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 - markusin

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 125
1
There are powerful and weak attacks, villages, sifters, alternate treasures, trash for benefit, throne rooms, remodelers, gainers, pseudo-attackers, durations, reactions, etc.

There are no weak villages, no weak thrones and no weak trashers. Well, maybe Trader is just a B but certainly everything else in those 3 categories is at least an A simply by virtue of being a splitter or a trasher.

You don't feel that in general Loan or Moneylender are weak?

Loan?  Yes.  Moneylender?  That is a solid opener on most boards.  Great for spiking, and Copper is evil.

Yeah, don't disrespect Moneylender. It's enough to get the classic Festival/Library engine going in a Base set only game. It works nicely with a trasher that can get rid of Estates, but is likely still a key card in games where it is the only trasher.

Loan...
Loan

Here we go

2
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System
« on: September 22, 2017, 01:24:11 pm »
I can tell you the same thing that I told Adam and many other people. I am not sure why a broader rating/ranking system is better than a more in depth one. You would lose so much info.
Also btw, I allow comparing a $2 card to a $4 card. Many just don't do that as it is both tedious and way less relevant. I have a list for all the cards, I just didn't post it yet because I did got burned out and had another project going on. You could just take all the lists and put 80%+ cards in tier 1, 60-80% cards in tier 2, ... 0-20% in tier 5 and done. That is the big upside of using percentages and doing it the way I do it.

Thanks for responding Qvist. I have watched all your YouTube videos on your 2016 ranking (you never completed the 5-cost or 6+cost cards). Your ranking system does offer a lot of good information. However, a few statistical items arise in your system of ranking. Firstly, the sample size is relatively small to get a truly representation of what the community thinks. With your system is would be tough to get a truly representative rank. Those that take your poll need to be very familiar with every card in the game and make non-arbitrary comparisons. The causal player with less understanding of each card will greatly skew your results. Second, there's bound to be some very high standard deviations for given cards because it is a mix of highly competitive and casual players, which would make too hard to put any credit in their ranking.

If I have a kingdom with Hamlet (ranked 5th for two cost cards), Wishing Well (ranked 26 for three cost cards), and Trader (ranked 54 for four cost cards), and have 4 coins in hand, which would be my best cost to benefit ratio? Hamlet would probably be "A" tier, Wishing Well "B" tier, and Trader "C" tier. Would I want to overpay for Hamlet? Overpay for Wishing Well? Or get a Trader? Obviously it may depend on the kingdom, but Hamlet may be the best option overall. It is tough to make those comparisons with such a stringent ranking system and not knowing where the 2-costers rank according to the higher costing other cards.

A 4 tier system would help alleviate the confusion.

This doesn't tie in so well with Tier being determined by effect/cost. Wishing Well might be B tier and less efficient than the A tier Hamlet, but Wishing Well costs $3 instead of $2 and maybe to total effect of Wishing Well is higher than Hamlet. This becomes more likely with the B tier cards that cost $4, and even more likely with the $5 cost B tiers and so on.

To know what to buy with $4 using tiers, with cards cheaper than $4 also being considered, the tier of each card would have to be determined considering only its effect, ignoring cost altogether.

Qvist's ranking doesn't ignore card cost when factoring rank, but neither does the proposed tier system. Whether you use Qvist ranking or tiers, solving the problem of knowing what to buy requires cards to be compared to all other cards in terms of raw strength, ignoring cost.

This is what is at the heart of Adam's criticism of variations in how players rank cards making the ranking system not as helpful as it could be. Regardless of ranking scheme, what should be emphasized is how players are expected to compare cards.

3
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: September 22, 2017, 12:59:02 pm »
I would. If I had my favorite food in infinite supply, I could gain arbitrary amounts of money by selling it and do cool stuff with them.

So gaining lots of money is more important to you than ending world hunger?

I'm wondering what ramifications solving world hunger with an infinite supply of food would have on the world economy. If oranges are in infinite supply, how much would apples cost?

4
It's a little frustrating as I would like to play random games incorporating only one set.

If you create a table and choose the kingdom cards, there are checkboxes next to each expansion. That allows you to create random kingdoms from only the expansions you have selected.

Has anyone had the problem on not being able to click the checkboxes of Adventures and Empires because the interface to select Colonies/Shelters/etc. is in the way?

I can cause the problem by having the browser in windowed mode and reducing its size, but I don't have it when the window is large enough (I have a full-HD display).

I have my window at max width/height pretty much. Dang, either my resolution settings or my monitor needs some adjustment then. I'll try shrinking the window later too.

5
It's a little frustrating as I would like to play random games incorporating only one set.

If you create a table and choose the kingdom cards, there are checkboxes next to each expansion. That allows you to create random kingdoms from only the expansions you have selected.

Has anyone had the problem on not being able to click the checkboxes of Adventures and Empires because the interface to select Colonies/Shelters/etc. is in the way?

6
Dominion Articles / Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« on: September 20, 2017, 11:04:53 am »
If it hurts your soul to use "big money" to describe a deck that doesn't buy a lot of Treasure cards, you can call it good stuff. The thing you should realize is that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is.  Treasures are stop cards.  Cantrips are not.  You have shuffle control with cantrips.  You're a lot more dependent on shuffle luck with Treasures.  There are actual distinctions between these decks other than "well they both use similar means to overcome this idea I invented".

Yes, but at the same time, Big Money decks and Good Stuff both are affected by greening in a similar way. Both decks experience a reduction in expected buying power for each green card bought by a similar amount. The Good Stuff deck will still have a bunch of stop cards in the form of at least some of its starting Coppers and Estates, assuming the presence of light trashing. It's just that the Big Money deck introduces plenty of additional stop cards, whether it is money or terminal actions. I'll also note that a lot of Good Stuff decks often need to fall back on gaining a Gold or two to get a spike in economy in order to make good use of +buy sooner.

If we're taking about a deck that trashes most of its starting cards within a reasonable timeframe and consists of mostly cantrips to draw most of the deck each turn, well then that sounds much more like an engine than good stuff. Then again, such a deck also chokes on green if it doesn't increase handsize beyond five cards.

7
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Strategy Blog Returns!
« on: September 19, 2017, 03:03:45 pm »
This just makes me realise that "splitters" like Throne Room scale exponentially in Actions played while Village scale linearly, so maybe they should be a distinction between Village variants and Throne Room variants after all.

This would only be true if Throne on Throne meant you got to play an action card four times (somehow), with the following one making you play it eight times, etc., rather than just two action cards twice.

Throne Room, King's Court, etc. also scale linearly with the number of cards played, just like standard villages. You could think of Throne as a phantom +1 Card +2 Actions (the +1 Card draws a copy of a card in your hand, the Actions allow you to play both the original copy and the drawn one). This makes it obvious that it also scales linearly.

Ah okay I get it now. Throne Room is still linear, but it's a x2  plays for all leaves in the Throne Room tree.

8
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Strategy Blog Returns!
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:17:32 pm »
Please don't use splitters, the term is horrible and deliberately obfuscating. There is nothing being split, hence there can be nothing doing any kind of splitting.

Village, on the other hand, has been dutifully functioning as a pars pro toto since the beginning and is immediately clear to everyone because it corresponds to a simple base card.

I think visualizing actions with a tree structure makes it pretty clear where the term splitter comes from.

I guess I don't really care so much about which word is used. But the question then is, is Throne Room a village? Is Prince a village? If yes, then it's all good if everyone could agree on that. But I just think a term that includes all these things is better than one that includes Necropolis but excludes Sauna/Avanto.

I think Donald X. himself said he used a binary tree in his play area to keep track of Throne Room playing Throne Room. With Village, it's fine to make a linear track of Villages and place the terminals below the Village supporting it.

This just makes me realise that "splitters" like Throne Room scale exponentially in Actions played while Village scale linearly, so maybe they should be a distinction between Village variants and Throne Room variants after all.

9
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Outpost Podcast Viewer Questions
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:06:20 pm »
Since you mentioned Butcher, how about some discussion on Replace?

- How often is Copper->Estate or Estate->Estate with Replace good compared to the other stuff you can do with it?
- Is a IGG-Style Estate/Duchy Rush with Replace viable a reasonable amount of the time?
- Are "Turbo Replace" strategies considerably stronger than "Turbo Remodel" strategies?
- Are there any special combos with Replace we need to know about?

Discussion on Remodel variants in general might be neat.

10
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Favorite Thematic Cards (part 2)
« on: September 19, 2017, 12:00:18 pm »
Or Harem... that would kill your opponent sense of beauty instantly

Yeah, but then you miss out on the arbitrary points towards the goal of having the best dominion that keeping the Harem would have given you.

11
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Favorite Thematic Cards (part 2)
« on: September 19, 2017, 11:53:36 am »
But if you Catapult Trusty Steed, it doesn't even do anything to your opponent.

But arming the Catapult with a Charm, Relic, Talisman, or Crown is strangely effective. You can also launch your Loan over to do damage.

12
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Strategy Blog Returns!
« on: September 19, 2017, 10:18:30 am »
Inb4 someone argues they are called villages and not splitters.

But they ARE Villages! Splitters is the worst name in the history of existence. You could call them Woohoos because you're happy every time you play them and it would be way better.
FWIW, village has always made way more sense to me than splitter, and it has never once caused any confusion.  When I started reading the forum, the word splitter did cause confusion.  It took me forever to figure out what the hell a splitter was.

The full name is "action splitter", which is annoying to write out everytime. "Village & co." is also annoying to write out every time, but is what people really mean when they say "village".

13
Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« on: September 19, 2017, 07:49:18 am »
Hey, that post from faust got me thinking. Does it make sense to define the "strength" of a board as how efficiently and effectively one can solve the obstacles you laid out.

Say, one board's solution to Problem 1, 5, and 6 is "Prioritize getting a couple of Sentries". You take that same board, add one particular event to it, and the solution to Problem 1,5, and 6 becomes "Buy Donate". Would it make sense to call the Donate board "stronger"?

Yeah, I think it does, if we're talking about card strengths here.

Yeah, I guess this idea fits with the concept of card strength, which is something that is of interest to players when assessing a board (and when deciding on their card rankings).

14
Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« on: September 19, 2017, 12:16:38 am »
Out of curiosity, do you ask if I'm new because of the "refuse to believe you're that much of a novice" comment, or the "being a contrarian" comment?

It was just you arguing with Awaclus, which is a thing newer people do and a thing older members just ignore.

I was so tempted to make a joke about the percent range of new members that get into arguments with Awaclus.

15
Dominion Articles / Re: Gold
« on: September 19, 2017, 12:00:55 am »
I have rewritten the second half of the article, mainly appropriating the very good comments directly from the thread.

In the next few days, I will review the games suggested above. I would like to add an example games section.

This article is primarily aimed at newer players right? I think this is a great opportunity to bring up the "First Game Engine" because of the lessons it teaches us about Gold.

https://dominionstrategy.com/2012/07/30/building-the-first-game-engine/

The way Geronimoo suggested to get an early Gold or two before switching to Markets really stuck to me. Gold being a bouncing board to help you afford the more expensive engine pieces seemed like a great insight. And then you could even Remodel the Gold into Province for that final push to victory.

Then the "First Game" simulator challenge came to be, and it was like, "Yo, why are you buying Gold when you can just use Mine to build up to Gold instead while you buy more Markets and engine parts?". With 2nd Edition Base and Intrigue introducing Bandit and Courtier, it feels more and more like you can improve efficiency by using Action Cards to gain Gold as payload to match your engine's growth, and perhaps even use the $6 cost price point of Gold to Remodel/Replace them into Province as you gain Gold.

This is kind of how I've come to understand Gold. It doesn't feel great to buy them at $6, but Gold becomes an asset if you can find more efficient and better timed ways of gaining it. I think it's good that you bring this up in your article. Indeed, it's easy to gain too many Golds for your own good even if you aren't spending a costly buy on them.

This is such a good comment and basically exactly what I was looking for in the thread. Can I include your commentary for the First Game Engine as an example in the OP?

Oh, uh, sure! Be my guest.

No one misses the lack of Woodcutter in 2nd edition for the First Game board. The First Game board was a nine card kingdom anyway. You can maybe sub in Harbinger to keep the feel of the board.

16
Feedback / Re: Innovation subboard
« on: September 18, 2017, 11:58:00 pm »
I enjoyed Innovation intensely. I even bought a copy of the base game and played it a few times with my brother. Then I kinda just, stopped playing for some reason. I have a pattern of playing something intensely and then suddenly ceasing to make time for it.

17
Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« on: September 18, 2017, 08:33:14 pm »
If I tell you I played an Engine, do you immediately know what my specific solutions to the obstacles were?

Yes. They were a generalized version of this: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17572.msg719842#msg719842

Hey, that post from faust got me thinking. Does it make sense to define the "strength" of a board as how efficiently and effectively one can solve the obstacles you laid out.

Say, one board's solution to Problem 1, 5, and 6 is "Prioritize getting a couple of Sentries". You take that same board, add one particular event to it, and the solution to Problem 1,5, and 6 becomes "Buy Donate". Would it make sense to call the Donate board "stronger"?

18
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Official Dominion Strategy Podcast
« on: September 17, 2017, 11:32:00 am »
While normal videos should certainly aim to be short, the audience for podcasts typically wants something lengthy, as they listen to them during long commutes or work.

I agree, but then I think YouTube is a bad delivery service. Not everyone has mobile data or has WiFi on their commutes, so I think it's important that it's easy to be able to download the podcast and listen to it offline

I think podcasts are meant to be lengthy and fill the role of detailed in-depth discussion that some people seek but have trouble finding due to lack of people willing to supply it. 50 minutes for a podcast actually seems like it's on the short side.

The long length of a podcast is probably not ideal for a large chunk of the playerbase. I think I've seen podcasts be accompanied by an abridged version of it or even a completely separate summary video or else a shorter video inspired by the discussion of the podcast.

19
Let's Discuss ... / Re: tempires: emple
« on: September 16, 2017, 09:38:20 pm »
I do not know how long it's been since I forgot that this gives +1 VP token on play, in addition to putting a VP token on the Temple Supply pile.

20
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Rejects: Kingdom of Removed Cards
« on: September 16, 2017, 10:19:31 am »
This thread makes me realize how much tougher deciding on the bottom ranks for the next card ranking is going to be.

Also, you have a shot at Lucky Chancellor here.

21
Dominion Articles / Re: Gold
« on: September 15, 2017, 09:07:13 pm »
This article is primarily aimed at newer players right? I think this is a great opportunity to bring up the "First Game Engine" because of the lessons it teaches us about Gold.

https://dominionstrategy.com/2012/07/30/building-the-first-game-engine/

The way Geronimoo suggested to get an early Gold or two before switching to Markets really stuck to me. Gold being a bouncing board to help you afford the more expensive engine pieces seemed like a great insight. And then you could even Remodel the Gold into Province for that final push to victory.

Then the "First Game" simulator challenge came to be, and it was like, "Yo, why are you buying Gold when you can just use Mine to build up to Gold instead while you buy more Markets and engine parts?". With 2nd Edition Base and Intrigue introducing Bandit and Courtier, it feels more and more like you can improve efficiency by using Action Cards to gain Gold as payload to match your engine's growth, and perhaps even use the $6 cost price point of Gold to Remodel/Replace them into Province as you gain Gold.

This is kind of how I've come to understand Gold. It doesn't feel great to buy them at $6, but Gold becomes an asset if you can find more efficient and better timed ways of gaining it. I think it's good that you bring this up in your article. Indeed, it's easy to gain too many Golds for your own good even if you aren't spending a costly buy on them.

22
Let's Discuss ... / Re: rēs cornūcōpiae consultēmus: harvest
« on: September 15, 2017, 05:53:27 pm »
Harvest has gotten a bad rap.
I mean, it sucks! Adventures and Empires made deck-drawing much easier. And with 2E's of Intrigue and Base rolling out suddenly the contenders for worst dropped out. Compare Harvest to Liegonary, Harvest can only sometimes give more, and it doesn't have a killer attack! I'd definitely put it at the worst .

Compare Harvest with Courtier.

Harvest is better when you can easily get $3-$4 off it and you want to discard cards from the top of your deck for cycling purposes. The niche for Harvest is really narrow.

I suppose some $5 cost cards can be worse than terminal  coin in certain kingdoms.

23
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Canít un-familiar-ize a card
« on: September 15, 2017, 12:09:19 pm »
Does anyone know which ten cards from the Base Set are always set to be familiar? Is it Moat?

24
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Heralds are not so hot as we thought?
« on: September 14, 2017, 06:54:14 pm »
Maybe I'm just not at that level of play yet but I still think Herald is amazing. Based on my experience, I'd say to be careful about it mainly if there's no trashing (especially if there's also junking) and with mandatory-trashing cards (particularly Remake, which ironically is a huge liability for exactly the same reasons it's so good at enabling Herald.)

Herald is also just a nice spammable $4 cost card. It's a good card to gain en masse with Workshop and co. (including Engineer), as well as like Stonemason or whatever.

There are some nice tricks with the on-buy too, like topdecking Province+Tournament.

25
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Heralds are not so hot as we thought?
« on: September 14, 2017, 01:55:03 pm »
And think about everything Dark Ages introduced, that doesn't see much action now, like Hermit/Madman and the empty-the-supply-really-fast tricks.  Heralds are, still, a useful source of +Action when solid trashing is available.

Didn't Villa help bring the empty-the-supply tricks down to like Turn 1? But even then, all the new tricks basically try to speed up the empty-the-supply shell that started with Dark Ages right?

Also, I still think Urchin/Mercenary is nuts.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 125

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 19 queries.