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.

Topics - markus

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1]
1
Dominion General Discussion / Dominion Log Statistics
« on: September 17, 2018, 06:10:36 pm »
Weíve had some fun with that already on the Dominion Discord and I thought it was time to write up a summary.
Using ceviriís tool woodcutter (http://ceviri.me/woodcutter/) Iíve logged games of top players played since the start of this year. Games qualified, if at least one player had skill (=mu) of at least 1.9 at the time. For all conclusions that you draw from this, keep in mind that this is really the right tail of the skill distribution (top 0.9%).
In addition, about 12% of the logged games are because of specific players that played them. Iím dropping all games that ended before turn 3 and those with more than 2 events/landmarks. The result are about 24,000 games that I use - and for which the logs can be found on Woodcutter.

The results of the log analysis can be found starting from this google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M2L7hcY3sbA33OwuZhgPYJWVlMFgJYBdK8cnkbJHmbo/edit#gid=0
Summary of the results can be found for each card in the form of images in this album: https://1drv.ms/a/s!AgOcGYxKWHVDnXKCXradFogAJnMu

Some caveats first: for about 5% of the games grabbing the log was not successful. Some of them might be because I lost connection, more worrisome are the ones that are not randomly dropped: Smugglers had a bug that made some of its games unloadable; when the last decision is an autoplay by the bot (primarily Changeling) it canít be loaded; and there are some internal errors. Thereís also a bug with Band of Misfits and Overlord such that it counts as the copy of the card it is when it is in play at game end Ė so I try to exclude those games when that matters.
A limitation of the logs is that the last decision is not recorded. That could be an innocuous ďend buy phaseĒ, but also buying the last Province.

In this post, I primarily want to describe what I did and what you can find there. Thereís a lot of data so expect to find some outliers, if you start searching for them. For example, itís intuitive that itís good to have a 5-2 opening on a board that has Witch. That itís good to have 5-2 on a board with Fountain is more likely to be noise.

Letís start with the information included in the graphs, using Rebuild as an example:



There are 741 boards with Rebuild.
The first player has won 62% (more precisely, if both players had the same strength, the first player would win 62%). This is slightly higher than the 59% estimated across all boards. But the standard error of this estimate is 2.1%, so itís not a (statistically) significant deviation from the usual first player advantage. This is an observation that Iíve made more generally: changes in first player advantage tend to be small: there is little signal relative to the noise, so donít try to interpret too much into it - even if it makes sense that FPA should be higher on Rebuild boards. On the flipside, ďlittle signalĒ means that we can be relatively sure that there are no cards which make the first player win 70% or more of the games.

What I call the ďskill multiplierď is 0.93 for Rebuild, which indicates that it favours the weaker player as itís less than 1. The motivation for this estimate is that in theory the win probability of a player with skill difference ∆mu is given by winprob=1/(1+exp(-∆mu)). The skill multiplier is the factor that multiplies the skill difference in this formula such that the observed results on Rebuild boards are explained best:  winprob=1/(1+exp(-∆mu*skill_multiplier)). A value less than 1 means that the difference in mu between the players gets effectively shrinked Ė the better player wins less than they should according to their skill advantage. For example, a player with a positive ∆mu=1 (that is 7.5 levels) should win 73.1% of the games in general, but only wins 71.7%. Again, I show the standard error for this estimate showing that itís not significantly smaller than 1. Also note that the estimated skill multiplier across all boards is 0.94, such that better players always tend to underperform a bit. (My short explanation would be that for top players their skill estimate mu is too swingy Ė my mu has fluctuated between 1.9 and 2.3 this year and I donít believe that a lot of this was actual skill changes. As a result, when my mu is low after a bad streak I outperform expectations and vice versa.)

Next on the top left are the usual game endings with that card on the board. As the last decision is not logged, the classification might not always be exact, but Iím following the rules: if thereís at most 1 Province or Colony in supply it counts as Province ending; if the supply is at most 1 card (not Province or Colony) away from a three-pile ending it counts as such. All other games count as resignation. Note that some games will be classified as both Province and 3-pile ending (more than should be in reality) and some 3-piles might wrongly count as resignation (e.g. two Ports left in supply that are bought with last buy for 3-pile). Over all games there are 39% Province endings, 28% 3-piles, and 35% resignations. Governor leads to many Province and few 3-pile endings and Goons is the other way around. Tournament games have a high rate of resigns.

In the bottom panels there is the histogram with the share of games in which each player gains a certain number (left) and for the difference in the number of gains (right).
You can roughly see whether that led to more wins or losses from the colours in those bars and the top panels have the details: first, the blue coloured lines show the estimate for the win rate with a certain number of gains as well as the 95% confidence interval. For Rebuild this suggests that a player who doesnít gain any Rebuild wins more than 50% of the games and a player with 1 Rebuild wins fewer than 50% of the games. But this might reflect that better players are more likely to skip Rebuild and they would also win more often if they go for Rebuild. To take out this effect, I estimate the version corrected for skill in green. This version uses the skill difference as an explanatory variable such that the result is an estimate for how well the players do against an equal opponent. This reduces the effect of playing without Rebuild to basically 0 (49% win rate). The right panel shows the same using the difference in gains instead of the absolute number Ė in the case of Rebuild thereís nothing statistically significant there.

Some gain statistics are also summarized on the top:
  • How many copies are gained on average by the first and second player (also conditional on gaining at least one)?
  • How often is at least one copy gained by one or both players?
  • How often is at least one copy gained by one or both players in the opening, which I count as everything that happens before the first playerís turn 3?
  • How often does the only player who gains it - in general or in the opening Ė win the game? (This is again for the raw win rate and the one that corrects for skill differences. It also includes the standard errors for the estimates.)

Some thoughts on interpreting those numbers:
  • For cards that are widely accessible (e.g. Jack of All Trades) a win rate below 50% for the only player to gain it suggests that usually the player who skips it is correct.
  • For cards that are difficult to gain because they are in limited supply (e.g. tournament Prizes) or expensive (e.g. Kingís Court) a positive effect of gaining it, is not necessarily because players donít realize the cardís strength. I would rather see it as a measure for how good it is to be the one that built the deck / got lucky to gain them.
  • Gaining Provinces or buying Salt the Earth is a direct sign that the player scores or is in a position to win the game. The reason for this would have to be found somewhere else most likely. Similarly, cards that are often gained to 3-pile for a win (e.g. Candlestick Maker) show a positive effect for the player gaining a lot of them.

Finally, let me remind you that this only uses the games of the top, and you would likely find different results for lower ranked players.

So much for the summary stats for each card. Most of the underlying information and much more can be found on the google sheets starting from here: I hope that it is more or less self-explanatory for someone who wants to dig deeper. Iíll just point out what else can be found there. First there are tabs on that sheet with stats for the whole database. Then, there are separate sheets for the different players that have a bunch of games (or were interested in them). Those are linked from the overview tab. Most useful for a general audience are:
  • better player: presenting the stats from the perspective of the player with the higher mu.
  • winner: presenting the stats from the perspective of the winner of each game.
  • 5-2 opening: limits the sample to the games in which exactly 1 player had a 5-2 opening (more precisely either drew 0 or 3 Estates/Shelters for their turn 1) and presents the stats from their perspective.

On the general sheets, there is a tab with
  • opening gains: e.g. double Ambassador was opened 17% of the times by the better player and 15% by the subsequent winner.
  • gain 1st: which card is the first one that is bought / gained / trashed a certain number of times by the better player? (Ambassador is the first card to be bought twice on 32% of Ambassador boards.)
  • gain 1st Qvist: does the same within the Qvist-cost-categories (Ambassador was the first $3-cost card to be bought twice on 40% of Ambassador boards.)
  • empty piles: has the chance of each pile in the kingdom of running out and the distribution of game end conditions.
  • gains&plays: how often is each card gained, how often are its copies played? (The better player gains 1.6 Ambassadors and plays 8.8 Ambassadors in the average game, making it 5.5 plays for each Ambassador until game end.)
  • impact factor: this was motivated by the discussion in this thread. It tries to measure how much different boards with a certain card are in terms of buying, gaining and trashing compared to the average board. For that purpose, it compares how much the probability of all other cards to be bought or the average number of cards to be bought changes. It also shows which cards are affected the most in a positive or negative way. Note that for normal card pairs only about 20 games with the combo are in the database such that the effect must be strong to show up. Nevertheless, the usual suspects for power combos do show up.
  • impacted tab shows which cards drive the impact factor the most. Intuitively, those are the cards that are most board dependent. (e.g. Peddler for number of being bought, Fortress for number of being trashed).


The individual sheets have a tab that compares the buys / gains / trashes of the named baseline player with their opponents and one tab that shows the distribution of the number of buys / gains / trashes of each card.
Then they have the ďgain 1st" and ďgain 1st Qvist" tabs for that player only.
The boards tab has some aggregate statistics for boards with that card: average number of turns, average number of buys / gains / trashes. Then it has the first player advantage (not a lot of effect there) and the change in the win probability for that player. For the named players and the 5-2 opener it shows how much they outperformed expectations when that card is on the board. (e.g. being the only player to open 5-2 on a Witch board gives you a 15% outperformance, that is a 65% win chance against an equal opponent with random start.) For the better player sheet this column shows the skill multiplier (whether skill difference is more or less important on those boards).

I also tried to classify cards on the better-boards sheet in terms of being village, draw, trasher, gainer (and +buy), alt-VP, attack and types of attack. The idea was to see how the presence or absence / combination of these affects the win probability. Now, you could fill threads discussing the cards, my first try was to have them at value 0, 0.5, or 1 and then round down. (if thereís only a 0.5 Village on the board like Necropolis, the board counts as not having Villages).
Finally the logged game numbers used for the sheet with the kingdoms are on the last tab.

Have fun with the numbers and let me know what else you'd like to see!

2
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Some Statistics on Ratings
« on: February 07, 2018, 05:27:45 pm »
For this analysis, Iím using the same data as Scavenger. (If you donít know it, check it out!)
Iím using all rated 2-player games played until January 29th.

Rating System

Iíll mostly talk about mu, so letís start with a quick summary of the rating system. You can find some more info also here and the links contained therein.

1) mu (Ķ): this is the best measure of your skill and everyone starts with mu=0. Itís a relative measure and the expected win percentage between two players mostly depends on the difference between the two playersí mu. For example, a difference of 1 corresponds to about 73% chance of winning (ties always count as half a win). Hereís a graph that shows this probability in general:


2) phi (ϕ): the second parameter measures the uncertainty around the skill mu. In 95% of the cases a playerís true skill should lie in the interval [mu-2*phi,mu+2*phi]. Players start with phi=0.75.

3) Level: the level is simply calculated as 50+7.5*(mu-2*phi). It is therefore a conservative measure of your skill as it takes the lower bound of the interval given above. That also means that players with fewer games (recently) are on average underrated in terms of their level. But you canít sit on your high level after some (lucky) wins.

4) sigma (σ): this is a measure for the stability of your skill. Players start with sigma=0.033 and it doesnít move much, because stability of mu is hard to estimate given the few games per rating period (=1 day). Given this assumed parameter, the skill of a typical player either gains or loses 0.033 of skill on a day. This makes the estimate of the skill less certain when a player doesnít play (much) and phi increases.

How does the rating change?
In theory, itís simple: mu increases, if you win more games than you were expected to. Scavenger also calculates that for you. How much mu changes also depends on your uncertainty phi. The more certain your rating is, the less it will change.
In particular, the formula is:
mu_change = phi^2*(actual_wins Ė expected_wins)
So, if your phi=0.2, winning or losing a game makes a difference of mu=0.04 (or level=0.3). If you were expected to win with 75%, then winning adds mu=0.01 and losing subtracts mu=0.03.

Uncertainty phi decreases with each game played and increases due to sigma. If your opponent is closer to your skill, phi will decrease more as the result is more informative (what matters is (win_probability*(1-win_probability)). If you play a constant number of games per day, your phi will converge to a certain value. (if you play less afterwards, it will increase again and vice versa.)
For example, if you play 1/5/10 games per day, phi will end up around 0.26/0.17/0.15.


Games Played

Hereís the number of those rated 2-player games recorded per day and the number of what I defined as ďactive playersĒ, i.e. having played at least 10 games in the last 30 days.
Edit: the number of games in the left graph should be halved because each game is counted for each player, hence twice.

There are around 20,000 10,000 games played per day and active players are around 5,000. You can notice the reduction in games played in late October, when Nocturne preview was available.


Distribution of Skill

Hereís the histogram of the current skill of all players, only active players, and the one weighted by the number of games played (in that one mu is the value on the day the game was played:


The following heat maps show which players get matched most frequently. The right one zooms in one games with at least one player having mu=1.5:



You can see above that the distribution is not centred on mu=0 anymore, but the average is negative. Here is how the average has evolved since the start of the leaderboard:


First, let me be clear that this decline is not a big problem, because what matters is not the absolute value of mu but the difference between two players.
But whatís the reason? As described above, the change of mu depends on the difference between actual wins and expected wins and phi. The former is symmetric: if player 1 outperforms expectations, player 2 underperforms by the same amount. But phi can differ between the two. In particular, if the underperformer has a higher phi than the overperformer, mu of the underperformer will fall more than mu of the overperformer increases and average mu falls. This could happen, because new players (high phi) are doing worse than expected (mu=0) or players that have been away for some time (higher phi) are playing worse than before.

Something to note are the two breaks in the red curve of active players above: end of May the decline stopped when the matching system was changed to make the default match more even (smaller level difference allowed). The second break was end of July, when the parameters of the ratings system were changed. That increased the level of new players to 38.75 and made matches of new players with experienced positive mu players more likely.
(Note: I calculated each playerís mu from the start using the current parameters, such that thereís no break in the method. Lowering starting phi from 2 to 0.75 helped to keep average mu more stable, because new players donít lose that much rating on their first losses anymore. If I calculated todayís ratings with the original parameters, the average would be at -0.85 for all players and -0.6 for active players.)

To round this up, here are the upper percentiles and how they have evolved:



Beat the Expectation?
If you want to increase your mu, you need to play better than expected. A question that regularly comes up is whether itís more beneficial to play a better or weaker opponent. For that I look at the difference between expected outcome and actual outcome for different bins of level difference (I use level here, because thatís what you can set in your matching options). I restrict the sample to the better player being at least level 45. The result is the left panel of this graph:
 

It shows that a better player slightly underperforms when facing a weaker player. But the difference is hardly significant: playing someone 8 levels higher would give you a 1% better outcome than playing someone 8 levels lower. Therefore, when averaged over all players, the theoretical win probability shown in the first graph matches the outcome well. Some players might still do better when facing someone stronger or weaker.

The right graph shows the overperformance in the n-th game of a player on a given day (only using players with already 100 games). You might think that itís harder to focus on many games in a row, but that graph doesnít show a strong effect, either. The caveat is that I can only use the rating day, such that I canít see whether thereís been some hours of break between games. If someone plays around 0:00 UTC, then games also count for two days.
What you can see from the right graph is that there is an outperformance on average for those players with 100+ games. That means that those players tend to increase their rating when they play. So letís have a look at the correlation between games played and skill in the following heat map:

There is a mildly positive relationship between the total number of games played and a playerís mu. But you can also see that thereís a lot of variance and playing many games is not sufficient for becoming a good player. Hence, you might want to spend some time on the other sections of this forum or the discord channel.

3
The Best Cards (Top Half)

LaLight provides comments for odd ranks and markus for even ranks.

#41 ▼5 Transmogrify (Adventures)
Weighted Average:
52.9%
Unweighted Average:
54.4%
Median:
53.1%
Standard Deviation:
21.1%

Transmogrify just like Duplicate has lost some ranks in this year. In my opinion, the problem with these Reserves is to play them in advance to get some bonus much later. But what makes Transmogrify somehow a little worse is that sometimes you donít have anything to trash after starting Estates. And of course being the Reserve and therefore being very slow hurts Transmogrify a lot.
#40 ▲3 Farming Village (Cornucopia)
Weighted Average:
56.6%
Unweighted Average:
56.0%
Median:
59.3%
Standard Deviation:
16.7%

Farming Village has been stable over time in the middle of the ranking. It's a village that sometimes skips cards that you don't want to have - you're sad when it skips your Ghost.
#39  Diplomat (Intrigue)
Weighted Average:
57.1%
Unweighted Average:
55.7%
Median:
51.9%
Standard Deviation:
18.1%

Diplomat is one of those cards which heavily depends on kingdom. Either the whole engine depends on presence of Diplomat or Diplomat wonít be bought for the whole game. But whatever said, Diplomat is much stronger than its predecessor, the Secret Chamber, both in Action and Reaction part.
#38 ▼2 Envoy (Promo)
Weighted Average:
58.7%
Unweighted Average:
54.5%
Median:
55.6%
Standard Deviation:
21.9%

Envoy has lost a bit and has just fallen behind Advisor.
Having to give up the (potentially) best card often does more harm than drawing one additional card compared to Smithy or its variants. It's nice if there's some other draw or sifting that ensures drawing the good cards that your opponent has discarded.
#37  Mill (Intrigue)
Weighted Average:
59.7%
Unweighted Average:
53.3%
Median:
54.3%
Standard Deviation:
22.2%

The next second edition card in the list, Mill. Mill is a Great Hall+, being one of the ways to hit $5 on the second shuffle almost guaranteed. Other than that it has usual perks of being 2-type cards (Ironworks/Ironmonger etc. interactions) and overall is an average card.
#36 ▼4 Ironworks (Intrigue)
Weighted Average:
59.7%
Unweighted Average:
57.1%
Median:
56.9%
Standard Deviation:
16.0%

Ironworks loses a bit this year, bringing it closer to Armory and Engineer.
Use it, if you want to gain many cards costing up to 4, or to potentially pile-out.
#35 ▲8 Advisor (Guilds)
Weighted Average:
59.9%
Unweighted Average:
57.8%
Median:
54.3%
Standard Deviation:
20.4%

After losing 2 ranks in the last year, Advisor gains back even 8! One person even put Advisor onto the first place (letís look at the avatars). Advisor is a good spammable non-terminal drawcard that gets even better in the presence of many good trashers and yeah, we have a lot of those now.
#34  Exorcist (Nocturne)
Weighted Average:
60.5%
Unweighted Average:
58.1%
Median:
56.8%
Standard Deviation:
24.1%

Exorcist is a new card that (still?) has a lot of variance in the ratings. I like it, because trashing Estates for Will-o'-Wisps is very nice early on. Imp is a nice card as well, that can be drawn by Will-o'-Wisps or play them. Finally, Ghost is a strong card but getting them with Exorcist is relatively costly and slow (gold gainers go well with it). It might not always be worth it to build that much.
#33 ▼9 Temple (Empires)
Weighted Average:
60.8%
Unweighted Average:
60.8%
Median:
58.0%
Standard Deviation:
22.7%

The Gathering trasher from Empires has lost 9 ranks in this years, going to 33rd place. Temple is a nice self-synergetic card (play Teples, buy Temples for VP, trash Temples with Temples) but it is quite slow as a trasher compared to a whole lot of other cards. It has the very same Average, weighted and not.
#32 ▼15 Sea Hag (Seaside)
Weighted Average:
60.9%
Unweighted Average:
62.3%
Median:
63.0%
Standard Deviation:
21.7%

Sea Hag is one of the biggest losers, dropping out of the best third.
Nowadays, there are many decent single-card trashers that can deal with the Hag's curses. And it doesn't provide any benefit other than junking, so its rank below Marauder for the first time seems justified. Still, it's a strong attack with immediate impact and I wouldn't expect her to fall much further.
#31 ▲10 Mining Village (Intrigue)
Weighted Average:
61.0%
Unweighted Average:
56.8%
Median:
61.7%
Standard Deviation:
22.6%

Mining Village continues returning ranks to itself being whole +10 in this year! Villages get better, because there go more terminal cards and self-trashing works nice with Lurker and similar cards.
#30 ▲6 Salvager (Seaside)
Weighted Average:
61.9%
Unweighted Average:
63.4%
Median:
61.7%
Standard Deviation:
20.0%

After some losses in previous years, Salvager rises again in the rankings. Maybe opening it has become less attractive over time, but then there are more gold gainers that make it useful in the end game, as well as being able to mill Provinces.
#29 ▲9 Moneylender (Base)
Weighted Average:
62.0%
Unweighted Average:
62.1%
Median:
63.0%
Standard Deviation:
20.5%

The appearance of Heirlooms havenít ruined Moneylenderís plans to get closer to the first place! +9 ranks and this is only a beginning of his plan. Seriously though, Copper trashing is super good.
#28 ▲1 Sacrifice (Empires)
Weighted Average:
62.2%
Unweighted Average:
63.3%
Median:
64.2%
Standard Deviation:
17.9%

Sacrifice stays where it was in its second year with a relatively low standard deviation. It is a decent trasher that you often want to open with. And sometimes it's going to save your turn when you use it as a Village - or it cleans up your ruins.
#27  Devil's Workshop (Nocturne)
Weighted Average:
62.8%
Unweighted Average:
61.6%
Median:
58.0%
Standard Deviation:
21.7%

Another Nocturne card in the list. Devilís Workshop is quite a universal card: it can give you a Gold, if you have no money, can give you more engine pieces if you have limited gains and can give you Imps just when you need them to have a weak draw in your engine if you donít have any.
#26  Blessed Village (Nocturne)
Weighted Average:
64.5%
Unweighted Average:
60.7%
Median:
64.2%
Standard Deviation:
20.3%

Blessed Village gets its first ranking a bit outside the top quarter. I can see it rising a bit in the future. It's one of the few Villages that can already be beneficial early on.
#25 ▼17 Jack of all Trades (Hinterlands)
Weighted Average:
64.7%
Unweighted Average:
70.9%
Median:
76.3%
Standard Deviation:
20.8%

I donít think I will be wrong if I say this is the biggest loser in the list. Minus 17 ranks compared to the last year! Sorry, Jack, but Big Money gets more and more bad with time. But in no way it is a bad card! Jack still does what he does best: protects from attacks, draws-to-X and gains Silver. It was ranked twice on the first place.
#24 ▼3 Conspirator (Intrigue)
Weighted Average:
64.9%
Unweighted Average:
67.8%
Median:
66.7%
Standard Deviation:
18.2%

Conspirator loses a few ranks this year after gaining last year. It has been pretty stable throughout. It's a very nice card if you're likely to activate it and there are probably more boards nowadays, where you can reasonably do that.
#23 ▼10 Young Witch (Cornucopia)
Weighted Average:
64.9%
Unweighted Average:
63.3%
Median:
69.1%
Standard Deviation:
22.5%

Another curser losing a lot of ranks, Young Witch. Cheap cards become better, trashing becomes better, sometimes you donít buy YW even when thereís no more cursers on board. So Young Witch gets less and less attention (not counting Lord Rattington of course). It was ranked 1st twice.
#22 ▲2 Marauder (Dark Ages)
Weighted Average:
65.2%
Unweighted Average:
62.2%
Median:
65.4%
Standard Deviation:
22.0%

Marauder gained a couple of ranks after losing the year before, so it seems to have found its place. It is now the highest junker and only Militia is a higher-rated attack. It is definitely a nice card to open.
#21 ▲9 Procession (Dark Ages)
Weighted Average:
65.4%
Unweighted Average:
59.7%
Median:
67.6%
Standard Deviation:
24.1%

Procession is one of the best support cards in the game and one of the worst headaches for the players. It got 9 ranks compared to the last year because of its spectacular work with Durations, Reserves, cards you need for limited time (Pooka, Moneylender). And I wonít lie to say it makes the most interesting boards!
#20 ▲8 Caravan (Seaside)
Weighted Average:
65.4%
Unweighted Average:
64.7%
Median:
67.9%
Standard Deviation:
19.2%

Caravan wins the ranks that it lost the year before. Maybe Nocturne with its duration draw cards has contributed to that. Beginning-of-turn draw can be really nice for consistency, especially if there's also terminal draw on the board that you want to connect with your Villages. The well-known downside is that it misses shuffles and that you only get the benefit two turns after buying at the earliest.
#19 ▼2 Smithy (Base)
Weighted Average:
67.6%
Unweighted Average:
69.1%
Median:
74.1%
Standard Deviation:
18.0%

Smithy is the card that lets you draw 3 cards. You draw cards from the top of your deck, until you drew 3. Then you stop.
Seriously though, Smithy is one of the most important Dominion cards as draw is important, but lately thereís a lot of good draw other than it. So it lost a little, but still has the 19th rank.
#18  Shepherd (Nocturne)
Weighted Average:
67.6%
Unweighted Average:
65.0%
Median:
69.1%
Standard Deviation:
20.7%

Shepherd has made it to the top 20, becoming the highest-ranked Nocturne card.
I think that's well deserved. There are surprisingly many boards that have ways to make colliding Shepherd with victory cards likely (begining of turn draw, setting aside cards, sifting). On other boards you just use it as part of your engine that makes it more reliable while greening. Pasture means that there are more Victory cards around to begin with and Estates are worth more, making it harder to ignore a Shepherd-based engine.
#17 ▲2 Quarry (Prosperity)
Weighted Average:
68.2%
Unweighted Average:
64.8%
Median:
66.7%
Standard Deviation:
18.9%

Quarry gets better as there is more Action cards in the game, so no surprises here. $4-card gainersí rating increases, Quarry rating increases as well. + Quarry has a lot of awesome interactions, Quarry + Villa for one.
#16 ▲8 Fortress (Dark Ages)
Weighted Average:
68.7%
Unweighted Average:
65.0%
Median:
65.4%
Standard Deviation:
16.0%

Fortress gains another 8 ranks and has made it into the top 20% after starting out below average in 2013. This is in line with other Villages gaining ranks.
Often you're happy to get a plain Village for 4. On some boards with trash for benefits cards it becomes a really nice part of your payload. So watch out for those combos.
#15 ▲7 Plaza (Guilds)
Weighted Average:
69.5%
Unweighted Average:
65.8%
Median:
69.1%
Standard Deviation:
18.0%

Another proof of Villages getting better as there are more and more engines. Plaza becomes better if you have a lot of overdraw in your deck, which is now mostly the case. Discard the Treasures, draw them back, get coin tokens!
#14 ▲3 Militia (Base)
Weighted Average:
74.3%
Unweighted Average:
73.8%
Median:
77.8%
Standard Deviation:
12.7%

Militia rises a bit, undoing its loss last year. It is the strongest attack on this list. Well, you get it on most boards and often you already get it on your first shuffle.
#13 ▼5 Magpie (Adventures)
Weighted Average:
75.4%
Unweighted Average:
76.1%
Median:
82.7%
Standard Deviation:
19.9%

Magpie went down 5 places since the last year and this is quite expected. As it is good to have a lot of them mostly, thereís a lot of times youíre just thinking ďso? I have a lot of cantrips, thank you very muchĒ. Still when Magpie shines, it shines a lot.
#12 ▼6 Herald (Guilds)
Weighted Average:
76.7%
Unweighted Average:
76.7%
Median:
79.0%
Standard Deviation:
15.3%

Herald's continuous rise has ended and it has dropped out of the top 10.
It is a prime target for all workshop variants as having many Heralds in a deck with a high action density is really nice. It is weaker with Night cards and with cards that care more about the order of play (e.g. Leprechaun and Legionary). It's sometimes a bit awkward with mandatory trashers.
#11 ▲7 Worker's Village (Prosperity)
Weighted Average:
78.0%
Unweighted Average:
74.5%
Median:
80.3%
Standard Deviation:
17.0%

Another Village going up 7 places. This time with +Buy! This card is a lot of engine pieces in one, so expectedly it is in top.
#10 ▲3 Port (Adventures)
Weighted Average:
79.3%
Unweighted Average:
76.7%
Median:
84.0%
Standard Deviation:
17.8%

Also Port gains a few ranks bringing it just into the top 10. It's two Villages almost for the price of 1 without any extra buy. If you don't care much about the extra benefits that the other Villages on this list provide, it's the best way to increase your terminal space. And you can afford to buy a couple more than usual for consistency reasons.
#9 ▲1 Throne Room (Base)
Weighted Average:
81.2%
Unweighted Average:
78.8%
Median:
86.4%
Standard Deviation:
19.4%

Throne Room keeps its place in Top 10, even received one place higher, especially now, when it is not mandatory.  It got 1st place twice.
#8 ▲7 Spice Merchant (Hinterlands)
Weighted Average:
85.5%
Unweighted Average:
81.0%
Median:
88.2%
Standard Deviation:
18.1%

Spice Merchant gains impressive 7 ranks and is the second highest trasher on this list.
On the one hand, that is remarkable as it can only take care of your treasures. On the other hand, it does so in a very nice way. Often you play it as a non-terminal trasher that also cycles your deck. Then, it is not great for hitting $5 early. If that is important, it can sometimes be useful to play it for 2 coins (still not a good way to generally ensure hitting $5). And sometimes the +buy that comes with that option is what you're really looking for (and you need to find ways to not run out of fuel).
#7 ▲4 Villa (Empires)
Weighted Average:
86.9%
Unweighted Average:
80.5%
Median:
87.7%
Standard Deviation:
19.1%

Villa is in the Top 10 with +4 spots! It was ranked 4 times below average and 3 times on the first place. Outstanding card with outstanding ability.
#6 ▲3 Bridge (Intrigue)
Weighted Average:
87.4%
Unweighted Average:
84.4%
Median:
90.1%
Standard Deviation:
18.0%

Bridge rises another 3 ranks this year.
There's not much room anymore, but I think it could be even higher. Many boards allow for an engine using Bridge and then it is really dominating. You want to be the first one that pulls off the mega-turn. I think that people sometimes get it too early - you often don't need to open with it. Mid-game you often want to buy more than you can play just to deny your opponent. If you win the split 7-3, you'll have good chances to eventually win the game.
#5 =0 Ironmonger (Dark Ages)
Weighted Average:
87.6%
Unweighted Average:
82.6%
Median:
88.9%
Standard Deviation:
18.2%

Ironmonger stayed where it was with two votes below average and one first place vote. With a little nerf being Night Cards Ironmonger is still very spammable and essential in practically every game it appears.
#4  Sauna (Promo)
Weighted Average:
89.3%
Unweighted Average:
87.3%
Median:
91.4%
Standard Deviation:
12.9%

Sauna is the best new card of this list.
Together with Avanto it provides everything you need to get to 5 Provinces fairly quickly using a money-based strategy. It is relatively easy to execute and sets a high bar for competing engines - Rebuild has been considered a very strong card for a similar reason. But sometimes there is something better around and you can try an alternative strategy (if there's some faster/more reliable way of trashing). In particular, it is cumbersome for a Sauna-Avanto player to get 5 Saunas before uncovering Avantos. You might be able to do something better in the meantime and then win the Avanto split. Relying on Sauna-Avanto also doesn't allow you to build too big or add too many victory cards as you'll have troubles connecting your Saunas and Avantos.
#3 =0 Wandering Minstrel (Dark Ages)
Weighted Average:
89.7%
Unweighted Average:
83.4%
Median:
93.8%
Standard Deviation:
24.0%

5 votes below average, 4 votes for the first place, itís Wandering Minstrel! Deviation of the card is quite high and itís understandable. Whatever said Minstrel is a high-skill card, especially with the introducing of Night Cards. But good village is still a good village and Minstrel is the best Village for $4.
#2 =0 Tournament (Cornucopia)
Weighted Average:
91.7%
Unweighted Average:
87.9%
Median:
96.3%
Standard Deviation:
19.2%

Tournament keeps its #2 rank and has been consistently close to the top.
I'm not sure whether it deserves to be that high, in particular I disagree with the big difference relative to Poacher at #51. Of course, you almost always get it and try to get some of the 3 preferred Prizes and some Duchies maybe. That comes at the expense of building inefficiently. Also, a blocked Tournament is much worse than a Poacher that becomes an Oasis.
#1 =0 Remake (Cornucopia)
Weighted Average:
94.2%
Unweighted Average:
92.1%
Median:
97.5%
Standard Deviation:
11.9%

Remake remains #1 in the ranking being voted 1st 10 times. What is here to say, trashing is awesome, fast trashing is more awesome, Remake is the awesomest!

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.355 seconds with 17 queries.