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 - Chris is me

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 93
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Thought exercise: nerfs and buffs
« on: July 17, 2018, 09:04:14 am »
You could maybe nerf Sauna/Avanto by having Avanto draw one fewer card and cost 4. In fact it would probably be fine still costing 5.

I think it would be way worse and losing the split would be a lot more painful.

The remedies to Sauna / Avanto being difficult are tough because a lot relies on that initial Sauna / Silver connection and not missing $4. I think a 12 card pile would probably be the first thing to improve, since that way losing the split isn’t guaranteed and more draw is available even if you don’t get a lot of Saunas.

Also why bump a thread from 2012 to talk about this?

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Grey makes a boring card now and then.
« on: July 16, 2018, 02:00:09 pm »
Yeah, this is a pretty great card design, but it does need to be $4. I think it’s better for it to give out Coppers rather than curses. It’s nice for it to be slightly weaker and more newbie friendly, and it’s less damaging to certain alt VP slogs that way. I would use LFN’s wording and not care that it’s weaker in Council Room games or whatever; it’s already very solid.

Was horatio83 not the same person?

Using a proxy isn’t rocket science.

Rules Questions / Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« on: July 12, 2018, 04:01:14 pm »
You can name Dame Anna
Surely not? You're buying Dame Anna, and Dame Anna isn't a differently-named card with the same cost as Dame Anna.

Sorry, my brain hiccuped there for a minute. :/

Rules Questions / Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« on: July 12, 2018, 02:03:46 pm »
I agree that's sensible and expected.

I'm just not convinced it's the behaviour that actually emerges from the way rules are being expressed here.

I wouldn’t read into this thread too hard. The rules are being expressed here to clarify the specific situation at hand, not entirely unrelated interactions with one of the more confusing rules cards in the game.
Here's a closely-related question that's just occurred to me:

Knight at top of the pile is Dame Anna, next is Dame Josephine. You have Charm in play and buy Dame Anna. By my understanding, Dame Anna is still on top of the pile when Charm triggers, so you can't use that ability to gain Dame Josephine?

That matches my understanding. You can name Dame Anna, but you will just fail to gain the 2nd Dame Anna (the on-buy gain).

at this point we really should just rename RSP to Religion Sex Politics and Grammar because I’m sure I’m not the only person off put by 20+ posts of descriptivism vs prescriptivism, and every one of these garbage tangents ends up there anyway

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Missing auto-plays
« on: July 11, 2018, 09:02:47 am »
Look at the featureset of Making More Fun for some other ideas, there were great autoplays there.

Some off the top of my head:
Moneylender: always trash a Copper
Sauna: stop trying to trash stuff
Royal Carriage: don’t ask to call the same action multiple times (nested Carriage plays)

Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits
« on: July 10, 2018, 08:38:35 am »
You don’t need “you won’t not gain anything” when you would gain something; just the absence of a note saying you wouldn’t. I’m really missing your point here.

My point is that in order to provide warnings, you have to second-guess what the player was expecting would happen, and in many circumstances that is tricky.

Suppose I've got used to Upgrading Coppers just to trash them and gain nothing; that is what I expect to happen when I Upgrade a Copper.
But then I have a turn with a Highway in play and Upgrade a Copper, and it turns out that I'm forced to gain an Estate; that is the unexpected thing that I would like to have been warned about.

You don’t have to do any of that; you’re reading way father into it than you have to. If the card says you gain something and you actually don’t, you say that you didn’t gain anything. You don’t automatically also  have to go to the second order case of “what if the card says you gain something, but I think the user knows they won’t, but they actually will this time?” You can just ignore that case, as it is covered by the part where you actually gain something, which follows the text of the card.

It’s really a simple premise (if not a simple implementation): if a card says you’ll do something and you don’t end up doing that, say that it didn’t happen.

Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits
« on: July 10, 2018, 06:55:53 am »
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.

I think the latter option is best.

I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.


Well, if you go with the former option, you have to decide on a case-by-case basis when to warn a player and when to not. Most people might agree that calling a Duplicate for no gain is worth warning a player, but there are so many other things where it might not be as obvious.

It would be kind of friendly to have such warnings, but it would surely just get confusing/annoying and there would be cases where it is not clear which is the 'expected' behaviour and which is the one to warn about. Eg when Upgrading a Copper, would you have a warning saying "(you won't gain anything)"? What about Upgrading a Copper with a Highway in play: "(you won't not gain anything)"

On the other hand, Lord Rattington might find all sorts of warnings quite helpful.
Chapel: "Confirm Trashing (your score will decrease by 24VP)"
Vault/Torturer: "Confirm Discard (if you keep choosing this you may start to feel like rage quitting)"

I don’t see why “you won’t gain anything” when upgrading a Copper would be bad, or some kind of dangerous slippery slope at all. You don’t need “you won’t not gain anything” when you would gain something; just the absence of a note saying you wouldn’t. I’m really missing your point here.

The "pure competitive" aspects of the game are seen through a lens heavily emphasizing 2p, and it's hard to rationalize things like the existence of Black Market and the advantage first player has, whereas they make more sense with more players because increased player count creates a more casual environment.

Black Market favors the more skilled player far more than most cards!

This is from sample of 2.5 M iso games. 

The measure is how hard a time trueskill had at predicting the winner, measured in conditional entropy given a card was in the supply.

Goons 0.689 ± 0.002
Colony 0.694 ± 0.001
Platinum 0.694 ± 0.001
Bishop 0.695 ± 0.002
Ambassador 0.695 ± 0.002
Grand Market 0.696 ± 0.002
Black Market 0.696 ± 0.002
Cache 0.714 ± 0.003
Jack of All Trades 0.714 ± 0.003
Embassy 0.714 ± 0.003

A few things:

“Favoring the more skilled player” doesn’t mean “not swingy” - it can simply mean for example that more skilled players recognize the value of a card more often.

Isotropic’s implementation of Black Market greatly differed from the current one, where you have a larger BM deck and no info on its contents.

I think BM usually works out, but it’s hard to ignore those outlier games where somebody just wins on the strength of their BM rolls. Oh well, that’s why it’s a promo card.

Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits
« on: July 09, 2018, 11:50:13 am »
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.

Dominion Articles / Re: Combo/Synergy: Courtier + Werewolf
« on: July 09, 2018, 10:42:51 am »
This isn’t really a “combo” in the traditional sense, or anything to write about, but there’s some neat synergy:

- Both cards are “soft terminals” that you can spam without as much problems with collision (extra Werewolves attack, all your Courtiers are nonterminal

- Gold gaining helps buffer a few of the Werewolf Hexes (handsize reducers and trash mostly) and gives you something not dead to draw with your Werewolves

- Less buttons to click online

I don’t really fully decide it by Turn 1, usually. I have a general sense of the best way or ways for a board to go and then I adjust it based on what I roll for early buys.

This is why I hate hate hate hate hate when people decide to think about strategy before hitting Start Game.

30 seconds to maybe 2 minutes in the longest cases.

I think it depends on if Night cards are a Nocturne only thing or if they are coming back. If they’re just Nocturne, other set’s cards probably won’t reference them.

I don't know why people are pretending that engines with treasure payload are rare.
It's still jarring to hear the pros have gone out of their way to avoid Silver and even Gold

I think all other things equal, Gold is avoided more than Silver in “pro” Dominion, though the recent influx of Gold gainers may have changed that a bit.

Silver is useful in the opening, so you often have one, and there are a lot more ways to gain Silver without buying it than to gain Gold. You need six Treasures to get Province using Golds, and eight with Silver; two extra stop cards is often worth it if you have a way to gain Silvers but not Golds.

That said, there are plenty of boards where treasure is a big part of the payload. They’re not all that uncommon - but often you can do better these days, and you generally want to minimize the reliance on Treasures.

Please dude for the love of god just type out your words, at least the first time you use them in a post.

Yeah, there’s no way that beats even basic Donate money strategies. You have to Donate really late and spend a bunch of time waiting to get money.

Dominion FAQ / Re: Darker-blue backed cards
« on: June 28, 2018, 11:43:10 am »
That would be really cool, actually.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be.

I think it would work better than it might seem at first glance. There aren’t THAT many Kingdom Victory cards and Treasures. Obviously terrible games can happen in there but it could be sometimes interesting.

Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 26, 2018, 12:48:15 pm »
However, Nomad Camp can be Summoned, as it is not lost track of - it just has a different gain destination.
That makes complete sense for the new wording ("This is gained onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile)"), but what about the original wording ("When you gain this, put it on top of your deck.")?

It feels as though in that case you gain the Nomad Camp, then you move it from your discard pile to the top of your deck, then Summon looks for the card where you gained it and fails to find it there.

The original wording was worded the same as other in gain effects but the manual explicitly stated it behaved differently. This was the impetus for the wording change. The card didn’t actually change behavior, it’s wording changed to make it more clear.

Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 26, 2018, 11:17:09 am »
If I understand it right, the difference between Death Cart and Nomad Camp in this particular case isn't that Nomad Camp has a different gain destination, but that Death Cart has cards that come with it that cover it up. It's the Ruins that are causing you to lose track; I don't see why Nomad Camp would potentially have a similar issue.

It wouldn't fail for the same reason, but this makes me think about how there seems to be an implicit assumption that Summon looks for the gained card at the card's default gain location (whether that default location is the discard, top of deck, or the hand if there were any night-action cards that were gained to hand). Is Summon meant to work with Nomad Camp?

I can’t answer “meant to”, but it sure does work - the card is where Summon expects it to be.

Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Adventures Events: Lost Arts
« on: June 26, 2018, 08:18:46 am »
I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the humble Steward. I once played a game in which I bought almost nothing else: once you've added Lost Arts, it's thinning, payload and engine in a single cheap card. Add a bit of +Buy and you're sorted.

Usually you want to have multiples of the pimped card, and most people don't think of Steward as a card you want to have multiples of. Turning Steward into a Lab/Bat/Mystic Overlord changes that quite a bit, but given enough +Buy I would mostly spam Faithful Hound before I spam Steward.

Unless economy is really, really tight, I would rather take Steward for the option to cash out instead of drawing. It’s usually worth $1 more for that option.

In real games with all 3, though. I would take whatever pile my opponent doesn’t.

Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 25, 2018, 11:38:46 pm »
I don’t see ignoring lose track here as “common sense”. If the discard pile were allowed to be looked through you’d have more of an argument, but since it cannot be, you can’t “go get” that Death Cart anyway, so it make sense that the game loses track of it.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: is royal seal underrated?
« on: June 23, 2018, 07:43:41 pm »
It’d be fine at $4.

Bruh there’s Monastery right there! One of the best trashers! You don’t need to buy planned Harvests to get thin.

You probably open Skulk / Monastery, get a Soothsayer when you can, aggressively trash with Monastery, buy a bunch of Dens of Sin, and then you can probably hit dominate a couple times.

This is especially true since you have Mission - you can Mission in a turn where you have several DoS stacked and you are fairly certain you will hit $14.

Bear in mind that most of the playtesting that gets done is with at least three players, and often with four or more. You don't always have the time or resources to build the perfect Treasure-less engine in those games. For Nocturne specifically, basically 100% of the testing was done at Donald's IRL table or mine, and I bet you could count the number of 2-player testing games on two hands.

This is sort of hair-raising. A huge chunk of Dominion games are played online in a 2-player random kingdom format. I am astonished that this format receives "basically 0%" of the attention in playtesting.

You’ll be shocked to learn how much playtesting uses an all sets full random format, then.

Seems to work out fine though, doesn’t it?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 93

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 19 queries.