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 - Witherweaver

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 217
1
Dominion Articles / Re: Bard is not weak
« on: November 17, 2017, 06:33:16 pm »
The fact that you don't get to choose which of the effects is a big deal. Image how much weaker Steward would be if instead of saying "Choose one:..." it said "Do one of these three things, chosen at random:...". Bard is like that but with (up to) 12 things instead of 3.

Bard is not like that at all. You get the most important effect, which is +$2, every time, and almost all of the Boons are strictly beneficial in almost any situation.

Maybe Governor is a better analogy. "+1 Action. Choose one: ..." >> "+1 Action. Do one of these three things, chosen at random:..." Idk, maybe I'm a bit jaded cus I just played a Scrying Pool game where I got 2 Bards specifically for their +Buy and no othe reason, and well lets just say that did not work out in my favor.

Bard also feels a bit like Black Market to me. In some cases it's just a terminal Silver but in other cases it's terminal Silver plus jackpot.

Some times you just don't know how a song is going to inspire you.

2
Dominion Articles / Re: Bard is not weak
« on: November 17, 2017, 06:07:37 pm »
The apparent problem with the bard is that he seems aimless. The bard does stuff, but is he doing stuff that will create your game winning deck?

Spoony Bard!

3
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Initial Impressions
« on: November 17, 2017, 01:07:50 pm »
Yeah man, I'm super disappointed that none of the cards have animated gif arts.
I mean, it's two thousand and friggin seventeen fer cripes-sakes. You would think they could do that by now.

Donaldpls

4
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Nocturne Initial Impressions
« on: November 16, 2017, 02:31:16 pm »
Okay. Now all of the cards are out. What stands out? What seems bad? Any sleepers? Any duds?

Dominion is more ruined than ever before!

5
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Male and female cards (again)
« on: November 16, 2017, 02:07:20 pm »
I don't see why censual data for Dominion's world ought to be in extremely high agreement with that from the comparable era of our own history. The idea I think is that you want to have a theme, and I think we do and that genders does not affect it much, if at all.

6
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Don't be fooled, nothing for you here
« on: November 16, 2017, 11:46:14 am »
This thread is modern art at this point.

Do you consider the thread to exhibit synergy?

7
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: What did we get wrong before?
« on: November 10, 2017, 03:32:32 pm »
I'm pretty sure the Cultist was the first to ruin Dominion.

Death Cart ruined it for me.

8
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: What did we get wrong before?
« on: November 10, 2017, 11:25:27 am »
How many times has Dominion been ruined now? I've lost track.
Just once. In Dark Ages.

Damn you Beggar.

He's a Vagrant.

9
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Another awful thread about nothing
« on: November 10, 2017, 09:22:51 am »
You know, technically this thread isn't about nothing. I mean, we wouldn't spend 3 pages arguing about what the word "nothing" means, right guys?

Please start a thread about "nothing". Not about nothing, because that's what this thread is. Try not to be ambiguous.

10
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Another awful thread about nothing
« on: November 10, 2017, 09:01:22 am »
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

11
Oh, I see now.

12
Yes it was a joke, but I'm told that jokes are funnier when explained.

Bose-Einstein statistics are a way of dealing with indistinguishable particles.  In classical statistics, if you have two particles you might label them 1 and 2, but in Bose-Einstein statistics you cannot give them separate labels.

Consider the situation where we have two particles and two boxes.  In classical statistics, there are 4 ways to distribute the particles:
12 | _
1 | 2
2 | 1
_ | 12
And if we assign each of these possibilities equal weight, then there's a 1/4 chance that the left box is empty.

In Bose-Einstein statistics, there are only 3 ways:
11 | _
1 | 1
_ | 11
And only 1/3 chance that the left box is empty.

If hands were boxes, and coppers were bosons, then splitting 5/2 would be just as likely as 3/4.  Or something.  Hands aren't really like boxes though, and reinterpreting Dominion in terms of Bose-Einstein statistics is fraught.  The joke is that not even quantum physics can rescue eHalcyon's claims.

But Coppers are already like Bosons, because we don't distinguish between the Coppers. I think you'd need Coppers and Estates to be identical Bosons.

13
The gauntlet has indeed been thrown down.

And then picked up, and thrown down again, because the original throwing may have not conveyed the appropriate sense of challenge. And then adjusted because the placement of the thrown gauntlet on the ground did not appropriately capture the gravity of the situation. And then it was wondered, just how likely was it for the gauntlet to land on the ground in this way? Was this configuration any less likely than any other configuration? And then followed a long journey into gauntlet symmetries...

14
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Another awful thread about nothing
« on: November 09, 2017, 09:54:41 am »
Is "synergy" ambiguous?

15
General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: November 08, 2017, 11:01:07 pm »
Also, I just spotted, Season 2 Episode 2, during the group therapy session with Winters, a game of Dominion can be seen among some other board games in the background.

16
General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: November 08, 2017, 10:55:41 pm »
Chance Season 2 has started. I've just watched the first couple episodes. Anyone else watching this? Season 1 was great.

17
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Bonus Preview #2: Faithful Hound
« on: November 08, 2017, 06:06:59 pm »
I really like how derpy Faithful Hound is.

18
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 08, 2017, 05:09:24 pm »
Notably, this conversation is on topic.

19
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 08, 2017, 05:04:56 pm »
Is the problem with the word "pattern" rather than, say, "structure"? Something which is random can have an underlying structure which you can use to make predictions. I roll a d6, I'm not going to predict that the roll is 13. I draw my opening hand in Dominion, I know that on a typical board there are only 4 different hands I might see and two of them are more likely than the other two. I look at the stock market today, I can take a guess at where it will be tomorrow. I can never be 100% certain about the outcome of any of those events, but I know *something* about them that lets me make predictions, and if I observe such events a lot of times then, on average, I know what those observations will look like.

I'm with your thinking on this. I'm not sure I'm following Donald's point.
You gave an example of randomness having a pattern, but were actually providing the pattern and just adding noise to it that didn't eliminate it. It wasn't a pattern in randomness at all.

But the random variable has a probability distribution function, which is what I'm considering as the pattern. Taking a bunch of samples was just a way to visualize it.

20
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Male and female cards (again)
« on: November 08, 2017, 10:05:41 am »
No comment on the general gender issue, I feel the same way about all hrethgir.

I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male, and Mountebank. I'm counting a "Witch" card to be one that explicitly has the mechanic of giving other players curses and is an attack, disagree if you wish.

That said, I'm surprised that a "Warlock" hasn't made it into Dominion yet. I'd like to see something like that, perhaps in conjunction with some female witch apprentices maybe.

A Warlock would give out 1.266 curses when you played it.

21
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 08, 2017, 08:23:42 am »
Is the problem with the word "pattern" rather than, say, "structure"? Something which is random can have an underlying structure which you can use to make predictions. I roll a d6, I'm not going to predict that the roll is 13. I draw my opening hand in Dominion, I know that on a typical board there are only 4 different hands I might see and two of them are more likely than the other two. I look at the stock market today, I can take a guess at where it will be tomorrow. I can never be 100% certain about the outcome of any of those events, but I know *something* about them that lets me make predictions, and if I observe such events a lot of times then, on average, I know what those observations will look like.

I'm with your thinking on this. I'm not sure I'm following Donald's point.

22
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:41:47 pm »
Then I guess with that point of view, I don't know what "random" means.
It means unpredictable.

If you roll a die, you get some number from 1 to 6. You don't know what it will be until you roll it. It's random.

If you add up the numbers from 1 to 6 and divide the total by 6, you get 3.5. There's nothing random about that. It's always the same answer.

If you roll a zillion dice, add up the results and divide the total by a zillion, you will get something very close to 3.5. By rolling so many dice we average out the randomness and are left with the original pattern.

It's the same with the bell curve, just harder to see.

But you can make predictions; they just have uncertainty.  You know how likely you are to get each value. If you roll a weighted d6, those probabilities change. Taking averages is one way to get an idea of what those probabilities are.

23
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:16:36 pm »
The flat line is again a pattern that we have provided - the randomness has nothing to do with it.

I mean this doesn't seem right. The flat line is fundamentally a property of the die roll. We define it by taking expectations,, but it's still a property of the variable itself.

Edit: I guess 'define by taking expectations' is not correct. I should say define through an integral with respect to the probability measure.

24
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:07:32 pm »
Then I guess with that point of view, I don't know what "random" means.

25
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: November 07, 2017, 09:04:27 am »
So here's a thought.. you want to put a design on your wall, so you make a grid of squares (say odd number of columns), and alternate coloring in one square (the same color for all) and skipping the next, starting at the top left and returning to below the first one for the second row, and so on. So we have a pattern (checkered).

On another wall, do the same thing but at each square, flip a coin to decide whether or not it should be colored.

Do we consider the second case to be without a pattern? There is also one case where the two walls are identical, so does the pattern lie in the end result or in the design?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 217

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 18 queries.