3-pile rule too. Oh, I just so happened to connect Tournament+Province first. Hey, my Sea Hag flipped yours three times in a row. Wow, I just so happened to have that single Curse in my hand every time you played Mountebank, and you somehow never managed to block my MB despite you having 6 Curses in your deck.
In the long run though, skill trumps all of these luck-driven victories. A player who always goes for Treasure Map might scrape a fluke win over Stef or WW once in a while, but they'll get crushed the vast majority of the time.
Dominion is a game of both luck and skill. Part of that skill is in making your own luck, and making the most of your luck. There is no dishonour in creating a deck that can threaten the 3-pile and ending the game on a win when you are able.
-
Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....
-
Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....
It is the epitome of luck-based cards, I think. Completely useless when they whiff, but clearly profitable when they work. It's certainly not a guaranteed win, especially when played by a low-skill player against a high-skill player, but it's a very simple and easy to understand example.
-
I can understand where the OP is coming from. It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly. I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling. This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring. And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated. It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game. Except Settlers. Never seem to learn from that mistake.
-
Something I've done before is designing an uber-engine game and playing it solitaire. That's pretty fun.
I haven't been able to do that since Iso died though...
-
I can understand where the OP is coming from. It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly. I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling. This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring. And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated. It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game. Except Settlers. Never seem to learn from that mistake.
Obviously not, if you keep playing Settlers.
-
I can understand where the OP is coming from. It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly. I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling. This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring. And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated. It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game. Except Settlers. Never seem to learn from that mistake.
Obviously not, if you keep playing Settlers.
That's part of why I never learn. I play Settlers once or twice a year, usually in a social context where the only other options are monopoly or risk.
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?
What's going on here is that you and Awaclus have different interpretations of what "without that rule" means. To you, it means "strike that rule from the current rulebook, leaving other rules the same as they are now"; to Awaclus, it means "return to the status quo ante before that rule was instituted".
In the latter case, what the game would be like without the 3-pile ending rule is that it would have the "game ends when any one pile is empty" rule, in which Duchy rushing is strong. The reason the game has the 3-pile rule is to eliminate that.
Right, but it's an interesting question why there is an "x-pile" rule at all. I suppose it's
a) to prevent infinite or very long games when no player can afford Provinces, and/or
b) because the game becomes less interesting when many piles are empty.
You could probably replace 3 piles by 4 (as in 5-6p) without too much detriment, if you prefer a longer/higher-scoring game.
-
As much as people here do not like the guy, Sirilin wrote a nice article called "playing to win". It's a good article about competitive mindset, might be worth a read. Your philosophy reminds me of his "scrub mentality". http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/
For further reading, see the TV Tropes page on Scrubs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub). It's written specifically about video games but the principles still apply.
I just wasted an hour...
-
Something I've done before is designing an uber-engine game and playing it solitaire. That's pretty fun.
I haven't been able to do that since Iso died though...
You can in Secret Chamber, IIRC.
-
I can understand where the OP is coming from. It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly. I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling. This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring. And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated. It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game. Except Settlers. Never seem to learn from that mistake.
I've experienced this in the two games of Power Grid that I've played. In the first one, I noticed last minute that I had a way to win, and I took it. It was unexpected. In the second game, the same thing happened with another player (but it also was due to a really dumb mistake I made the turn before, where I could have guaranteed myself the win if I hadn't gone and built an extra city like a chump). But I think the wins were unexpected because we were all very inexperienced with Power Grid.
I can see the same thing happening with Dominion. A 3-pile ending is surprising if you aren't watching out for it and playing accordingly. But that disappears as you play the game more. I don't get surprised in Settlers because I played it extensively back in high school.
-
Three-piling for the win is an interesting and strategic move, and I think it's not bad.
Something that is bad however (at least in my mind), is dragging on the game when you easily can end it. If I have a mega engine going on and my opponent is floundering and can't do anything, it's better for me to end the game on a three pile if I can easily do it rather than slowly going through the Provinces.
I agree with that. And i would also like to add that knowing when to 3-pile shows skill...
-
Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....
Treasure Map BM beats BMU without any assumptions about luck (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7233.0), so at minimum a T5 hit would be winning vs BMU and probably many weak BM+X too.
-
Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....
Treasure Map BM beats BMU without any assumptions about luck (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7233.0), so at minimum a T5 hit would be winning vs BMU and probably many weak BM+X too.
Which would be relevant if you were playing BMU or weak BM+X often, as opposed to the virtually never that is correct.
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?
What's going on here is that you and Awaclus have different interpretations of what "without that rule" means. To you, it means "strike that rule from the current rulebook, leaving other rules the same as they are now"; to Awaclus, it means "return to the status quo ante before that rule was instituted".
In the latter case, what the game would be like without the 3-pile ending rule is that it would have the "game ends when any one pile is empty" rule, in which Duchy rushing is strong. The reason the game has the 3-pile rule is to eliminate that.
Right, but it's an interesting question why there is an "x-pile" rule at all. I suppose it's
a) to prevent infinite or very long games when no player can afford Provinces, and/or
b) because the game becomes less interesting when many piles are empty.
You could probably replace 3 piles by 4 (as in 5-6p) without too much detriment, if you prefer a longer/higher-scoring game.
To expand upon (a), an x-pile condition is what enables non-Province strategies in general. Gardens, Silk Road, Vineyard, Duchy/Duke, Duchy/IGG, etc. are all strategies where five $8 green cards is not your goal.
-
Something I've done before is designing an uber-engine game and playing it solitaire. That's pretty fun.
I haven't been able to do that since Iso died though...
You can in Secret Chamber, IIRC.
I know that, but I don't have cards.
-
I can understand where the OP is coming from. It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly. I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling. This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring. And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated. It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game. Except Settlers. Never seem to learn from that mistake.
I've experienced this in the two games of Power Grid that I've played. In the first one, I noticed last minute that I had a way to win, and I took it. It was unexpected. In the second game, the same thing happened with another player (but it also was due to a really dumb mistake I made the turn before, where I could have guaranteed myself the win if I hadn't gone and built an extra city like a chump). But I think the wins were unexpected because we were all very inexperienced with Power Grid.
I can see the same thing happening with Dominion. A 3-pile ending is surprising if you aren't watching out for it and playing accordingly. But that disappears as you play the game more. I don't get surprised in Settlers because I played it extensively back in high school.
Thanks for your response.
Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.
Case in point:
I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..
So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.
Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...
So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.
And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because
A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.
So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"
-
But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!
It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."
I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.
I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?
What's going on here is that you and Awaclus have different interpretations of what "without that rule" means. To you, it means "strike that rule from the current rulebook, leaving other rules the same as they are now"; to Awaclus, it means "return to the status quo ante before that rule was instituted".
In the latter case, what the game would be like without the 3-pile ending rule is that it would have the "game ends when any one pile is empty" rule, in which Duchy rushing is strong. The reason the game has the 3-pile rule is to eliminate that.
Right, but it's an interesting question why there is an "x-pile" rule at all. I suppose it's
a) to prevent infinite or very long games when no player can afford Provinces, and/or
b) because the game becomes less interesting when many piles are empty.
You could probably replace 3 piles by 4 (as in 5-6p) without too much detriment, if you prefer a longer/higher-scoring game.
Yeah exactly.In Donald X's own words, the 3 pile rule exists because "You have to end it somewhere" (I am paraphrasing)
Also, the three pile rule is needed to make alternate VP strategies more viable because players who pursue them can end the game before the other players manage to get all the provinces
IMO the three pile rule is okay, the only amendment needed is to allow the other players one last turn to buy what is up for grabs if you decide to three pile. This would act as a deterrent against people who would three pile when they are one point ahead... which is analogous to choosing when to end a race, and choosing to end the race while you happen to be ahead.. its silly
I understand why so many players disagree with me so vehemently.. But dominion must be the only game out there where you can cause the entire game to end by buying something... That alone should be reasons to question whether this rule needs to be amended.
Think of it this way too, Prosperity made the game "bigger" in all aspects, KC drastically changes the scope of what is possible in a turn... It makes the purchasing power too "big" for the 3 pile rule, IMO. Why not officially change the rules to "4 pile" for KC games?
-
What you've been describing all along is pretty much first player advantage. We all acknowledge that there is first player advantage when it comes to three piling. So yes, your complaints are rather justified in this case, because first player can use their extra turn to shut you out of the game.
This has been true since the beginning of Dominion, and we mostly accept that it's an imperfection of the game. But we continue to play anyway, despite that imperfection. The best solution is to just play more games. You may not get to play with the same person again, but so what. Let it go and play a new game, which hopefully you enjoy more.
In tournaments, this kind of thing is addressed by alternating first player. That seems to be the best solution we've come up with so far.
-
What you've been describing all along is pretty much first player advantage. We all acknowledge that there is first player advantage when it comes to three piling. So yes, your complaints are rather justified in this case, because first player can use their extra turn to shut you out of the game.
This has been true since the beginning of Dominion, and we mostly accept that it's an imperfection of the game. But we continue to play anyway, despite that imperfection. The best solution is to just play more games. You may not get to play with the same person again, but so what. Let it go and play a new game, which hopefully you enjoy more.
In tournaments, this kind of thing is addressed by alternating first player. That seems to be the best solution we've come up with so far.
I understand. But I still think the problem is deeper than that. The thing I love in Dominion is that there are so many creative ways of defending yourself. The only card that offers defense against three-piling prematurely is embargo. Even then, it can be weak in many cases for this purpose.
If there were action cards that could do an embargo effect every time you played them, I would be satisied. If there were a card that could "lock" up a pile for x number of turns, I would be satisfied. If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.
I think those who do the quick and dirty three pile ftw have a very strong trump card in their pocket, and perhaps the real problem is a complete lack of cards to combat this strategy.. You must admit its the most vicious attack in the game and the only defense we have is
A) don't buy powerful cards that your opponent is hoarding or
B) Sabotage your deck hand by greening early, which allows him to counter by building a better engine than you, making you wish you bought a king's court instead of that province, or making you wish you bought a platinum instead of that province you bought for insurance.
I realize there are more games than not where you can walk the line with finesse but there are some games where its a lose-lose situation if your opponent is an aggressive three piler.
-
No player can reliably protect against ANY strategy, though.
Thanks for your response.
Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.
Case in point:
I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..
So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.
Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...
So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.
And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because
A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.
So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"
First, three player games are always going to feel "unfair" - with three equal skilled players you only win 1/3 of the time and so on. Yes, this is mostly going to feel like "luck" and "turn order" in a game based on buying a very finite number of cards.
I don't understand your definition of problematic. You've said before that you essentially thinks it's better to let engines "duke it out" in the long run over VP cards piling because this is somehow a better measure of player skill than three pile endings. But in the situation you just described, everyone has the same strategy - you're all just scrambling for villages, wharfs and conspirators.
Where would the skill difference come in if the game continued? You'll end up with the same first player advantage problem when buying out the last few provinces
Making the game last longer (by not letting the game end with three piles) only kicks the can down the road in terms of player advantage.
Your example of why you are helpless if you buy a province ("he'll just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators") ignores the fact that YOU could have started buying VP earlier (say, a province and two estates) so that HE only has enough for a province and one estate and YOU can end the game by buying the last conspirator. So what if the game kept going when the piles are empty? one of you will just win because of shuffle luck or better splits. Same difference.
Sure, you may lose if one of your opponents doesn't stop buying cards and ends the game when he has no chance of winning - but the fact that the three pile rule makes "kingmaking" easier in 3+ player games doesn't make the rule problematic, it makes those players problematic.
-
No player can reliably protect against ANY strategy, though.
Thanks for your response.
Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.
Case in point:
I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..
So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.
Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...
So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.
And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because
A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.
So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"
First, three player games are always going to feel "unfair" - with three equal skilled players you only win 1/3 of the time and so on. Yes, this is mostly going to feel like "luck" and "turn order" in a game based on buying a very finite number of cards.
I don't understand your definition of problematic. You've said before that you essentially thinks it's better to let engines "duke it out" in the long run over VP cards piling because this is somehow a better measure of player skill than three pile endings. But in the situation you just described, everyone has the same strategy - you're all just scrambling for villages, wharfs and conspirators.
Where would the skill difference come in if the game continued? You'll end up with the same first player advantage problem when buying out the last few provinces
Making the game last longer (by not letting the game end with three piles) only kicks the can down the road in terms of player advantage.
Your example of why you are helpless if you buy a province ("he'll just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators") ignores the fact that YOU could have started buying VP earlier (say, a province and two estates) so that HE only has enough for a province and one estate and YOU can end the game by buying the last conspirator. So what if the game kept going when the piles are empty? one of you will just win because of shuffle luck or better splits. Same difference.
Sure, you may lose if one of your opponents doesn't stop buying cards and ends the game when he has no chance of winning - but the fact that the three pile rule makes "kingmaking" easier in 3+ player games doesn't make the rule problematic, it makes those players problematic.
Well I already stayed away from the conspirators in order to stall the three pile ending. He had more of them than me. So it puts me in a situation where if I buy a province, he beats me due to having those extra conspirators. I could try to buy the remaining conspirators and an estate with my turn, but a lot of things would have to line up just right for me to do that
things lined up for him right away, so he was able to drain the third pile because he didn't draw his cards dead whereas I had a wharf and no villages in my hand
So that's what I'm saying, is in games like this, whoever's pieces line up just right first wins.. its totally luck driven and this strategy does skew the game in the direction of luck.. that's all I'm saying.
And even though we had the same decks, there's still meaning in letting the decks square off over a longer game. Just because people essentially have the same decks doesn't mean they'll both execute them as well, or that both players will both make all of the right choices with respect to how they spend their money
My distaste for the "quick and dirty" three pile tactic bothers me because I am trained in statistics and I know the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size, the smaller the sample size, the greater the randomness.
-
I understand. But I still think the problem is deeper than that. The thing I love in Dominion is that there are so many creative ways of defending yourself. The only card that offers defense against three-piling prematurely is embargo. Even then, it can be weak in many cases for this purpose.
If there were action cards that could do an embargo effect every time you played them, I would be satisied. If there were a card that could "lock" up a pile for x number of turns, I would be satisfied. If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.
I think those who do the quick and dirty three pile ftw have a very strong trump card in their pocket, and perhaps the real problem is a complete lack of cards to combat this strategy.. You must admit its the most vicious attack in the game and the only defense we have is
A) don't buy powerful cards that your opponent is hoarding or
B) Sabotage your deck hand by greening early, which allows him to counter by building a better engine than you, making you wish you bought a king's court instead of that province, or making you wish you bought a platinum instead of that province you bought for insurance.
I realize there are more games than not where you can walk the line with finesse but there are some games where its a lose-lose situation if your opponent is an aggressive three piler.
You're defining "defense" very narrowly - three piling isn't an attack, it's a game ending condition. You defend against it the same way you defend against someone "attacking" you by buying provinces to end the game: have more victory points when the condition is triggered.
I can't help but think your scenario B amounts to "If I do anything he'll just outplay me" or "It's hard to time my engine, he always does it better than me". I agree with you that KC games can be fast and unpredictable - but I'll tell you one thing, I'm WAY better at them now than when I started playing. There is certainly a skill element.
-
I understand. But I still think the problem is deeper than that. The thing I love in Dominion is that there are so many creative ways of defending yourself. The only card that offers defense against three-piling prematurely is embargo. Even then, it can be weak in many cases for this purpose.
If there were action cards that could do an embargo effect every time you played them, I would be satisied. If there were a card that could "lock" up a pile for x number of turns, I would be satisfied. If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.
I think those who do the quick and dirty three pile ftw have a very strong trump card in their pocket, and perhaps the real problem is a complete lack of cards to combat this strategy.. You must admit its the most vicious attack in the game and the only defense we have is
A) don't buy powerful cards that your opponent is hoarding or
B) Sabotage your deck hand by greening early, which allows him to counter by building a better engine than you, making you wish you bought a king's court instead of that province, or making you wish you bought a platinum instead of that province you bought for insurance.
I realize there are more games than not where you can walk the line with finesse but there are some games where its a lose-lose situation if your opponent is an aggressive three piler.
You're defining "defense" very narrowly - three piling isn't an attack, it's a game ending condition. You defend against it the same way you defend against someone "attacking" you by buying provinces to end the game: have more victory points when the condition is triggered.
I can't help but think your scenario B amounts to "If I do anything he'll just outplay me" or "It's hard to time my engine, he always does it better than me". I agree with you that KC games can be fast and unpredictable - but I'll tell you one thing, I'm WAY better at them now than when I started playing. There is certainly a skill element.
Three piling is indeed an attack. Anything that forces the player to lose is an attack. You're basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire planet when you three pile super early. Think of Arkham horror. If the ancient one awakes you will probably lose, so you try to build yourself up so you are prepared to win if he should awaken. Because this is a central focus of the game, there are items available to combat or delay his awakening
there is nothing to defend from someone doing the quick and dirty three pile on you. I think the reason why Donald didn't give us any cards to defend against this is because he never intended that rule to be exploited quite to the extent that is has been. I don't think Donald X thought it would be such an aggressively pursued tactic, except for the case of non province VP cards, otherwise he would have given us cards that could defend us from 3P
-
Here's a simple solution to make me happy.. Donald make a card that is a reaction card.. when an opponent plays you activate the reaction card and you can choose any non-province pile to block so nobody can buy from that pile if you have this card in your hand
We need cards like this to address this aspect of the game
-
If you see that one or two piles are so low that you might lose before you get another turn, then buy VP so that you will be ahead when the third pile goes out--even if this means buying a Duchy instead of a Kings' Court. If you allow yourself to get more than a Duchy or Province behind your opponent when 3-piling is a danger, then you deserve to lose.
And if he plays some fancy combo (say, KC-KC-Forager-Forager-Fortress when Foragers are worth 4) that lets him buy 8 or 10 cheap cards and win that way, then he deserves to win, even if it's by a score of 4 estates to 3.
Think of Chess: If you set up some fancy attack that lets you promote 3 pawns, but you ignore the fact that your opponent is moving in for a rook/bishop checkmate, then you deserve to lose--no matter how many queens you have on your board at the end.
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
-
I think , CG, that your objection comes from the fact that three piling accentuates first player advantage in certain circumstances and therefore in your view obscures "true" skill at the game.
But look at it this way:
I don't think anyone on this forum will disagree with the fact that certain board/kingdom combinations have larger first player advantages than others. If I open 5/2 on a cultist board with no trashing or sifting, I have no doubt my win percentage is greater than 50% in most circumstances - all through luck. But consider this
1. A single game isn't a good way to judge Dominion skill. It's a fast, random game - you need to play many games against an individual to know who's better and I may win a game through skill (say, because I saw a faster combo/opportunity) against a player who is in general much better than me.
2. Even if your win percentage is low for a given circumstance, you can still improve it through superior play (and your opponent's inferior play). I don't know of any kingdoms with a 100% first player win rate - there's always room for skill to play a factor. Maybe you only win as second player 40% of the time on a given kingdom, but a top 10 player wins 45% of the time... the fact the first player may win more often doesn't impact the ability of win/loss rates to show skill - after all, you're the first player half the time. Dominion is all about maximizing your play under constraints (the kingdom, the hand you drew), this is just another constraint - as are situations where you know you are at a disadvantage from the start.
The fact is, I think any of your fixes actually limit the diversity of strategies one can use and limit the ability of skill to play an impact on the game in the long run.
To be honest, cards that prevent me from three piling would be very frustrating. What's so special about provinces that they can't be blocked? If you want better measures of skill, play more games - don't just turn every game into a province race.
4 provinces 4 estates / 4 provinces 3 estates is just as silly an outcome as anything you've suggested.
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
Because someone on the internet is wrong!
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
http://xkcd.com/386/
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
http://xkcd.com/386/
My sentiments exactly.
-
I think , CG, that your objection comes from the fact that three piling accentuates first player advantage in certain circumstances and therefore in your view obscures "true" skill at the game.
But look at it this way:
I don't think anyone on this forum will disagree with the fact that certain board/kingdom combinations have larger first player advantages than others. If I open 5/2 on a cultist board with no trashing or sifting, I have no doubt my win percentage is greater than 50% in most circumstances - all through luck. But consider this
1. A single game isn't a good way to judge Dominion skill. It's a fast, random game - you need to play many games against an individual to know who's better and I may win a game through skill (say, because I saw a faster combo/opportunity) against a player who is in general much better than me.
2. Even if your win percentage is low for a given circumstance, you can still improve it through superior play (and your opponent's inferior play). I don't know of any kingdoms with a 100% first player win rate - there's always room for skill to play a factor. Maybe you only win as second player 40% of the time on a given kingdom, but a top 10 player wins 45% of the time... the fact the first player may win more often doesn't impact the ability of win/loss rates to show skill - after all, you're the first player half the time. Dominion is all about maximizing your play under constraints (the kingdom, the hand you drew), this is just another constraint - as are situations where you know you are at a disadvantage from the start.
The fact is, I think any of your fixes actually limit the diversity of strategies one can use and limit the ability of skill to play an impact on the game in the long run.
To be honest, cards that prevent me from three piling would be very frustrating. What's so special about provinces that they can't be blocked? If you want better measures of skill, play more games - don't just turn every game into a province race.
4 provinces 4 estates / 4 provinces 3 estates is just as silly an outcome as anything you've suggested.
A card that blocks people from buying provinces or colonies would be overpowered
How about this.... OBSTRUCTIONIST: "while this is in your hand, you may prevent all players from buying cards of your choice except for province and colony. If you select province or colony, players who purchase them must take a curse."
-
Why couldn't it be more like this:
#23396 +(36053)- [X]
<Donut[AFK]> HEY EURAKARTE
<Donut[AFK]> INSULT
<Eurakarte> RETORT
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-RETORT
<Eurakarte> QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
<Donut[AFK]> SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
<Eurakarte> NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
<Donut[AFK]> RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> ADDON RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> COUNTER-RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
<Miles_Prower> RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
<Eurakarte> WORDS OF PRAISE FOR FISHFOOD
<Miles_Prower> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS
(source: bash.org)
-
Well, this is an immoral way to have an argument.
Why couldn't it be more like this:
#23396 +(36053)- [X]
<Donut[AFK]> HEY EURAKARTE
<Donut[AFK]> INSULT
<Eurakarte> RETORT
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-RETORT
<Eurakarte> QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
<Donut[AFK]> SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
<Eurakarte> NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
<Donut[AFK]> RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> ADDON RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> COUNTER-RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
<Miles_Prower> RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
<Eurakarte> WORDS OF PRAISE FOR FISHFOOD
<Miles_Prower> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS
(source: bash.org)
-
I found it very gentlemanlike, at least for the internet.
-
Your problem is very clearly with first player advantage, not with three pile endings. Moreover, your problem is with 3 player games which are inherently more chaotic.
A skilled player CAN reliably play against potential three pile endings, in fact turning them to their own benefit. You can see this borne out again and again in the rankings. Skilled players know how to end the game while ahead, they win more, their ranking rises.
As others have already stated, there is no good way to eliminate first player advantage. The solutions you have proposed are poorly defined and still don't fix the issue. They just change it to last player advantage, or do nothing at all.
You say "the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size" but that makes absolutely no sense! What does your population consist of? Turns? Early game turns are completely different from late game turns. It makes no sense to consider them as separate items in a population. If you are trained in statistics, you should realize that a single game is a single data point. This is why the solution to first player advantage is to play another game and change who is first player. That's what they do in chess and that's what is recommended for Dominion.
Did you read the articles about scrub mentality that people have posted? I highly recommend that you read them. You seem earnest to me, not a troll, and you seem like you genuinely want to get better. If that is the case, you need to realize that 3-pile endings are not "quick and dirty" or "exploiting the rules". They are a fundamental aspect of the game.
If the luck inherent in 3 player games bothers you so much, play 2 players instead.
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Your propsoal of allowing the remaing players to have another round after three pile would strongly discourage any three pile in almost every situation. Three piling is an investment, and the other players don't have to take this investment and in addition are sure that the game will end. So we both have almost equally strong decks, I buy 3 Provinces and the last Cellar for the three pile, you buy 3 Provinces and and an Estate, I lose. Why should I three pile? And this is the very optimistic assumption that you just buy a $2 cost card to pile, usually you need more of them and more expensive ones...
-
Your problem is very clearly with first player advantage, not with three pile endings. Moreover, your problem is with 3 player games which are inherently more chaotic.
A skilled player CAN reliably play against potential three pile endings, in fact turning them to their own benefit. You can see this borne out again and again in the rankings. Skilled players know how to end the game while ahead, they win more, their ranking rises.
As others have already stated, there is no good way to eliminate first player advantage. The solutions you have proposed are poorly defined and still don't fix the issue. They just change it to last player advantage, or do nothing at all.
You say "the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size" but that makes absolutely no sense! What does your population consist of? Turns? Early game turns are completely different from late game turns. It makes no sense to consider them as separate items in a population. If you are trained in statistics, you should realize that a single game is a single data point. This is why the solution to first player advantage is to play another game and change who is first player. That's what they do in chess and that's what is recommended for Dominion.
Did you read the articles about scrub mentality that people have posted? I highly recommend that you read them. You seem earnest to me, not a troll, and you seem like you genuinely want to get better. If that is the case, you need to realize that 3-pile endings are not "quick and dirty" or "exploiting the rules". They are a fundamental aspect of the game.
If the luck inherent in 3 player games bothers you so much, play 2 players instead.
You realize that any data point can also itself be a collection of data points, right? It all depends on the scope of your analysis. For example, I can be a data point in an experiment, or I can be multiple data points, depending on how the experiment is designed
There's no a priori reason why you can't consider each turn a data point
-
Your problem is very clearly with first player advantage, not with three pile endings. Moreover, your problem is with 3 player games which are inherently more chaotic.
A skilled player CAN reliably play against potential three pile endings, in fact turning them to their own benefit. You can see this borne out again and again in the rankings. Skilled players know how to end the game while ahead, they win more, their ranking rises.
As others have already stated, there is no good way to eliminate first player advantage. The solutions you have proposed are poorly defined and still don't fix the issue. They just change it to last player advantage, or do nothing at all.
You say "the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size" but that makes absolutely no sense! What does your population consist of? Turns? Early game turns are completely different from late game turns. It makes no sense to consider them as separate items in a population. If you are trained in statistics, you should realize that a single game is a single data point. This is why the solution to first player advantage is to play another game and change who is first player. That's what they do in chess and that's what is recommended for Dominion.
Did you read the articles about scrub mentality that people have posted? I highly recommend that you read them. You seem earnest to me, not a troll, and you seem like you genuinely want to get better. If that is the case, you need to realize that 3-pile endings are not "quick and dirty" or "exploiting the rules". They are a fundamental aspect of the game.
If the luck inherent in 3 player games bothers you so much, play 2 players instead.
You realize that any data point can also itself be a collection of data points, right? It all depends on the scope of your analysis. For example, I can be a data point in an experiment, or I can be multiple data points, depending on how the experiment is designed
There's no a priori reason why you can't consider each turn a data point
In principle, you are right with that, almost wanted to post something like that myself. But I think with the self-reinforcing nature of dominion decks, especially of engines, it will not help you much if you play 20 turns or 4 against the KC-Wharf engine which connected KC-KC-Wharf 3 turns earlier than you...
-
A card that blocks people from buying provinces or colonies would be overpowered
How about this.... OBSTRUCTIONIST: "while this is in your hand, you may prevent all players from buying cards of your choice except for province and colony. If you select province or colony, players who purchase them must take a curse."
This is phrased very poorly. As worded, that means that while I have Obstructionist in my hand, you cannot buy anything except for Province or Colony. It doesn't specify a limit. You probably want something more like this:
Obstructionist
Reaction
At the start of a player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside. If you did, choose one kingdom card. That card may not be gained this turn. Return this card to your hand at the end of the player's turn.
This isn't perfectly worded, but it seems close to your intention. You need the set aside wording because otherwise you are allowed to reveal the same reaction over and over again. Another possible implementation of this idea might be to make it a Duration.
There are multiple problems with this card. It is political -- you can ban something critical for one player but inconsequential for another. If you have multiples, you can shut down other players. This is even worse with more than two players, as multiple opponents could do this to ban multiple cards.
It doesn't even solve the problem you are complaining about. You ban Wharf but on this particular turn I draw my best stuff and can afford a Colony. On the next turn, I have just enough to buy Wharf but you no longer have Obstructionist in hand. Meanwhile, I happen to have Obstructionist in hand and ban Wharf when you plan to buy it. Or maybe you have the means to end the game with a win but I have Obstructionist and prevent you from 3-piling. On my turn I do the same thing as you and can win the game on piles, but you were unlucky and didn't have Obstructionist in hand that time. Basically, this "defense" just makes the whole game swingier.
This is even more luck-based than before Obstructionist was a thing.
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy
Edit2: It's (for me) exactly the funny thing in there games to see how much of which cards I can buy, and if I need to buy early victory points to not get three piled, but ideally get into a position where I can three pile myself. Sometime, yes, it can get annoying when you see a beautiful engine on a board that gets distroyed by this kinds of tactics, but more often it's the fun to get the buys/gains and the money together to have the option to threaten a game end, and with this discourage your opponent to buy further components.
-
A card that blocks people from buying provinces or colonies would be overpowered
How about this.... OBSTRUCTIONIST: "while this is in your hand, you may prevent all players from buying cards of your choice except for province and colony. If you select province or colony, players who purchase them must take a curse."
This is phrased very poorly. As worded, that means that while I have Obstructionist in my hand, you cannot buy anything except for Province or Colony. It doesn't specify a limit. You probably want something more like this:
Obstructionist
Reaction
At the start of a player's turn, you may reveal this from your hand and set it aside. If you did, choose one kingdom card. That card may not be gained this turn. Return this card to your hand at the end of the player's turn.
This isn't perfectly worded, but it seems close to your intention. You need the set aside wording because otherwise you are allowed to reveal the same reaction over and over again. Another possible implementation of this idea might be to make it a Duration.
There are multiple problems with this card. It is political -- you can ban something critical for one player but inconsequential for another. If you have multiples, you can shut down other players. This is even worse with more than two players, as multiple opponents could do this to ban multiple cards.
It doesn't even solve the problem you are complaining about. You ban Wharf but on this particular turn I draw my best stuff and can afford a Colony. On the next turn, I have just enough to buy Wharf but you no longer have Obstructionist in hand. Meanwhile, I happen to have Obstructionist in hand and ban Wharf when you plan to buy it. Or maybe you have the means to end the game with a win but I have Obstructionist and prevent you from 3-piling. On my turn I do the same thing as you and can win the game on piles, but you were unlucky and didn't have Obstructionist in hand that time. Basically, this "defense" just makes the whole game swingier.
This is even more luck-based than before Obstructionist was a thing.
Thanks for fixing the wording on the card for me.
Yeah but at as others have pointed out you should be able to see someone going for a quick three pile a mile away. So I could use this card repeatedly over the course of the game to slow down card hoarding and protect the piles that I consider most likely to be exhausted
You object to me having the power to block cards that some opponents need more than others, but as you point out I wouldn't have it in my hand every turn. Plus, how is controlling what other players can buy more imbalanced than having the power to decide when the game ends by simply emptying a pile? That's like having the power to end the world by kicking over a trash can
trying to use it as a last ditch effort for endgame (as you detailed in your example) would be a bit like starting a term paper the night before its due.
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
The protection of the last card is the next-to last card. And btw, the same is true for Provinces...
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
The protection of the last card is the next-to last card. And btw, the same is true for Provinces...
Unless they have +5 buys or something out of control like that!
Even then, there's no way to protect those cards!
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
You are getting overly concerned with flavour. Don't confuse flavour with mechanics. I mean, this is a game where Stonemasons have the magical ability to produce two Lighthouses by murdering a Sage. No, there is no thematic justification for why the game ends after 3 piles are empty. But neither is there any reason the game should end after the last Province is purchased, so why aren't you getting fussed about that?
There is nothing overpowered about ending the game on piles. No top tier player goes into a game thinking, "I am going to try to empty piles as fast as possible". That's just asking for a loss. They evaluate the board, come up with a strategy, note potential threats. They adjust their plan based on the opponent's actions and their own shuffle luck. That includes setting up for a 3 pile, or buying VP to prevent the opponent from 3 piling. Three pile endings are part of the strategic landscape of Dominion.
-
\
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
You do realize that the flavor is only there to make the game more interesting/colorful/eye catching right? It doesn't have any bearing on competitive play.
You're arguing this rule shouldn't exist because... you can't come up with a good enough flavor explanation for why it makes sense?
-
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
But smuggling a province with the aid of some bridges makes sense to you?
-
The point is, you see something in the game as a problem (ending the race when you are ahead), that we see as its goal.
As others have said, of course you can play variants if you like them better, but don't expect to get many people convinced if you go to a chess board an complain that the game is over is you just check the king, while there are so many other pieces left...
Don't get me started on chest it infuriates me because I lack the patience for it
But see that makes sense to me because at least someone was killed, and least you could take steps to protect the king. But above all else, if the game was going to end, at least someone was killed! makes way more sense to me than defeating my deck because you bought the last vagrant
That's only flavour, has nothing to do with strategy
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Province
edit: and more importantly, because probably less obvious:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Duchy
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
The protection of the last card is the next-to last card. And btw, the same is true for Provinces...
Unless they have +5 buys or something out of control like that!
Even then, there's no way to protect those cards!
If they have that many buys, they set themselves up for that and executed a good strategy that you failed to keep up with. Like DStu said, you protect yourself by not buying the second last... or in the case where they can rapidly deplete piles, you protect yourself by getting more points -- Provinces and Duchies. Or you set yourself up to be the one to do the 3-pile in the lead, instead of your opponent. No use complaining about first player advantage here -- sometimes they have it, sometimes you do. Sometimes the first player gets a spot of bad luck (like Chapel missing the first shuffle) and suddenly the next player has the advantage. That's the game.
It is not trivial to empty three piles. It doesn't just happen out of nowhere. If someone is blindly focusing down piles, they aren't getting points. A player can't buy the last 4 Pawns and an Estate for the win if you already have a Duchy over them.
-
\
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
You do realize that the flavor is only there to make the game more interesting/colorful/eye catching right? It doesn't have any bearing on competitive play.
You're arguing this rule shouldn't exist because... you can't come up with a good enough flavor explanation for why it makes sense?
I'm fine with the 3 pile rule (although I feel there should be a 4 pile rule for KC games)
BUT... Since you and other players consider it to be a central aspect to winning the game, its frustrating that the last "piece" or last few "pieces" (i.e. the last few cards in the third pile) are the only thing stopping your opponent from winning... they can be "destroyed" and there's NOTHING you can do to protect those pieces or that pile.
In Chess there are plenty of things you can do to protect the king. In Dominion, how much can you really do to protect the third pile that you foresee being emptied in the near future?
Nothing. You just stand there in horror while you watch it get depleted
-
Unless they have +5 buys or something out of control like that!
Even then, there's no way to protect those cards!
When we talk about 6 buys, we usually talk about $12++, that's investment. And despite that many buys flying arounds, lots of engine pieces have already be bought. Assuming equally strong decks, some of these engine pieces you bought could have be Duchies or Provinces, that your opponent has to gain and now we are already talking about $15+++ that have to be played by your opponent next to their 5 +buys. Assuming equally strong decks, you also have $15+++ and 6 buys. So you could have either bought 2 Provinces earlier (instead of the 1 Duchy) (meaning we are talking about $26++ for your opponent to overcome you and three pile in the same round).
Or: the decks wheren't equally strong, due to first player advantage or shuffle luck or better play...
Of course the difficult thing is now to balance when to buy how many engine pieces and how many Victory points in which situation, but as many people have told you the last 10 pages, that is what makes it interesting.
-
\
No its part of the mechanics!! You define what constitutes "killing" the final piece, then you set that as a condition for victory. This implies that there is an ability to protect that piece.
In Dominion, with the three pile, there is no definition of "killing" a vital piece (and thus no ability to "protect" that vital piece).. Thus the opponent basically "kills" me by buying a card and there's NOTHING I can do to protect that card for being bought
So the last card of the third pile is the king and it can be killed by..... *drumroll* being bought! And there's NO way to protect that king.
You do realize that the flavor is only there to make the game more interesting/colorful/eye catching right? It doesn't have any bearing on competitive play.
You're arguing this rule shouldn't exist because... you can't come up with a good enough flavor explanation for why it makes sense?
I'm fine with the 3 pile rule (although I feel there should be a 4 pile rule for KC games)
BUT... Since you and other players consider it to be a central aspect to winning the game, its frustrating that the last "piece" or last few "pieces" (i.e. the last few cards in the third pile) are the only thing stopping your opponent from winning... they can be "destroyed" and there's NOTHING you can do to protect those pieces or that pile.
In Chess there are plenty of things you can do to protect the king. In Dominion, how much can you really do to protect the third pile that you foresee being emptied in the near future?
Nothing. You just stand there in horror while you watch it get depleted
Solution: buy victory cards so that your opponent can't end the game on a win. Instead, you can be the one to empty that third pile.
-
Okay, I have been reading a bit and it seems to me that the following is the OP's main issue:
Buying a single measly non-important card can be the "killing blow".
But let's compare Dominion to boxing, yes, it sounds weird, but tarry along would you?
In Boxing, there is often a "knockout punch", which is similar to buying a Colony or Province for the win. But also, a lot of times, boxers win on points, which is comparable to snagging a few Victory points here and there. Buying that Vagrant is similar to blocking or dodging an opponent's last (possible knockout) punch. That single block didn't give you the win, but rather the points you gathered along the way.
Three-piling while ahead is more like a coup de grâce, ending your opponent's misery. If I'm clearly behind with no chance of winning and there's a 3-pile opportunity, I hope my opponent takes it. If not, it's a bit of an insult to let me keep struggling or force me to resign.
-
Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....
But connecting them on T3 or T4 in Baker game is strong.
-
Reading Nabokov's The Gift, I crossed the following passage:
In Chang during a fire (some wood prepared for the construction of a Catholic mission was burning) I saw an elderly Chinese at a safe distance from the fire throwing water assiduously, determinedly and without tiring over the reflection of the flames on the walls of his dwelling; convinced of the impossibility of proving to him that his house was not burning we abandoned him to his fruitless occupation.
It somehow made me think of this thread.
-
So that's what I'm saying, is in games like this, whoever's pieces line up just right first wins.. its totally luck driven and this strategy does skew the game in the direction of luck.. that's all I'm saying.
This is true for many other Dominion games, that do not include 3-pile at all.
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
Because your posts per page setting is far too low.
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
Because your posts per page setting is far too low.
Right, I fixed it and there are only 5 now (not including this), this is acceptable.
-
CG, when you see a three pile ending coming, you make sure that your opponent can only end the game in a loss by getting VP. Earlier you mentioned that you tried to prevent the game end by not getting a key card (conspirators). That's not how you do it. You get your conspirators and use them to get you the vp you need to stay ahead of future 3-pile endings.
The scrub's problem (edit: one of them, anyway) is that because he considers certain tactics cheap, he simply avoids them rather than learning to deal with them. It sounds to me like you just haven't figures out how to handle end-game tactics in games ending on engine part piles and therefore conclude that such games are less fun and look for a way to change the rules to prevent it.
-
In general, I find surprise 3 pile endings to be among the most elegant examples of play.
-
To the OP: Dominion can't be seen as a game where very turn you play some cards, then buy some cards, then eventually buy a few Provinces and see who wins. Every buy has a thought, and a reason behind it, often more than just "hey I can add that to my deck." If you see that piles are running low, don't buy. I very often keep track of how many buys my opponent normally gets. If he's getting 10 buys with 20$+, I make sure to leave enough cards that he can't buy in 1 turn, or buy some points to get ahead so that he also needs to buy point before he can end.
You clearly don't do this. You just buy things, then get angry that he had enough buys to get everything. Dude, if you left 3 Worker's Villages and he is making a WV Wharf deck, he has the buys to get everything. Maybe you shouldn't have been buying Pawns and WV simply because you could.
-
In general, I find surprise 3 pile endings to be among the most elegant examples of play.
I like to think that I am never surprised by a 3-pile ending. Either by knowing the limits of my opponents deck or by constructing mine to garner a 3-pile edge, manipulating the end-game in your favor takes a lot of skill to do.
-
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
Geez, dude. People have refuted this multiple times. Maybe you'll listen if I say it once more. There ARE cards that protect against the opponent going for a quick 3-pile ending. They're called Victory cards. And they're a super-powerful counter to that strategy! If your opponent chooses to go ahead and end the game quickly anyway, YOU WIN! Talk about a counter.
If your opponent is able to surmount your Victory lead AND empty 3 piles, it's because he's better at the game than you and you should improve.
-
Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!
That's why pro poker tourneys play a set amount of hands.
To be clear, most professional poker is played in cash games, where there is most certainly not a set amount of hands. Tournament play is what's televised because it's more dramatic and has a better narrative for an audience, not because it's "better" or "more fair" or "more professional".
That said, in reference to the original example, any poker player who gets butthurt because someone did that is an idiot. Anyone is perfectly free to walk with their winnings... and if they're no good, I'm perfectly fine with taking their money some other time, or with taking someone else's money.
Do they actually televise tournaments with a set amount of hands? A few years ago I went through a phase where I watched a lot of WPT and such, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have fixed number of hands. Players are free to bet within the rules, go all in, etc. They never suddenly stop on hand X and see who has the most money left -- they play all the way until someone has all the chips.
Then the game is edited to fit within the time they have to show it on TV, showing the most exciting hands and cutting out all the hands where everyone just folds all around. :P
They don't, but his point appeared to be that you can't just walk away at any time (you must play until you're either out or the only player left), so I treated it as such.
Wow this thread moves fast.
-
To the OP: Dominion can't be seen as a game where very turn you play some cards, then buy some cards, then eventually buy a few Provinces and see who wins. Every buy has a thought, and a reason behind it, often more than just "hey I can add that to my deck." If you see that piles are running low, don't buy. I very often keep track of how many buys my opponent normally gets. If he's getting 10 buys with 20$+, I make sure to leave enough cards that he can't buy in 1 turn, or buy some points to get ahead so that he also needs to buy point before he can end.
You clearly don't do this. You just buy things, then get angry that he had enough buys to get everything. Dude, if you left 3 Worker's Villages and he is making a WV Wharf deck, he has the buys to get everything. Maybe you shouldn't have been buying Pawns and WV simply because you could.
I do exactly what you do, and I don't just "buy for the hell of it" I gave an example of a game where I avoided buying conspirators to stall the three pile
Let's play on goko sometime, I'm more careful than I come off based on my posts
-
There aren't any cards to combat the quick and dirty three pile strategy. That makes it wayyyy too overpowered. Good thing I'm able to completely dominate my opponents in most games so they can't get away with that kind of trick.
Geez, dude. People have refuted this multiple times. Maybe you'll listen if I say it once more. There ARE cards that protect against the opponent going for a quick 3-pile ending. They're called Victory cards. And they're a super-powerful counter to that strategy! If your opponent chooses to go ahead and end the game quickly anyway, YOU WIN! Talk about a counter.
If your opponent is able to surmount your Victory lead AND empty 3 piles, it's because he's better at the game than you and you should improve.
Right, so (say) I buy a province, my opponent buys a platinum, he now has a better deck
Thus the only way this "strategy" of buying VP cards for insurance works is to drain the deck while you're ahead
But he could buy a platinum while you spent your $9 on a province... Now all you can do is hope and pray you can drain those last few cards before he plays the platinum and ties you, or worse!!
so two problems there:
1. The only way to defend against this strategy is to resort to the strategy yourself
2. It's not always a perfect counter. Because if he buys a province and ties it up, then you
have to buy another VP card, which may prevent you from three piling on your turn. Then he buys a colony because he bought a platinum when you spent your 9$ on that first province
What I'm trying to say is that this aspect of the game boils down to a crapshoot, and you can only manage this aspect of the strategy if you have a comfortable lead
when the game is close at all (and games should usually be close at high-level) the "science" of it all breaks down and it's really just a crap shoot on who manages to be the last person to get that extra VP while draining the last deck
-
To the OP: Dominion can't be seen as a game where very turn you play some cards, then buy some cards, then eventually buy a few Provinces and see who wins. Every buy has a thought, and a reason behind it, often more than just "hey I can add that to my deck." If you see that piles are running low, don't buy. I very often keep track of how many buys my opponent normally gets. If he's getting 10 buys with 20$+, I make sure to leave enough cards that he can't buy in 1 turn, or buy some points to get ahead so that he also needs to buy point before he can end.
You clearly don't do this. You just buy things, then get angry that he had enough buys to get everything. Dude, if you left 3 Worker's Villages and he is making a WV Wharf deck, he has the buys to get everything. Maybe you shouldn't have been buying Pawns and WV simply because you could.
I do exactly what you do, and I don't just "buy for the hell of it" I gave an example of a game where I avoided buying conspirators to stall the three pile
Let's play on goko sometime, I'm more careful than I come off based on my posts
Right now. Go to Hovel. I'll host. :P
-
To the OP: Dominion can't be seen as a game where very turn you play some cards, then buy some cards, then eventually buy a few Provinces and see who wins. Every buy has a thought, and a reason behind it, often more than just "hey I can add that to my deck." If you see that piles are running low, don't buy. I very often keep track of how many buys my opponent normally gets. If he's getting 10 buys with 20$+, I make sure to leave enough cards that he can't buy in 1 turn, or buy some points to get ahead so that he also needs to buy point before he can end.
You clearly don't do this. You just buy things, then get angry that he had enough buys to get everything. Dude, if you left 3 Worker's Villages and he is making a WV Wharf deck, he has the buys to get everything. Maybe you shouldn't have been buying Pawns and WV simply because you could.
I do exactly what you do, and I don't just "buy for the hell of it" I gave an example of a game where I avoided buying conspirators to stall the three pile
Let's play on goko sometime, I'm more careful than I come off based on my posts
Right now. Go to Hovel. I'll host. :P
Let's do it!
-
If you buy a province, and your opponent buys a Platinum and lets you stay in the VP lead, then you're now in a position to 3-pile and win yourself. Three-piling works both ways.
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
Exactly this.
You have to determine how close the game is to ending and play accordingly. If it's still early, that Platinum is the right play. If the game is close to ending (e.g. piles are low, or Provinces/Colonies almost gone) then take that Province. That's a decision you make. If you take the Province and there is still enough time for your opponent to come back, then maybe you made the wrong decision. If you take the Platinum and he ends the game on piles, then you definitely made the wrong decision. These decisions are an important part of the game, not a problem that needs fixing.
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
You didn't play badly. Tried to play LFN after and goko just crashed on me :(
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
You didn't play badly. Tried to play LFN after and goko just crashed on me :(
Yeah, you're not bad, Count. We were 2 and 2 over 4 games. We both could have played better, but whatever. Fun games.
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
You didn't play badly. Tried to play LFN after and goko just crashed on me :(
Yeah thanks for the games King Zog and. LFN. LFN and I are very evenly matched and every game was interesting
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
You didn't play badly. Tried to play LFN after and goko just crashed on me :(
Yeah, you're not bad, Count. We were 2 and 2 over 4 games. We both could have played better, but whatever. Fun games.
I just saw your message. We will definitely need to do that fifth game. I had to run, though. Is hovel where the f.ds folks hang out?
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
You didn't play badly. Tried to play LFN after and goko just crashed on me :(
Yeah, you're not bad, Count. We were 2 and 2 over 4 games. We both could have played better, but whatever. Fun games.
I just saw your message. We will definitely need to do that fifth game. I had to run, though. Is hovel where the f.ds folks hang out?
Nah I just picked it because no one was there. But we should make it the f.ds hangout.
-
You are merely describing why dominion is a complex, interesting game - you are complaining there is no easy way for you to guarantee a win.
You have a point. It's a fair criticism of my mentality. I still think I have a point tho.
But I guess anything I say is moot in a pro setting where multiple games are played
btw King Zog mopped the floor with me
You didn't play badly. Tried to play LFN after and goko just crashed on me :(
Yeah, you're not bad, Count. We were 2 and 2 over 4 games. We both could have played better, but whatever. Fun games.
I just saw your message. We will definitely need to do that fifth game. I had to run, though. Is hovel where the f.ds folks hang out?
Nah I just picked it because no one was there. But we should make it the f.ds hangout.
Definitely. Dominion's elite players hiding out in the hovel.. I like that ;D
-
Anyway, thanks for the criticism everyone. It's been a learning experience for me. One thing I love about Dominion as a game is it often punishes me for my foolish, fanciful and grandiose plans, forcing me to be very strict and level-headed in my thinking and expectations. I think you all helped me come to my senses. ;D
-
One thing I love about Dominion as a game is it often punishes me
I knew you were a masochist. ;D
-
This thread made me want to go 3-pile, so I did in my next two games. Felt so good!
-
Now I'm threeeeeeeee.... threeee pilin'
Sung to the tune of Tom Petty's Free Falling
-
The f.ds hangout is already the Outpost...
-
The f.ds hangout is already the Outpost...
Wow I didn't know this... actually?
-
The f.ds hangout is already the Outpost...
Wow I didn't know this... actually?
Really! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6607.0)
Council Room etc. are normally quicker though.
-
The f.ds hangout is already the Outpost...
Wow I didn't know this... actually?
Really! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6607.0)
Council Room etc. are normally quicker though.
I'm sure they are, but still. I had no idea this was going on.
-
If you buy a province, and your opponent buys a Platinum and lets you stay in the VP lead, then you're now in a position to 3-pile and win yourself. Three-piling works both ways.
Right, but there's also an interesting subtlety here in that your opponent may have a deck that can threaten a 3-pile while you don't: maybe your opponent has more +buy, or maybe more tools to burst a high $ count (for example, Mining Village). In this case, you will be forced to green earlier than your opponent. This most often happens when a treasure strategy plays against an engine strategy. The treasure strategy will begin greening earlier but at a slower rate and with less endgame control, while the engine strategy will begin greening later but at a faster rate and with more endgame control.
-
Alright, I've been reading through this thread, and I think that I've found a solution. It's a simple rule change that should stop this three pile ending madness.
The game only ends when all Victory card piles are empty.
One of Count's gripes is that the person with the better deck could lose to the unfair technique of buying out low piles and an estate, even if the other players deck is better! This way, it will be clear who has the better deck, as it will be the person with more than 1/2 of the vp. Sure the games might be longer, but at least this way you will know for certain who has the better deck. No more vagrant snipes, just plain engine building without any consequences for building too much. This of course wouldn't work with VP chips, so those should just be removed.
-
Alright, I've been reading through this thread, and I think that I've found a solution. It's a simple rule change that should stop this three pile ending madness.
The game only ends when all Victory card piles are empty.
One of Count's gripes is that the person with the better deck could lose to the unfair technique of buying out low piles and an estate, even if the other players deck is better! This way, it will be clear who has the better deck, as it will be the person with more than 1/2 of the vp. Sure the games might be longer, but at least this way you will know for certain who has the better deck. No more vagrant snipes, just plain engine building without any consequences for building too much. This of course wouldn't work with VP chips, so those should just be removed.
What?!? You can't be serious. This would be too extreme in the opposite direction, some games would take well over an hour with this rule.
I like the rule that if you intentionally three pile through buying the other players get one last grab at VP's also. I think that would add even more subtlety and it would be a check and balance against what is, IMO a slightly overpowered tactic.
-
Dominion isn't (and shouldn't) be about who has the "better deck", since the careful balance between building up your deck and grabbing points is a huge strategic aspect of the game. There are already games where players duke it out with pre-built decks to determine which one is better, i.e. Magic the Gathering. Having to make the decision between build-up and greening is what makes Dominion an interesting and unique game, even (in my experience) among deckbuilders, since a lot of them don't seem to incorporate the slow-down effect that greening has in Dominion. If your opponent pulls a three-pile ending on you, then you played poorly (and/or had some bad luck).
Destierro's solution would turn every game into an incredible slog, and in my opinion would completely break the game.
-
Right, so (say) I buy a province, my opponent buys a platinum, he now has a better deck
Thus the only way this "strategy" of buying VP cards for insurance works is to drain the deck while you're ahead
But he could buy a platinum while you spent your $9 on a province... Now all you can do is hope and pray you can drain those last few cards before he plays the platinum and ties you, or worse!!
so two problems there:
1. The only way to defend against this strategy is to resort to the strategy yourself
2. It's not always a perfect counter. Because if he buys a province and ties it up, then you
have to buy another VP card, which may prevent you from three piling on your turn. Then he buys a colony because he bought a platinum when you spent your 9$ on that first province
What I'm trying to say is that this aspect of the game boils down to a crapshoot, and you can only manage this aspect of the strategy if you have a comfortable lead
when the game is close at all (and games should usually be close at high-level) the "science" of it all breaks down and it's really just a crap shoot on who manages to be the last person to get that extra VP while draining the last deck
The way you're phrasing your hypothetical makes it hard to interpret. If two players of equal skill make similar decisions in any game involving chance, then the winner is necessarily decided by luck. This is self-evident and suggests nothing about the game beyond the involvement of luck.
In Dominion, if your opponent is in a position where she can force you to buy a province to avoid an immediate loss, respond with a platinum buy, and then in her following turn still win on a three pile, that player already has the stronger position when you're considering that province buy, and it's very hard to understand why you think it's problematic for a player who's ahead to have a lot of control over the game. Boxing an opponent in like this is simply strong play, and you have to watch out for it and prepare before you find yourself making this decision; if that's the decision you have to make, then the opportunity to avoid losing has already passed. Sometimes you just get bad draws and there's nothing you can do. Dominion can be like that, but skill allows you to overcome your bad luck -- and press your good luck, as for instance by threatening piles while ahead.
It should be obvious that a skilled player will maneuver her opponent into this position more easily than a poor player, in which case the loss was due to skill. If the two players are equally skilled and make similar decisions, then of course the outcome is due to luck because in this hypothetical there is no other possibility. If the two players are equally skilled but they make different decisions with one player choosing the path that offers more opportunities for piling out, then that player won by making the correct choices, not by luck.
So where is the problem?
-
Dominion isn't (and shouldn't) be about who has the "better deck", since the careful balance between building up your deck and grabbing points is a huge strategic aspect of the game. There are already games where players duke it out with pre-built decks to determine which one is better, i.e. Magic the Gathering. Having to make the decision between build-up and greening is what makes Dominion an interesting and unique game, even (in my experience) among deckbuilders, since a lot of them don't seem to incorporate the slow-down effect that greening has in Dominion. If your opponent pulls a three-pile ending on you, then you played poorly (and/or had some bad luck).
Destierro's solution would turn every game into an incredible slog, and in my opinion would completely break the game.
I hate to explain jokes, but I think that is the point.....
-
Dominion isn't (and shouldn't) be about who has the "better deck"
This. So much. This is what the game is about in many ways, knowing when to stop building and start making your deck bad by scoring. I have a friend who consistently overbuilds and then says "well, you won, but I had the better deck, so I'm gonna count this as a moral win". He's partially joking, but I think this is a problem many people have.
-
The f.ds hangout is already the Outpost...
Wow I didn't know this... actually?
Really! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6607.0)
Council Room etc. are normally quicker though.
I'm sure they are, but still. I had no idea this was going on.
I just stickied that thread to raise awareness.
-
Anyway, thanks for the criticism everyone. It's been a learning experience for me. One thing I love about Dominion as a game is it often punishes me for my foolish, fanciful and grandiose plans, forcing me to be very strict and level-headed in my thinking and expectations. I think you all helped me come to my senses. ;D
This marks the end of the thread, right? ;)
-
I hate to explain jokes, but I think that is the point.....
I might be bad at internet sarcasm but I'm looking at Desterrio's post and I honestly can't tell if he's serious or not. If it was meant as joke then I guess I've got egg on my face.
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
Because your posts per page setting is far too low.
Right, I fixed it and there are only 5 now (not including this), this is acceptable.
Woah, I never knew about this! Awesome; this will make life easier.
-
Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?
Because your posts per page setting is far too low.
Right, I fixed it and there are only 5 now (not including this), this is acceptable.
Woah, I never knew about this! Awesome; this will make life easier.
Forum member finds One Weird Tip to make forum reading easier.
-
Now I'm threeeeeeeee.... threeee pilin'
Sung to the tune of Tom Petty's Free Falling
She's a good girl, loves Dominion,
She loves Seaside and Prosperity too,
She's a good girl, crazy about engines,
Buys Warehouse and Grand Market too,
She's got a long plan, building up her engine,
There's a pile or two running short of cards,
And I'm a bad boy, who bought just one Duchy,
I'm a bad boy, for breaking her heart,
'Cause I'm three… three pilin'.
-
Man that three-piling song that shark bait and that AJD made is hilarious.. I tip my hat to you sir
if we every face eachother in Dominion and you want to throw me off my game you know what song to sing
-
Agreed ;)
-
Thank you!
-
I thought about doing what AJD did but was too lazy. Just the chorus was enough for me :)
-
EPILOGUE TO THREAD...
In which the eccentric Count Grishnakh goes to "the dark side" and three-piles games early.
I just three-piled a treasure map game very early. It felt good in a naughty kind of way.
Everyone lead with the obvious choice of iron works and forager.
Everyone started going to town on the treasure map pile, and it wasn't long before it was empty.
People were also picking up crossroads with their extra 2$
I got 4 treasure maps and P2 matches two first. She spends her 4 golds on a bank (I thought, muahahah.. She has bigs dreams, that one.)
I match treasure maps and go for a province.
P1 grabs a cultist hoping too thwart our treasure hunt. Too little too late.
The cultist buy prompted P2 to frantically buy foragers. I contributed to the draining of this pile.
I continued to drain crossroads piles as well.
I match up my second pair of treasure maps, I now have two provinces, they have none.
P2, seeing that the game had suddenly reached a fragile state, grabs a province.
Now there is one crossroad left, and the other players see what's coming.
The cultist guy uses his iron works and 3$ to grab two estates. I laughed an evil laugh.
I buy the last crossroads
Game over. "gg" I said.
They did not reciprocate my cordial gesture.
-
Game over. "gg" I said.
They did not reciprocate my cordial gesture.
Perhaps since you're new here you haven't read this yet.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9541.0
-
Everyone went for Treasure Map? Was the rest of the board really weak?
-
Everyone went for Treasure Map? Was the rest of the board really weak?
Here's the log. (http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20131212/log.516d167de4b082c74d7ad14b.1386884805518.txt)
-
Everyone went for Treasure Map? Was the rest of the board really weak?
They probably just didn't want to lose the Treasure Map split.
In all seriousness, though, Treasure Map is a unique, fun card and I can't blame people for going for it.
-
Game over. "gg" I said.
They did not reciprocate my cordial gesture.
Perhaps since you're new here you haven't read this yet.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9541.0
but the game was over. I mean, there's a discussion of the etiquette surrounding "gg" in general in there, but it seems like the most common opinion expressed, also my own, was that saying "gg" after a game was just polite.
-
Some people were saying that they thought saying gg after the game when you won was bad.
-
Some people were saying that they thought saying gg after the game when you won was bad.
in fact, some people consider it quite rude. Like the guy in this example (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2944.0)
(Although it did help create one of the funniest topics I have read on this forum)
-
Some people were saying that they thought saying gg after the game when you won was bad.
That's true, but I think it was a minority opinion - as I mentioned, I, personally, don't react that way.
If anyone has any advice for what to say when you achieve a devastating and commanding victory, I'm all ears. In particular, sometimes you win because of what is obviously good luck, e.g. here (http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20131206/log.5075b25251c30da02a09b898.1386365196545.txt) where I open horse traders/tunnel (with an eye toward future stables purchases), connect them T3, hardly ever missing the tunnel with the HT, and proceed to obtain 5 provinces by T12. What do you say when that happens? I and my opponent knew I had good luck. It happens here that I had the better plan IMO (Stables/HT/Tunnel ought to be good, and the HT/tunnel opening isn't so ridiculous when you consider how easy it is to hit $5 with HT - and my opponent severely lacked economy), but what to say when you just straight outplay your opponent and win crushingly is equally mysterious to me.
-
Some people were saying that they thought saying gg after the game when you won was bad.
That's true, but I think it was a minority opinion - as I mentioned, I, personally, don't react that way.
If anyone has any advice for what to say when you achieve a devastating and commanding victory, I'm all ears. In particular, sometimes you win because of what is obviously good luck, e.g. here (http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20131206/log.5075b25251c30da02a09b898.1386365196545.txt) where I open horse traders/tunnel (with an eye toward future stables purchases), connect them T3, hardly ever missing the tunnel with the HT, and proceed to obtain 5 provinces by T12. What do you say when that happens? I and my opponent knew I had good luck. It happens here that I had the better plan IMO (Stables/HT/Tunnel ought to be good, and the HT/tunnel opening isn't so ridiculous when you consider how easy it is to hit $5 with HT - and my opponent severely lacked economy), but what to say when you just straight outplay your opponent and win crushingly is equally mysterious to me.
"Thanks for the game"?
Also, I do feel that the loser should say gg first. It is rude for the winner to say gg before the loser has said it, and it is rude for the loser to leave without saying it. For the winning player, it is fine to leave before the loser has said gg. This opinion is influenced by Magic: the Gathering, where the losing player could have a response to the winning move which prevents it from happening, and if he doesn't have one (or for some extremely strange reason chooses not to use it even if he does have one), he says gg.
-
I one time won by horrible luck, and said something along the lines of "I don't think I should say gg here..."
He replied, "agreed." and left.
-
Game over. "gg" I said.
They did not reciprocate my cordial gesture.
Perhaps since you're new here you haven't read this yet.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9541.0
??
Well I did wait until the game was literally over to say it
That would have been realllly cocky to say "gg" once there was one crossroads left :D
-
Everyone went for Treasure Map? Was the rest of the board really weak?
Naw the board was good, but there was good support for treasure map (iron works and foragers)
I considered going for cultist and trying to block people from connecting treasure map but I haven't had that much luck with that approach in the past
-
Also, I do feel that the loser should say gg first. It is rude for the winner to say gg before the loser has said it, and it is rude for the loser to leave without saying it.
I hadn't considered that, I think I often say "gg" first on Goko as the winner because I thought if I just sat there in silence it would give off an arrogant "look at me" vibe, and I just wanted to come across as friendly
But I totally see your point, and I should have picked up on this sooner..
-
Everyone went for Treasure Map? Was the rest of the board really weak?
Naw the board was good, but there was good support for treasure map (iron works and foragers)
I considered going for cultist and trying to block people from connecting treasure map but I haven't had that much luck with that approach in the past
Hmm, not sure if that's really good support. Draw/filtering is lacking. Trashing helps and Ironworks is nice to gain, but significant luck is still required to connect. Maybe not that significant? Or maybe the potential payoff is worth the risk in 3p.
Regardless, welcome to the dark side. :P
-
I think it's ridiculous that you can't say gg if you won. Maybe under certain circumstances, sure. Like I lucked out and emptied the supply turn 3. Not a gg. But if we each played different, valid strategies and I won by 1 point or something I think I should be allowed to inform my opponent that he played well. "gg" is short as fast to type, so I use that.
I agree that people saying it before ending the game is strange, and I don't always say it because sometimes it wasn't a good game, it was boring, or it was a massacre. But who wins or loses has nothing to do with it. It's about the individual case.
-
If it was actually a really close game that I was leaning forward on my seat for and I win, I usually say gg. But most games that I win aren't like that. They're usually either us both doing the same strategy and I win or me crushing them with a superior strategy.
-
Is this going to turn into the gg thread?
The short of it is that everyone has their own interpretations of what "gg" means. No matter what conventions you adopt, someone is going to get offended eventually. That's especially true considering that tone and intention are difficult to convey in an online medium. All you can do is try to be polite, and maybe apologize and clarify if there's ever a misunderstanding.
-
Is this going to turn into the gg thread?
The short of it is that everyone has their own interpretations of what "gg" means. No matter what conventions you adopt, someone is going to get offended eventually. That's especially true considering that tone and intention are difficult to convey in an online medium. All you can do is try to be polite, and maybe apologize and clarify if there's ever a misunderstanding.
You're wrong. I'm clearly right, and we should argue for another couple of days until we both think each other is an idiot.
-
Game over. "gg" I said.
They did not reciprocate my cordial gesture.
Perhaps since you're new here you haven't read this yet.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9541.0
??
Yeah, I don't get why he linked to it, either.
-
Yeah that's true how gg means different things to different people. I use it to mean "I am happy to game with you"
-
I thought that discussion was more relative to "gg"etiquette. Guess I could have picked a better thread.
-
I thought that discussion was more relative to "gg"etiquette. Guess I could have picked a better thread.
No its okay I figured that.. after reading further.
-
I use it to mean 'How dare you meat I am going to come round your house and eat your mail"
Unless of course I have win and then it means 'HAH! in your face Loooooser. Loooooooooser. Loooooooooooooooooooseeeeer, but seriously a good game, well played'
-
Unless of course I have win and then it means 'HAH! in your face Loooooser. Loooooooooser. Loooooooooooooooooooseeeeer, but seriously a good game, well played'
you are softening with age?
-
Unless of course I have win and then it means 'HAH! in your face Loooooser. Loooooooooser. Loooooooooooooooooooseeeeer, but seriously a good game, well played'
you are softening with age?
Dunno, its never happened that i have won a game....
-
I don't know. If my turn was so good that I can win now, or I can win ten turns from now, am I not doing a favour by ending the game early? Or, if I can forfeit now by causing a 3-pile on a loss now or have the game go on for another 10 turns of sloggyness, am I in the wrong to end the game on a loss when I don't want to try winning the game anymore?
If it's a one-sided game, I agree with you.
If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.
I once played a game, oh what a game it was, my opponent got a really sweet KC mega turn deck together, I played awfully, he could have ended the game. Instead this happened:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110127-050348-a4d3d199.html
At the time I felt a little bit sorry for him. But not anymore.
-
seriously, 10 (effective) bridges in play and he didn't take the win? that's idiotic. He didn't even set himself up for a win next turn properly - note he had 4 libraries and LOTS of non-drawing cards.
-
I don't know. If my turn was so good that I can win now, or I can win ten turns from now, am I not doing a favour by ending the game early? Or, if I can forfeit now by causing a 3-pile on a loss now or have the game go on for another 10 turns of sloggyness, am I in the wrong to end the game on a loss when I don't want to try winning the game anymore?
If it's a one-sided game, I agree with you.
If it is early in the game I prefer to not take the easy way out I'd rather rely on the strength of the deck I've built than win by technicality and due to the fact that I got to have an extra turn.
I once played a game, oh what a game it was, my opponent got a really sweet KC mega turn deck together, I played awfully, he could have ended the game. Instead this happened:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110127-050348-a4d3d199.html
At the time I felt a little bit sorry for him. But not anymore.
OMG posting a isotropic log.
You cruel cruel man.
-
Everyone went for Treasure Map? Was the rest of the board really weak?
They probably just didn't want to lose the Treasure Map split.
Well, that's the first time I've heard that sentence before.