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 - Varsinor

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Now, for the real question on everyone's mind.

How Do These Cards Combo With Scout?
[,,,]

Also, Scout is a $4 action card, like Magpie,

Exactly!
So while we're already discussing Swindler:

Magpie makes Scout even stronger, because the Magpie pile will probably be emptied quickly and after that, the opponent will have to swindle your Magpies into Scouts!

2
Maybe you really want that Hero (it's a Platinum game or something).

That's true for most $5 cards, also that there are specific setups in which they are especially important. The Swindler can indeed easily be a very nasty card.

If your Warrior gets Swindled and you don't already have some other Travellers, you've been set back a few shuffles.

OK, that sounds convincing. So one could say that Swindlers can be especially bad against Travellers, because of the increased time it takes to exchange Travellers.

3
And all that upgradable cards don't look cool with Swindler around

Why?

I mean, sure, you'd almost always prefer not to get a card swindled. But why would it be particularly bad for the Travellers?
We know from the preview that Page costs $2 and Hero costs $5. So the other three ones are probably $3, $4 and $6. I would assume these prices are supposed to roughly reflect not only the strength of their one-time effect, but also the potential of exchanging them. (Or aren't they, Donald?)

So sure, getting your Page swindled into an Estate early hurts a lot. But that's the same as with (almost) any other $2 card. Getting f. e. a Silver for a $3 Treasure Hunter doesn't sound particularly bad. And with the $5 Hero, it will depend on how early they are hit just as with most of the $5 cards - swindling them early hurts a lot, but later on Duchies are not so bad and most other $5 cards usually aren't, either.

4
Dominion Articles / Re: Rebuild Mirrors
« on: November 26, 2013, 01:39:07 pm »
I agree with the many others who already mentioned this is a very good article!
Unfortunately I can't really test Rebuild stuff and thus appreciate it fully right now, I don't play on Goko so far (still mourning Isotropic and Dr. Held's excellent deck counter).

Anyway, here is a little addendum:

Nobles, Harem, and Farmland can all be rebuilt into Provinces. Buying these is usually at least as good as buying Duchies, so the Duchy race becomes less important and finding $6 to buy these with becomes more important.

Fairgrounds should be added to this list, it wasn't mentioned in this thread at all so far.

5
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card
« on: February 08, 2013, 03:46:54 pm »
That is very impressive! The on-trash-benefits from Dark Ages can really do crazy stuff.
However, it is also still very far away from emptying the *entire* supply (including all Victory and Treasure cards). Looking forward to the solution for that (particularly the one including Platinums and Colonies)!

In any case, +1 for your meme, which I so didn't get at first!

6
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card
« on: February 08, 2013, 01:13:48 pm »
I don't have the slightest idea how that could even be done remotely - I reckon it must involve Dark Ages cards, as I am not yet particularly familiar with them...
While I remain sceptical until I see a solution, I reserve enormous kudos in advance! :)

7
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card
« on: February 08, 2013, 11:12:45 am »
There are loads of ways to empty one stack by turn 4 - particularly with 3+ players but also in 2 player (for instance with Ironworks, Armory, Workshop or Hermit).

If you mean empty every pile in the supply - not even Celestial Chameleon can do that by turn 4, not even with 6 players...  8)

8
Dominion Isotropic / Re: So who's this FEEDMEMORE guy?
« on: December 23, 2012, 04:03:26 pm »
Lesson: Don't feed the trolls, ignore them.  Nolifer wants to cheat to top a list of people who play a game, he's got issues.  It's probably one of you just to get some laughs.  Either way I don't care, except I care enough to post this.  Once we've identified a person/account as a cheater, just ignore.

I strongly disagree. I think this guy's account should be deleted as quickly as possible! Cheaters like that invalidate the leaderboard as a whole - particularly if they are allowed to remain on the top spot in spite of being a clearly proven cheater. It don't think it is fair for Mic Qsenoch to be denied the official top spot. It isn't fair for the runner-ups, either.

Since it seems that nobody has brought this to the attention of Dougz yet, I have just written him a message about it, so let's hope that guy is gone soon.
I know he might be gone after a week of not playing anyway, but he could renew his top spot by a few further faked games every week. I also think it is good to show him that his scam was noticed by actively kicking him out.

Eternal shame on that pathetic cheater! >:(

9
Dominion Isotropic / Bug with Embargo+Watchtower
« on: December 19, 2012, 08:34:46 am »
There is an (admittedly rather minor) bug when you trash a Curse received because of an Embargo with a Watchtower.

It first says "You trash the Curse" and only after that "You gain the Curse". Isotropic's own point counter seems to handle this fine, but Dr. Helds point counter extension is thrown off and gives an error message for wrong number of Curses or something and counts the trashed Curse as existent in the number of Curses of that player.
But also independently of the problem with the extension it wasn't clear from Iso's output if it had trashed the Curse correctly or not, so the wrong order of the notifications is a source of confusion which should better be avoided if that isn't too much work to fix. (Well, we are spoiled by Iso's perfection when the only bugs are as minor as this, I know!)

Here is a game log, it happened on my turns 13 and 16:
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201212/08/game-20121208-144019-2ea15784.html

10
Council Room Feedback / Re: Anyone want to maintain councilroom?
« on: December 19, 2012, 08:06:27 am »
Thanks so much to Mike McCallister and everyone else involved for getting CouncilRoom back up again! :D

If you see something is amiss, please say something, because it might not be obvious to me.

I have noticed two bugs today:

1. While yesterday's games have been added to today's Councilroom, levels have not been updated. For instance, I was level 42 yesterday and level 44 today - Councilroom is still showing level 42.
(I have checked some other people who have changed their level today according to the leaderboard and Councilroom shows their old level as well.)
Similar bugs had happened on the old Councilroom before: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2897.0

2. There are some new goals (nice!), one of them is "PurplePileDriver - Gained all the curses and won". It can be seen in lots of people's stats. I had at least one game where I did that as well, I saved one fairly recent game report link:
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201212/01/game-20121201-103128-e6e30146.html
However, my achieved goals don't list PurplePileDriver, so the recognition of it doesn't seem to work properly yet.

11
2012 / Re: Witch Division: Bracket and Results
« on: December 11, 2012, 06:19:49 pm »
Grats again, benjigab!

So I already bid farewell to this championship - let's see about next time! 8)

13
2012 / Re: Final Entry List: 2012 DominionStrategy.com Championships
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:55:40 pm »
So with that being said a quick reply to greatexpectations' post:

we did tell people to do it. forcing them to do anything is difficult though, and i think is a potential source of too much drama.

I agree there are arguments against using mean skill (which have to be weighed). But in any case, that is no argument against my alternative proposal. To me it seems pretty obvious that it isn't fair to first tell people to play at least one game in the rules and then let them get away with it if they didn't do it. Not fair because it gives them a potentially large level advantage to not play a single game in cases where they hadn't played for several weeks or even months (variance stays low). So those that have listened to your call for at least one recent game in the rules are at a disadvantage compared to that.
Considering that there were many more people who would have liked to play, in my opinion, it would have been better to announce a little clearer that playing at least one game until Friday evening is a necessary prerequisite to play the tournament and then enforce that.
Alternatively, the variance increase since the last leaderboard listing could have been calculated separately.

Again, this is just a proposal for a (hopefully coming) next time and is not supposed to imply anything for this tournament.

14
2012 / Re: Final Entry List: 2012 DominionStrategy.com Championships
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:55:29 pm »
I think you've done a great job setting this up. Regardless of how you do it there will always be complaints and opinions. Don't take it as personal criticism, because you absolutely don't deserve it.

Absolutely!
I already said something similar in the rules questions thread, but let me reaffirm that nothing I wrote about this tournament is supposed to badmouth the wonderful efforts you guys have put into it. Kudos and thanks for that! :D

However, I think that it is a good thing to ask questions about things which appear unclear and discuss the pros and cons of possible changes/improvements. That can be helpful for the next time and has nothing to do with personal criticism!

15
2012 / Re: Final Entry List: 2012 DominionStrategy.com Championships
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:54:36 am »
I guess I should be the one complaining as KC-KC-Scout-Scout-Scout's opponent... ;)
(I also got unlucky by you using Saturday's instead of Sunday's leaderboard - I deliberately played lots of games on Saturday to regain previously lost levels for the tournament ranking and did in fact gain two which would have put me on spot 22 instead of 31... But you did announce to use "rankings on a date of our choice" (although I expected that to be Sunday), so that is OK of course. I guess you needed more than a day to process the data.)

But putting the underscore-oversight aside (that can happen of course), how did you (plan to) rank people who weren't on the current leaderboard, anyway? Just take their last entry? In that case they get a potentially big advantage out of not having played new games because they effectively froze their old level and weren't subject to level degradation by variance increase over time.

I would therefore strongly suggest next time you either rank by mean skill (my preference) or you absolutely require people to play at least one game in the current week and don't let them take part if they don't. Both solutions seem a lot fairer than rewarding people for not having played current games.

But anyway, let the games begin now! 8)

16
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 07:09:33 pm »
We are playing by 'standard isotropic rules.' First player in the series is randomized, after which loser goes first. In the event of a draw, turn order is preserved from the previous game.

Are you sure these are the isotropic rules regarding draws? Has Dougz posted that somewhere?

His two postings here (*click*) sound like in case of another 2-player game after a draw, the starting player is randomized and not determinded according to the previous game.
Both players fall into the same class of players after the draw. I would guess the class is "winners", because Isotropic (and the original rules) say both players win on a draw. But even if it counts as a "conventional draw" and therefore as the class "non-winners", both players are still in the same class.

17
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 06:15:27 pm »
1. I've already stated that we are switching to a per round randomization.

Ah, sorry, I missed that. Great!

2. What you are describing is not a change in the expectation, but a higher variance, as Fabian pointed out.

Indeed, absolutely! My mistake, I stand corrected! (I daresay that usually doesn't happen on statistics questions as simple as that, I'm kind of embarrased now... :-[) I actually kind of implied it myself in the last-but-one paragraph of my posting... I guess I wanted to fire off that posting too quickly! 8)

18
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 06:09:43 pm »
I'll include these instructions again when we announce brackets. You will have to play your first game in the tournament lobby, selecting who goes first. Then, both players can either manually set up each game, or head over to the Secret Chamber lobby where loser goes first will be preserved.

I am not quite sure if you mean that after the first game, players may rotate in being player 1 (independently of who won) or if after the first game, the looser always goes first which would seem to indicate that after draws, you can't play in the Tournament lobby but must change to the Secret Chamber.

I would prefer the former.

19
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 06:01:28 pm »
The expectation might be the same, but the variance certainly isn't. Definitely a new number each round please.

Not even the expectation value is the same if I am not mistaken. When the coin is tossed every time, your expectation value to go first is 1/(2^number of matches) or 1/256 for 8 matches.
Under the proposed system, this is guaranteed for one out of 256, the player with number 1. But the next, say, 9 players are also very likely to go first on every game because it is unlikely that they will face a player with a lower number directly.

With this system, you'll end up having plenty of people who have gone first on every match and plenty of people who have gone last and way too few people who have gone first every second match like they should have.

I don't really like this. I can also understand the organizers' desire to keep the amount of work low, of course! But in case it is not that much more work, I would really prefer tossing the coin for every match... 8)

20
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 01:39:02 pm »
Point Counters and PCE: You are free to use them unless both players agree to not use them. If you use a PCE, it must be one of the scripts which makes all information public (eg Dr. Helds PCE).

Great, thanks for clarifying! :D

As for who goes first overall, I would love to just be able to trust people to log out/in so it is completely random. I am willing to randomly generate first player advantage though if people feel it is necessary. What if, if either player wants me to pre-randomize first player for the series, I will do so. Otherwise trust each other to log out/in?

Great if you are willing to do that! In that case, please do it for my games.
While I would think that the number of people who would cheat deliberately for first player advantage is really small, I think there is a much higher number of people who don't know that they are supposed to log out before the first game. Therefore I would have to discuss it with every opponent first which I imagine to be quite annoying. Especially considering that I am not even sure what exactly constitues a log out for the player order routine. What if you close the Iso browser window but have another window of the same browser open? What if you close all browser windows but don't automatically delete your cookies on closing them? Unless we know that for sure, there is extra plenty of room for getting it wrong without any intent of cheating.
I any case, I would feel better if the organizers randomly detect first player for my (first) games and we set that up on Iso. As long as someone can tell me how that is done in the Tournament lobby... ;) I couldn't find anything on my own or in the Iso FAQ.

By the way, thanks a lot for organizing this tournament, guys! :D

21
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 11:05:47 am »
Admin randomises start player when they do the pairings.

Play in the tournament lobby and alternate start player each game regardless of the result. (removing the loser starts next game rule). I think this is essentially the same expect if you have draws. And if you do have a drawn game it will now mean you both got to go first 4 times each. I think under the old rules with a drawn game a 5 / 3 split was possible. (results for P1 of: WLDWLWLW then they get to start games 1, 3, 4, 6, 8).

I think this would be a very nice solution (adding removing the loser starts next game rule to the previous proposal)! :D

22
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 11:01:58 am »
Use of unofficial point counters, notepads, etc. is not prohibited.
This is very clear to me.

It means chrome point counter is allowed but not required.

The question is if it is allowed when the opponent objects to its use.
You seem to imply "yes" and I also think that is a likely interpretation of numeral 6 of the rules.

However, one could argue that it means that the extension is not prohibitied when both players agree, but in the case where they are unable to reach an agreement, the "official point counter" is used - which might be meant in contrast to "point counter extension".

While I am obviously perfectly happy with your interpretation, I'd like a less ambiguous wording with no grounds for any doubt.

23
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 09:42:32 am »
I think the best solution is to meet in Secret Chamber, then both log off & on just before the match.

Is there a way for the remaining player to distinguish logging off from just changing to one of the other two lobbies?

If no, I'd prefer greatexpectations' proposal to draw lots for the beginner of the first game and set that up in the Tournament lobby (although someone would need to tell me how that is done ;)).

(If drawing lots turns out to be too much work, a rule saying to log off before the first game would already be much better than nothing, of course - I guess it would need a strong will to cheat to circumvent that by just changing lobbies.)

24
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 02, 2012, 09:20:13 am »
- i believe the intent behind the point counter extension ruling was to allow it, largely because it is impossible to enforce. but at the same time, we didn't exactly want to encourage it's use either, or make players feel as if they are obligated to go obtain this extension. and as with any other variant, it is preferable if both players can reach an agreement on it's use for their set. i think that any potential confusion on the matter is likely due to our just copying the rules from last year and adding a few slight changes.

I have read that this issue has caused a sizeable conflict on a past tournament, so I think it is imperative to make the rules on this absolutely crystal clear to avoid new quarrel.

I personally love the Chrome point counter extension and think Dominion is a much better game with it. I have explained in detail my reasons for this and also why I think that it should especially be allowed in tournaments here (*click*). (Points #1-#3 are mostly the ones explaining my personal taste and #4 and #5 are the ones particularly pertaining to tournaments.)

But anyway, my view on it is not the issue. I really don't want to start a new discussion about it here. I realize there are people who disagree with my opinion and I absolutely respect that.
So in a tournament, it is simply a question of what the rules say. Everyone has to respect the rules and either refrain from using the extension or refrain from criticizing anyone for using it. Period. So:

Is it clearly forbidden for everyone to use the extension if the opponent doesn't want him to? If it is not forbidden, I will use it in every game. If it is clearly forbidden, I will honor that rule of course.

So please state the rules on that clearly and publicly
(and as soon as possible, as tomorrow the games will start). Thanks in advance! :D

25
2012 / Re: Rule questions 2012
« on: December 01, 2012, 08:55:08 pm »
For #2, doesn't the Tournament lobby automatically take care of this?

No. If nothing has changed, Iso sorts players into two groups: Those that have lost their last game (and are still logged on) and those that have either won their last game or have just logged on (not sure about ties, my guess would be that they are counted as a victory).
Only if all players are in the same group, player order is determined randomly. Otherwise, players from the first group go first.

Which I find an extremely stupid rule (especially but not only with regards to tournaments), but unless we can get Doug to change it very soon, we need to find a way to deal with it. In my opinion, just disregarding it would not be a very fair option.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9

Page created in 0.197 seconds with 18 queries.