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 - O

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
Other Games / Re: Dicey Dungeons
« on: July 30, 2018, 05:25:50 pm »
As thief, a highly amusing (and viable!) strategy is to use the stolen transform ability to play as a bear. You remain a bear for the rest of the game.

2
but online doesn't create revenue for Donald X.

Is this true (zero revenue for Donald) or just mostly true (tiny revenue compared to IRL)? Curious.

3
I'll also just reiterate that if you're coming back to this with whether or not certain steps should be granted, you're missing the point.
This post is about the denier, not the denied. It's about how your approach affects your experience and your development as a player and as a person, not about the game rules or the moral justification behind requesting the undo in the first place.
I'm sharing some insight on how to improve your relationship with the playerbase, your skill as a player, and yourself. How you choose to react to that and what you choose to do with it is 100% your call.
You might find more of an open ear if you took care to not make your posts sound patronizing. This is just me sharing some insight on how to improve your relationship with f.ds, your skill as a poster, and yourself. How you choose to react to that and what you choose to do with it is 100% your call.

I think his response was a correct one to posters pedantry. They were entirely missing the point. If the patronizing aspect of that is bothersome, perhaps don't derail threads with irrelevant hypotheticals of "undo abuse" that aren't frequent real
I'll also just reiterate that if you're coming back to this with whether or not certain steps should be granted, you're missing the point.
This post is about the denier, not the denied. It's about how your approach affects your experience and your development as a player and as a person, not about the game rules or the moral justification behind requesting the undo in the first place.
I'm sharing some insight on how to improve your relationship with the playerbase, your skill as a player, and yourself. How you choose to react to that and what you choose to do with it is 100% your call.
You might find more of an open ear if you took care to not make your posts sound patronizing. This is just me sharing some insight on how to improve your relationship with f.ds, your skill as a poster, and yourself. How you choose to react to that and what you choose to do with it is 100% your call.

To tell you the truth, I haven't had much of a problem finding an open ear (it is the information age, after all). Plenty of closed ones too, but that's alright. They've always been around, and they always will be. Nothing has ever been about them.

Agreed. People on F.ds react very poorly to their unhelpful pedantry being called out. I wouldn't say your post has been poorly received at all and I don't think you were patronizing in the slightest.

Actually, I think posting those wishing well hypotheticals in the first place is the more patronizing thing to do.

4
For the "we were talking about when it was a gainer" part, I just fundamentally think you're not even considering the possibility that multiple people trash down, create an engine, and then add jester as payload to that engine to feed off their multiple opponents engines. This is really not that unfathomable and it feels like you're only describing some Jester-BM game without trashing.

Huh? If a card is good it should also be good if everybody has it in his deck.

I keep seeing this sentiment and it's simply not  necessarily true. There are two assumptions being made which are false:

1) A card is good only if it comes into play in mirroring strategies.
2) A card is only influential in a game if it is bought.

Like Awaclus loves to say, Dominion is a reactive game, not a solitaire. I'll do a hopefully helpful proof of concept example. Nitpicks about how these strategies are suboptimal aren't going to be relevant.

Suppose there are two competing strategies in a 2-player game:

A) A Scrying Pool engine populated with cantrips, and
B) Council Room BM.

Furthermore, suppose Diplomat and Fool's Gold are on the board.
If player 1 goes for strategy B, player 2 will follow. Diplomat is useless.

For Fool's Gold, it's (hypothetically) calculated that Fool's Gold is only worth it if you can win the split 7-3. If you win the split 6-4 because your opponent delayed contesting FG's to instead buy more normal coins, he will win.  Since your opponent can always move later and contest the split 6-4, neither player decided to go fools gold and the game is a standard, boring, Council Room BM game.


If player 1 goes for strategy A, and player 2 goes for normal council room BM, player 1 will eventually create an engine that can end on its own terms and win.

BUT if player 1 goes for strategy A, player 2 can opt to

1) Buy Diplomats and use them as +actions to play two Council Rooms a turn, and
2) Go Fool's Gold, as contesting the Fool's Gold in a Scrying Pool engine would be ruinous so he can easily get the requisite 7.

And in doing so would get Double Province turns and rush to end the game too quickly for player 1.


The default equilibrium of this kingdom is both players playing Council Room BM. But Fool's Gold and Diplomat are still "Strong" cards that are relevant to the gameplay of the kingdom, despite not being bought and being bad to buy in a mirror match.


5

~~~
Against strong players, the only circumstance in which you'll be the only person to buy the card is if you're wrong about how good it is.

1) This argument has no relation to your reducto ad absurdium link, just want to point out that this is a quick shift of subject. The argument here is that the tempo loss of buying it first before your opponent is a negative, thus you shouldn't buy it. This is different than the card having a bad effect.

2) There is no effort whatsoever to describe or argue that the first player actually suffers a tempo loss

Here's an equally stupid analogy for Jester:

"First-Movers Advantage: Victory, cost $0. Main text: -5 VP Subtext When you are the first player to buy this, +5VP. Worth 1,000,000VP if your opponent does not buy this his next turn"

Using the original logic: "This card sucks for both players! Once both have bought it, player 1 and 2 have useless cards in their decks for no benefit! Therefore this card is weak and shouldn't be bought"

The reality: There is no tempo less and a concrete advantage for player 1, so its a "strong" card and player 1 will extremely frequently buy it.



The original reducto ad absurdium does not differentiate between your Bandwagon and my First-Mover's advantage.

6
You also for some reason assume
1) That everyone buys and plays Jester, which is an odd assumption given your claim that Jester is not particularly strong
Not so.

"You for some reason assume √2=a/b where a/b is in its lowest terms, which is an odd assumption given your claim √2 is irrational."
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.  He would need to demonstrate that jester is a bad buy before anyone else has bought it to show its a bad buy. Otherwise the card effect might be mediocre when played in that circumstance but the card itself is still strong enough to force players to play it

Your “proof by contradiction” link is completely unhelpful here because the relevant analogous proof only shows that multiple jesters when bought by everyone a 3p are not as strong as a solitary jester in 3p

7
I think you guys are pretty heavily discounting just how much better Jester is in 3-4 player games. There's not really many cards that scale with players in the way Jester can.
All junkers increase in strength in multiplayer games (forsaking a Witch in 2P implies that you deck will contain 10 Curses whereas forsaking a Witch in 3P implies that your deck will contain 20 Curses). As Jester can also junk out of a practically unlimited junk pool, Copper, he is used more often for junking than for gaining in multiplayer games. Just imagine three player open 5/2 with Jester; this will be a massive, snowballing junk festival and you will rarely hit something good with Jester.

So no, I don't buy the notion that Jester is a great gainer. It is a decent card but as it doesn't give you any control over what you gain it is too much of a loose canon to be even remotely as good as a precise control card like Artisan.

Forsaking a witch in 3P does not in the slightest imply your deck will contain 20 curses. In fact in three player games it's very difficult to get the entire curse pile to yourself. Each other player buying a witch and playing them 5 times each will give both opponents 5 curses and you 10 curses.

The on-gain component of jester, however, does double in efficacy entirely. You will on average gain twice as many cards.

You also for some reason assume
1) That everyone buys and plays Jester, which is an odd assumption given your claim that Jester is not particularly strong
2) That when they do so, they will primarily be junking opponents decks. Which is assuming that the jester is bought immediately and trashing is ignored. Again, an odd assumption to make when you're trying to claim that Jester is only a decent card.

8
I think you guys are pretty heavily discounting just how much better Jester is in 3-4 player games.
Suppose:
  • It is a multiplayer game

I'm really not! It does begin to make more sense as the player count rises, agreed, but I suspect the confirmation bias of remembering that one time you managed to get a King's Court and forgetting all the times you had to decide whether to take a silver or give a silver plays a bigger part in how good people think it is.

There's plenty of games where everyone trashes down substantially and few silvers are bought. I assume this still holds true for 3-4P but I don't know for certain.

9
I think you guys are pretty heavily discounting just how much better Jester is in 3-4 player games. There's not really many cards that scale with players in the way Jester can.

10
Pretty much none of these Hero-To-Gain-Philosopher's-Stone examples are useful interactions, except for the ones Chris listed, and then the first three of Gazbag (and I still don't think Stonemason works the vast majority of times).

You can overpay Potion if you weren't aware, Stonemason is probably the single easiest way to "clone" a Potion buy.


Ah, I've done that before but for some reason I was hyperfocused on the trashing ability.

11
Despite this, you'll find there's a quite easy to find trend that cloning tends to be done at cheaper opportunity cost than gaining. Talisman giving a coin and not wasting an action compared to workshop, Changling being a one card opportunity cost with no action required vs any potential "gain a generic action" card.

Cloning is more restrictive, not less, than generically gaining them. But the cloning cards cost less or give other benefits by working within that restriction.

But this just means that it's even more true that talking about ways of gaining Potion cost cards without Potions is even more relevant in a conversation that started out about a way of closing a Potion cost card.

If it were the inverse, then this would be a good point.. if someone was saying how it's not easy to gain a Potion-cost card, then bringing up Changeling wouldn't necessarily be helpful, because Changeling has the extra restriction of needed to have first gotten a Potion-cost card.

Changling is a solid way to get further potion cost cards without gumming up your deck. That seems like a neat and useful card interaction. Part of why it's a solid way is that cloning a card can be done more easily or with other benefits as compared to gaining a card.

Pretty much none of these Hero-To-Gain-Philosopher's-Stone examples are useful interactions, except for the ones Chris listed, and then the first three of Gazbag (and I still don't think Stonemason works the vast majority of times).

These other examples of "potion gaining interactions" don't really do much to prove any point because they're not actually useful. If the desire is to show that "cloning" isn't particularly effective, it's not particularly compelling because so many of the "gaining" methods proposed are obtuse.

12
Cloning suggests gaining a second copy of a card in your possession or that you're just gaining. It doesn't mean just "gaining things"; that was crj's entire point to start with.

And why is it strategically important to "clone" things instead of just "gaining" them?

This question, of course, is completely irrelevant to anything I stated. I never claimed a specific strategic benefit, just that others were pointlessly expanding a term.

Despite this, you'll find there's a quite easy to find trend that cloning tends to be done at cheaper opportunity cost than gaining. Talisman giving a coin and not wasting an action compared to workshop, Changling being a one card opportunity cost with no action required vs any potential "gain a generic action" card.

Cloning is more restrictive, not less, than generically gaining them. But the cloning cards cost less or give other benefits by working within that restriction.

13
ITT people post pedantic edge cases that aren't even remotely close to any reason interpretation of the word "cloning".

Cloning suggests gaining a second copy of a card in your possession or that you're just gaining. It doesn't mean just "gaining things"; that was crj's entire point to start with.

Outpost and Possession are fantastically awful examples of trying to edge case, too. At that point we're just saying "Council room can clone Scrying pool because you MIGHT draw a potion and a silver to use that +buy with!!"

14
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion:Cities
« on: April 18, 2018, 05:40:13 pm »
Matchmaking matches you with people of roughly the same skill level, so someone playing online does not mean they will necessarily play good opponents. There are lots of people who understand nothing about Dominion strategy and if you are someone who understands even basic Eurogame strategy, you will never be close to being matched against them.

It is obvious looking at Chase's post history that when his profile says he is 13 years old that this is accurate. I fully believe Chase has games against his parents where he gets to build up to buy his ludicrously expensive custom cards and still wins.

Chase, I enjoyed reading your cards, another great set along the levels of Dominion: Gunpowder.

I don't think I was around for the (in)famous Gunpowder expansion.  Where do I find that thread? I'd very much like to read it.

It's easy enough to search within the Variants thread on "Gunpowder". Based on a discussion from a while back; it's really best to not go around linking to that thread.

I mean, the posters in gunpowder were less mocking and less toxic to a legitimate troll than the above posters (who hopefully are capable of realizing who they are) are being to a 13 year old, so I think perhaps that ship has sailed.

15
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Nocturne Cards: Conclave
« on: April 03, 2018, 05:58:04 pm »
I remember thinking this card was going to be a powerhouse for some reason. It seems really complex but really it's a pretty vanilla card that goes:

$2
(conditionally)+2 actions

Of course if the condition isn't met, it's a terminal silver. When the condition is met, you're looking at festival without the buy or a more restricted squire that gives you one more dollar. Really nothing to write home about, but it's a solid village in a kingdom that's loaded with different terminal draw cards in my opinion. I would compare it to festival more than any other card.

This is a great example of why context-invariant comparisons aren't great.

When you need +actions, more often than not (but not always!) it's that festival/squire comparison.

When you don't need +actions, and once in awhile when you do need +actions, yes it is a terminal silver. But the negative connotation of "terminal" in the terminal silver here isn't applicable nearly as frequently as it is for a normal terminal silver.

16
Dominion General Discussion / Re: note to self
« on: March 28, 2018, 02:17:55 pm »
Don't get all that excited top-decking a Platinum....

You could have stopped right here, since topdecking a stop card is almost never a good idea.

This is perhaps the most egregious use of "almost never" yet.

17
Philosopher's Stone is best in large decks that don't draw themselves.  I feel like this change makes it good in the opposite situations, and that changes the core concept of the card.

The problem is that you almost never want a large deck that doesn't draw itself, and when you are forced into it, buying a potion, hitting 3P, and then getting the stone actually into a hand is a pretty large task.

18
Solo Challenges / Re: Buy a Colony on Turn 2
« on: March 15, 2018, 10:06:13 pm »
Ah -- the 2 event limit has been pretty much fully solved then, just not in it's own thread.

I think Villa is the most explosive, but Fortress is also a pretty key component there. Not sure if it's actually interesting to solve puzzles once you take out legal in game components though.

19
Getting the Curse on the first shuffle is super bad.

To illustrate the point, if you play Cursed Gold to reach for Ill-Gotten Gains, you junk both players with a Curse and you also get a glorified Copper, which is basically just worse than not doing anything at all. Or if you play CG to reach for Lab, that's also worse than not doing anything at all because if you play the Lab and draw a Curse, that's the same as not having either card, but if you have the Curse in hand and Lab misses the shuffle, that's worse. Granted, IGG and Lab aren't exactly power cards to open with anyway, but sometimes you're pretty happy to open them on a regular 5/2 when there's nothing more important on the board.

So, if skipping your turn is better than reaching for Lab or IGG, buying something useful for $3 is probably better than reaching for any $5.

What about reaching for a power $6?  Artisan with spammable $5s on the board, Border Village for a $5, Hireling or Altar?

Hireling is actually a really inefficient card that you should avoid in most games regardless of Cursed Gold, and Border Village doesn't make much of a difference until later. For Altar and Artisan, it's not so obvious. Powerful (and spammable) $5s is one factor that makes them more attractive, nonterminal cycling/trashing or Gear for $3 is another.

Hireling would be one of the strongest cursed gold openings.
Probably not that strong, especially in the absence of trashing. Assuming that you haven't got an engine going, then once per shuffle the Hireling's extra card draw is exactly cancelled out by the junk card in your deck (and if you never play the Cursed Gold again, you technically have two junk cards in your deck, so you can raise that to twice per shuffle).

The cursed gold is in your deck regardless.

20
If you draw an action dead, but drew a bunch of cards, trashed a copper, and set yourself up for a reshuffle at the end of the turn anyways -- IE played pooka on turn 3 -- drawing the action dead really isn't that awful then.

It's pretty kingdom dependent frankly on whether the first shuffle pooka is worth it. Certainly if you have no method of trashing the curse I would say it's almost always not.

21
There's a 5$ thats very frequently worth grabbing the curse for on Cursed Gold boards in every game.

22
Solo Challenges / Re: Buy a Colony on Turn 2
« on: March 13, 2018, 12:49:53 pm »
Double Colony turn 2:
[/spoiler]

Pretty sure that's going to beat mine no matter the optimization!

After using Alms-Villa, mine was:


Turn 1: CCCC-Cursed Gold: Buy Traveling fair, Buy a Mandarin, top decking the coins then it. Alms for a death cart and top deck it

Turn 2: Death Cart, Mandarin, Cursed Gold, Copper, Copper. Alms -> Villa and play Villa, Death Cart and Mandarin  (9$)
 Play the Cursed Gold and the remaining copper, and use a baker token (+5$ for 14$)


23
Solo Challenges / Re: Buy a Colony on Turn 2
« on: March 12, 2018, 05:58:50 pm »
I did forget about Alms->Villa though. I can actually get up to at least 14$ of raw spend T2 then.

24
Solo Challenges / Buy a Colony on Turn 2
« on: March 12, 2018, 05:09:06 pm »
Looked briefly and didn't see this in a post -- sorry if I missed it.

Using at most 2 Events/Landmarks, buy a colony on Turn 2 in a solo game.

25
Dominion Articles / Re: Masquerade - Market Square is Not a Combo
« on: March 09, 2018, 01:12:54 pm »
One of the largest causes of the shift away from BM-style decks in my opinion is how frequently alt-VP sources show up in games. I feel like when we run simulations based off of the 8 - Province/Duchy/Estate paradigm we're promoting a somewhat outdated POV of the effectiveness of many strategies that aren't good at rushes but ramp up much harder and only need ~8-12 extra VP in the system to outpace the BM strategies.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31

Page created in 0.195 seconds with 19 queries.