Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - filovirus

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2
1
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The 5/2 rule
« on: November 22, 2017, 01:25:51 pm »
If you start with 2 coin your next hand has 5 coin. If you start with 5 coin your next hand has two coin. Seems consistent.

My take is that this is true whenever it is true, and false whenever it is false.

It's true at least 80-83% of the time.

56% of all statistics are made up.

2
A couple of observations from this:

1) First of all, I really like this idea. Thanks for doing it and thanks to everyone for the good , civil discussion in this thread. There are lots of good points being made by everyone to support their opinion

2) I am really impressed with how this shows the huge difference in the 2nd edition cards versus the ones that were replaced. Most of the replaced cards would have been F or at best D, but the majority of the new cards are rated A to C. That is pretty cool!  I wish all of the people who rejected base Dominion because they felt it was too simple or predictable would have started with 2nd edition. Perhaps their opinions would be different now.

3) The last Qvist ranking had Wishing Well at 26 and Smugglers at 33. So how are they possibly worthy of an A ranking? Wouldn’t a card worthy of an A ranking at least be in the top 15 of its cost group?

4) Lookout is a card I like to buy early, but, of course, I never buy a bunch of them. It doesn’t take that long for them to possibly do more harm than good. It only ranked 20 in the last Qvist ranking. To me a card ranked S would have to be a card so fundamentally powerful, you don’t dare ignore it. If there are other good thrashers, I have no problem ignoring Lookout. Personally, I would not have any trouble with Lookout as a B, though I can see a case for it as an A.

5) Like many, I would definitely put Cutpurse at least on the same level, if not above Explorer rather than the other way around. In Qvist rankings, Explorer ranked 87 out of 96, but Cutpurse was 45 out of 73. So Cutpurse ranks much higher among 4’s than Explorer does among 5’s. I pretty much always buy a Cutpurse, but Explorer is very ignorable.

The Qvist rankings are good for getting an rough idea of card power. However, it is difficult to compare different costing cards with each other using the Qvist rankings. I like Seprix's idea of a tier system better for comparing between price points.

3
Lookout has a two problems that would make it not be tier S:

1) Too slow of a trasher. At best it trashes 1 card per turn.

2) It gets weaker as the game progresses, until it force trashes a good card from the deck at worst, to it just being a dead card in hand at best.

However, the sifting and trashing combo is great. A-/B+.

4
I don't think it matters. It would only matter in community assessment to make sure everyone is on the same page.

5
Found this on google:

A tier list should always start at A to indicate the top of the tier.

When something in this tier (in this case champions) become better than A tier, the A tier is not moved down to B. Because 1) the contents of A have not changed, other things have just gotten better. Or 2.) Just because the contents of A are not currently the best does not mean they have to move to B tier.

So, a tier is created on top of A. This is the S tier. Contents of the S tier are over the threshold of what should be the best of a given element (champions) in the game.

S is used to denote who needs to be modified/tweaked (nerfed in some cases) to bring them back down to the standard of game play.

A should always be top tier. When a champion exceeds A, they become S tier and are watched closely for balance issues etc.

Before season 1 starts, there will be no S tier. All champions in S will be rebalanced to place them in A or B. The season 1 tier list will start at A where it should be.

6
We have Qvist rankings and now Adam rankings, do we need a third list? Just take Adam's rankings and tier those.

I did just that and have the list. If anyone is interested, PM me and I will get you the list.

7
Here was Mic Qsenoch's rough and dirty list for Base cards

Cellar - C
Chapel - S
Moat - B
Harbinger - B
Merchant - B
Vassal - C
Village - A
Workshop - B
Bureaucrat - D
Gardens - D
Militia - A
Moneylender - A
Poacher - B
Remodel - B
Smithy - A
Throne Room – S
Bandit - B
Council Room - B
Festival - A
Laboratory - A
Library - B
Market - B
Mine - D
Sentry - S
Witch - S
Artisan - S

8
"This is a terrible idea, just drop it altogether." - Seprix

This was the response I got when I was trying to get a community tier list.

The main difference is that I'm not doing this to create some standard. It was just something fun I wanted to do. But yes, I'm a jerk. I apologize for being rude.

I still hold to my opinion that there is value in community perception of card strengths, and that on a whole it would be pretty accurate. I like this kind of thing, and value your opinions on your tier list.

9
"This is a terrible idea, just drop it altogether." - Seprix

This was the response I got when I was trying to get a community tier list.

10
"If you had five 5 coppers and 5 estates, there is just as much chance of you drawing ccccc as there is of you drawing ccece, even if one "looks" more random to the human mind."

This would be correct if each "c" and "e" were a specific card.

c1c2c3c4c5
c1c2e1c3e2

But because we really don't care which of the 5 c's is drawn in which order, then it is an irrelevant statistic for Dominion. As stated above, there is a difference between "combination" and "permutation".

FYI: 39.68% chance to draw cccee and 0.40% chance to draw ccccc in the OP's first post.

11
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Is it okay to buy Possession?
« on: November 06, 2017, 07:27:20 pm »
Will there ever be an option to force one of the retired cards into a game?

12
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Bonus Preview #5: Necromancer
« on: November 03, 2017, 10:34:30 pm »
Are the Zombies Anachronistic? Seems like most of the card names are pretty good at being accurate. However, Zombies as we know them are a more modern term. Shouldn't the cards be called "Revenant Spy", "Revenant Mason", and "Revenant Apprentice"? The term revenant would fit better in the Dominion world.

13
What is going on in the Envy art?

The only thing I can think of is that he is "green with envy".

14
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Teasers Speculation
« on: October 20, 2017, 04:01:31 pm »
Cursed Village can only be played during night phase. Or maybe playing cursed village results in taking a Hex card. Blessed Village results in taking a Boon.

15
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Value of Loan
« on: September 27, 2017, 11:36:52 am »
I rated each card according to Adam Horton's ranking list.

Loan: B
Spice Merchant: A-
Lookout: B+
Forager: A-

Here is my list: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4p7StLdFpClamJtSE5vOHNJeGdaRjJqQlVkaTNsMUdlbDZJ/view?usp=sharing

16
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 26, 2017, 07:41:44 pm »
I took the Adam ranking system and assigned a rating based on his raw data. I rated each card in either S, A, B, and C tiers. This was what I was looking for. The peak number of cards fell into the A-/B+ range. Nine "S" cards. Four "C-" cards.

I know not many people will find this data useful for them as expressed in the thread, but if you would like a copy, PM me directly and I will give you a copy of my Excel spreadsheet.

17
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 24, 2017, 12:16:20 am »
OK, based on feedback from the majority, the community does not want me to create a rating poll, so I won't. It been called a "terrible idea", already done, to "reality-defying".

I was really hoping to offer a different perspective from a rating system. One where a new-comer, like myself, could glean some information. But I guess the Qvist ranking system is sufficient for the majority.

I'll probably hang out in the background for the next little bit, and focus on bot games to get a better feel for the Dominion cards.

Who knows, I may even participate in the next Qvist ranking if I feel I can actually rank the cards comparatively.

18
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:52:33 pm »
I think the overarching issue is: Does relying on any sort of tier system to make in-game decisions actually make you a better player? I don't think I've made a single in-game decision by comparing cards' Qvist rankings. I make all my decisions based on intuition and experience, and I think all the top players do as well.

I think somebody actually pointed out on the Qvist ranking thread that the rankings are mostly just made for fun. There's just so much information that a ranking can't tell you: How many copies of a card to buy, at what stage of the game to buy a card, how your opponent's strategy affects things, niche cases that make a weak card good, etc. Looking at a list and seeing that a card you were ignoring is actually really good might be helpful to a beginner, but I'm not sure it's actually THAT helpful. A player could buy Governor solely because of its high ranking and still lose because they don't know how to play a Governor deck. It's not enough to know a card is good; you have to know WHY it's good.

Yes, I agree completely. I however, don't know all the ins and outs of card interaction, nor even their over all power. I think it could actually help someone like me. Yeah, I'll eventually outgrow it's usefulness, but I'm not at that point yet.

It would also be a good way to see where different types of cards rate in the overall META. Are gainers mostly rated as B's? Are attacks mostly rated as A's. What about sifters? Are they mostly rated as C? Are alternate treasures all over the board for ratings, or are they mostly A's? It would be a good way to be able to compile a bunch of data quickly.

19
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:11:14 pm »
I also disagree that their is no META game in Dominion. Most Effective Tactic Available does show up in this game.

What?  That's not what "meta" means.  "Meta" is not an acronym.  "Meta-" means that there is something above, outside of.  Think about "metaphysical".  In a competitive game's meta, it's not about "most effective tactic available", it's about knowing what everyone else is playing.  So in Hearthstone I might include a card that destroys Pirates because a lot of people are running decks with Pirates.  That's what meta means - it's any gameplay decisions that aren't based on the specific match you're playing, but the overall, overarching competitive scene.  "Metagame" literally means "the game outside the game".

And that just doesn't exist for Dominion, not in the same sense as for CCG's, because you're given a random set of cards to play with.  You might make decisions like "They'll probably get Witch, so maybe I should get a Moat", but that's not nearly on the same level as "I'll probably play a bunch of people running a Pirate deck today, so I should include this card that destroys Pirates, even though it doesn't really fit the theme of my deck".

In competitive games, META is indeed an acronym that means "Most Effective Tactic Available".

Well, that just tells me competitive gamers are stupid and need to take more humanities classes.

I've played many different competitive games (and browsed forums for said games) for about a decade and I have NEVER seen that acronym.

A quick google search can clear up any confusion. Just one example of many: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20747845699

20
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:52:05 am »
But that makes the result worse. If I would force a 1-100 rating, people might be overwhelmed and couldn't decide between a 75 and 76 rating, but in the end it isn't a big difference anyway but gives more options. And if people want they could still decide to only vote 0, 33, 67 and 100. Voila, the same as S, A, B and C. In any case. My web app allows to vote for any scale you want. So if you want to vote S, A, B, C you can already (just change to 1-4 of course). If people want to be more specific, they can. But limiting the people in advance and using an abritary scale makes the result worse.

But in keeping with the rating system found in other competitive games it would make sense to use the S A B C system. The recent trend is going to this type of system. It just makes it easier for people transitioning for other competitive games to understand the results.

I have been playing Clash Royale for over a year. The tier system is a quick and easy way to understand the general power of specific cards, and craft a deck from those results.

21
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:47:09 am »
I also disagree that their is no META game in Dominion. Most Effective Tactic Available does show up in this game.

What?  That's not what "meta" means.  "Meta" is not an acronym.  "Meta-" means that there is something above, outside of.  Think about "metaphysical".  In a competitive game's meta, it's not about "most effective tactic available", it's about knowing what everyone else is playing.  So in Hearthstone I might include a card that destroys Pirates because a lot of people are running decks with Pirates.  That's what meta means - it's any gameplay decisions that aren't based on the specific match you're playing, but the overall, overarching competitive scene.  "Metagame" literally means "the game outside the game".

And that just doesn't exist for Dominion, not in the same sense as for CCG's, because you're given a random set of cards to play with.  You might make decisions like "They'll probably get Witch, so maybe I should get a Moat", but that's not nearly on the same level as "I'll probably play a bunch of people running a Pirate deck today, so I should include this card that destroys Pirates, even though it doesn't really fit the theme of my deck".

In competitive games, META is indeed an acronym that means "Most Effective Tactic Available".

Well, that just tells me competitive gamers are stupid and need to take more humanities classes.
:)

22
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:42:00 am »
I also disagree that their is no META game in Dominion. Most Effective Tactic Available does show up in this game.

What?  That's not what "meta" means.  "Meta" is not an acronym.  "Meta-" means that there is something above, outside of.  Think about "metaphysical".  In a competitive game's meta, it's not about "most effective tactic available", it's about knowing what everyone else is playing.  So in Hearthstone I might include a card that destroys Pirates because a lot of people are running decks with Pirates.  That's what meta means - it's any gameplay decisions that aren't based on the specific match you're playing, but the overall, overarching competitive scene.  "Metagame" literally means "the game outside the game".

And that just doesn't exist for Dominion, not in the same sense as for CCG's, because you're given a random set of cards to play with.  You might make decisions like "They'll probably get Witch, so maybe I should get a Moat", but that's not nearly on the same level as "I'll probably play a bunch of people running a Pirate deck today, so I should include this card that destroys Pirates, even though it doesn't really fit the theme of my deck".

In competitive games, META is indeed an acronym that means "Most Effective Tactic Available".

23
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:39:56 am »
you can just grab my lists and either divide equally in 4 bins or divide into 0-25%, 25%-50%, 50%-75% and 75%-100% groups. Isn't that exactly what you want? Just a different represantation of the same thing.

It doesn't work that way. Chapel is most likely an outlier for 2-cost group. And how would I incorporate the 2-costers with the 5-costers? It would be bad statistical analysis to assume that the top 25% of the 2-costers are on par the the top 25% of the 5-costers.

24
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:37:26 am »
I don't get what you are saying. Why is offering less options giving a better result? And how is S, S-, A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C different to a 1-10 rating?
If you are so desperately want tiers, depending on what you want and what DXV said, you can just grab my lists and either divide equally in 4 bins or divide into 0-25%, 25%-50%, 50%-75% and 75%-100% groups. Isn't that exactly what you want? Just a different represantation of the same thing.

Less options which are clearly defined makes it easier for a participant to justify a rating that they give a specific card. It is the post analysis, after the poll closes, that further separates the tiers into (-)'s and (+)'s. A participant would rate a card as either A, B, or C, instead of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10. It is easier on the participants overall. Ease makes it more likely for a participant to finish the poll.

25
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:33:01 am »
As you can see, according my criteria for each tier, you have far too many "S" cards.
This is reality-defying. It could be that half the cards were "S" cards; the power-level curve can look like anything. You can't simultaneously say "these are cards you want 95% of the time" and "it's 3-7% of the cards." Combined they are data you don't have, that you are trying to find even.

Huh? I could want Chapel 95% of the time. But if Masquerade were in the kingdom, I may choose it instead of Chapel, making up the 5% that I don't want Chapel in my deck. That doesn't take away, nor even interact with the 3-7% that are "S" cards. It just means that even for an "S" card, there may be a better option, which is probably taken by another "S" card. Plus, 95% was just an arbitrary number; something to get discussion going. It could be even higher. 98%? 99%?

By the way, I love the game.
Thanks.

If you graph how powerful cards are - let's say a bar graph, each card gets a bar, height is power level - the graph can look like anything. There are no requirements on the reality of the cards. It could be that they were all equally powerful. It could be that half sucked and half rocked. And so on. It could be that they were all equally powerful and weak, so that you slowly clawed your way to victory; it could be that they were all equally powerful and strong, so that the first player always won when they played their first card.

When you are trying to determine what this graph looks like - that is to say, rating the cards - you don't know ahead of time what this graph looks like. It is the thing you are trying to determine. You don't know if 3-7% of the cards will be goes-in-95%-of-decks. That's something you find out by analyzing the cards. It could be that 0% of the cards go in 95% of the decks - they're all narrow. It could be that 50% of the cards go in 95% of the decks - lots of cards are broad and interchangeable.

You can say, "let's divide up the cards by power level, so that we have four bins, for the best, next best, next best, worst." That's fine; then 25% are indeed in the top 25%, assuming we can sufficiently distinguish the cards. But that's not what you said.

OK, I understand your argument. A way to work around that is to offer 3 options, and no S option in a poll. Then take the top 3% as voted on by the community, and assign them the "S" tier. However I would guess that too many cards would qualify as "S" tier anyway.

But if I also understand what you are saying as a counter argument, you theoretically made 50% of the cards extremely powerful compared to the other 50% of the cards. That may be fun to theorize about, but most likely not true. I think we would hear a lot more complaints about dud cards for that to be true. But you may be right that peak of the curve could be nearer the A-B area and then have a long tail through the rest of the B through C designations.

Pages: [1] 2

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 18 queries.