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 - dghunter79

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
201
Is anyone else freaking out that Necropolis should be red on the top and not the bottom, to match the other two? Maybe I need to get my OCD checked...

The colours on dual types are top colour is alphabetically first. There hows that for your OCD

R comes before S ....


ROYGBIV

202
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Dominion Puzzle Hunt?
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:18:03 am »
Well, it appears (C) is certainly easily satisfied  ;D

Now.. do we actually have people interested in participating? We'd need a pretty large amount to make it worthwhile..

If someone needs to participate, I will, but really I want to help make it.  I think participants are overrated, anyway.

203
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 09, 2012, 02:02:52 pm »
To recap.  On August 9, 2012, all of the following Dominion cards (excluding Dark Ages) share a particular quality.  (None of the promo cards do.)  Perhaps if you take a step back and look at all the cards together, the outlines of a solution will appear in your mind. 

Don't worry about prime numbers and stuff like that.  You don't need Google's calculator function to solve this; it's not that type of puzzle.

Quality 1:
Bank
Bridge
Chapel
City
Courtyard
Estate
Festival
Forge
Gold
Harvest
Inn
Laboratory
Pawn
University
Warehouse

EDIT: And village!  Shoot.

And all these cards share a different quality, one that's (imprecisely) the opposite quality to Quality 1.

Quality 2:
Council Room
Noble Brigand
Walled Village
Worker's Village
Young Witch

OK, here's some more information.

The algorithm I run these cards through: I didn't design it.

Regarding Dark Ages.  Of the previewed cards, only Rats has Quality 1.  Ruined Market has Quality 2.  Based on what I know of the unrevealed cards, I would guess that once they're all revealed, more cards will have Quality 2 than in any other set.

Also, I imagine that if someone slipped me a card list of the unpreviewed Dark Ages cards, and I ran them through the algorithm today, that ALMOST ALL of them would share Quality 1.  Though I can't be sure.  And of course, tomorrow will be a different story...


Oh yeah, third thing -- the results of this puzzle are very time sensitive.  A year from now, all the answers could be different.

Good luck!

204
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: What card design rules are left?
« on: August 08, 2012, 08:08:36 pm »
Grunching from the OP, rules that are still left:

2. All cards are two-sided.

And strictly never made from human skin.

205
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 08, 2012, 07:16:05 pm »
Usually if there is a word with alternating Vowels and Consonants or something close to that it works.

Sorry, that's incorrect.  The algorithm I'm relying on doesn't base it's results on vowel or consonant patterns.

Ok, got it.
Not sure how festIval works though...

Great!  Not sure what the confusion would be, though.

206
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 08, 2012, 03:35:47 pm »
Only one hit from Hinterlands:

Hinterlands:
Inn

But, one hit on finding a card with the "opposite quality."  Which, I think this opposite quality is even more rare than the quality it's the opposite of!  I know, right?  By now, you should probably be able to guess what this one card is, if you're feeling lucky: Noble Brigand.

The word "Cornucopia" works. So does "Dominion".

Cornucopia, no.  Dominion, yes!

207
Dominion: Dark Ages Previews / Re: Sage Jokes
« on: August 07, 2012, 07:49:45 pm »
Sage skips Hamlet--

He knows how it ends.

208
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 07, 2012, 06:34:56 pm »
Cornucopia only had one.

Cornucopia:
Harvest

While running the algorithm for the Cornucopia cards, I did accidentally discover that Young Witch possessed a quality that is, more or less, the opposite of the quality we're looking for.  Maybe not exactly the opposite, but it would be incredibly unlikely that one card could possess both. 

At some point I'll go back and check the previous sets to see which other cards possess this second quality.

209
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 06, 2012, 02:24:45 pm »
Not a lot of hits from Seaside.

Seaside:
Warehouse

"Morgrim" does not work? And "eHalcyon" does, right?

Actually, neither shares the sought-after quality.

210
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 05, 2012, 10:26:20 pm »
Gold but not Silver and it has to do with the text on the card? Does the word "Colorado" work?

Yes.

211
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: What's the link?
« on: August 05, 2012, 06:49:59 pm »
Just went through Intrigue, searching for more cards that hold the sought-after quality.  I found the results surprising.

Intrigue:
Courtyard
Pawn
Bridge

Me niether. Does it have to do with the text on the card?

Yes.

212
Puzzles and Challenges / What's the link?
« on: August 04, 2012, 09:33:09 pm »
I was looking up Bank to try and help me decide how to best word a self-designed card.  And I noticed: Bank has a pretty interesting quality, which I thought might be pretty rare, or at least uncommon.  But I couldn't tell, off the top of my head, which other cards might share this quality; I had to look them each up one by one.  Which is my way of saying that I haven't had time to search all the cards yet.  But here are all the cards in the Base, Prosperity and Alchemy sets that share this quality.

Can anyone figure out what the shared quality is, and supply the missing cards from the other sets?

Base:
Chapel
Laboratory
Festival
Gold
Estate

Prosperity:
Bank
City
Forge

Alchemy:
University

213
Chancellor just needs to trigger tunnel and he'd be fine :p
Then he would have four almost powerful combos instead of one. Other than that, he would be just as bad.

FTFY

Counting House, Stash, Inn.

In Province games, Chancellor-Stash is super duper strong when it appears, in my experience.  I can't think of any stronger two-card combos.
Whoa, Chancellor/Stash is good, but let's not get carried away here. :P

It gets blown away by (Province-oriented) combos such as: Wharf/Fool's Gold, Hunting Party/Monument, Native Village/Bridge, etc. Then there are alt VP strategies like Ironworks/Silk Road, although arguably that's not exactly a "Province game" anymore.

(Edit: And having simmed now, it's only a touch better than BM+Courtyard. I'm using a bot WanderingWinder posted at some point on this forum, but I don't have the link handy.)

OK, I can think of some stronger two-card combos now.

214
Chancellor just needs to trigger tunnel and he'd be fine :p
Then he would have four almost powerful combos instead of one. Other than that, he would be just as bad.

FTFY

Counting House, Stash, Inn.

In Province games, Chancellor-Stash is super duper strong when it appears, in my experience.  I can't think of any stronger two-card combos. 

Also, if you look closely, Chancellor is a woman.

215
Dominion Articles / Re: Scout
« on: July 30, 2012, 02:17:49 am »
99% of the time, a Scout-inclusive engine is either too weak to win, or strong enough to win without Scout.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120713-195219-c6ef8676.html

I posted it before, but here'e the only game I've seen where Scout was a must-buy.  Not only did it improve your deck, the improvement was of an order of magnitude.  Scrying Pool and Vineyard were part of it.

Forge, Great Hall, Nomad Camp, Potion, Scout, Scrying Pool, Silk Road, Trade Route, Treasure Map, Vineyard, and Witch
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120713-195219-c6ef8676.html

Silk Road, 2 Coppers, and 2 Scouts was a you'll-draw-your-deck type hand.

216
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: KC + KC + 3
« on: July 21, 2012, 07:29:26 pm »
Why ban any attacks? Everyone can choose to begin with a Moat in hand.

217
Game Reports / Re: Can you beat Scout on this board?
« on: July 20, 2012, 06:06:46 pm »
For me the interesting question is how well the same strategy holds up without Scout. Because if Scout is a non-essential element of its own dream scenario, well...

I think there's a difference of magnitude between Silk Road/Great Hall/Scrying Pool/Vineyards/Trade Route and the same deck filled with Scouts. 

With Scout, you can draw your deck with some consistency.  With only Scrying Pool and Great Halls for draw, I think you're grinding through a clogged deck.  And those Scout-enabled extra plays of Trade Route are going to compound greatly.

Scout does heroic work, here.  It is the fantasy Scout-scenario -- but here it is, occurring in nature.

218
Game Reports / Re: Can you beat Scout on this board?
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:09:27 pm »
Yes, yes I can.

Witch, probably into silk road, should really crush scout-based nonsense.

Maybe!  For the record, my opponent bought a Witch on the opening shuffle, and then transitioned into Silk Roads, like you recommend.  He didn't get to play his Witch till turn 5, and he passed up chances to buy a second Witch on the second shuffle, in favor of getting a head start on the VP rush.  So he could have handed out more Curses than he did.

But this go-round, team Scout-based-nonsense never bought a Witch, put 5 of 5 Curses in the trash, and won by 20 points.

219
Game Reports / Can you beat Scout on this board?
« on: July 18, 2012, 06:00:05 pm »
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120713-195219-c6ef8676.html
Cards in supply: Forge, Great Hall, Nomad Camp, Potion, Scout, Scrying Pool, Silk Road, Trade Route, Treasure Map, Vineyard, and Witch

Sometimes, Scout can be a decent addition to your deck.  But usually, when you buy one, you're thinking "hope this works." Hope that I draw my Scout with my Crossroads in hand and a lot of green cards on my deck but not in my hand already.  At best, it's a fun trick to pull off. 

This board was the first I've seen in which, if you didn't buy multiple Scouts, you were pretty likely to lose.  I've never seen Scout-play this dominant.

I didn't play well at all here; my opponent played much better.  Luckily, I fell backwards into a fun engine. 

Basically, I saw Scrying Pool, with Trade Route and Forge to trash, and made a pair of hair-trigger purchases: I opened Trade Route/Potion.  When my opponent opened Nomad Camp/Witch, I realized I hadn't read the board well at all.  There were no plus actions.  He'd be cursing me faster than I could trash.  And before I could get back into shape he'd have gobbled up all the Great Halls and Silk Roads.  The game was over already.

But the deck that grew around this mistake was pretty cool.  Scrying Pool combines alright with Great Hall.  The Trade Route mat accumulated plenty of tokens, so that was nice.  But Scout was what really held everything together. 

Scout allowed me to clog my deck with Silk Roads and Vineyards, and still consistently draw huge hands.  I'd vacuum out the green cards, hopefully pulling a few Great Halls for added draw.  Then I'd reorder the cards so my Scrying Pool could discard Copper, and grab the actions Scout had left on the deck.  Turn after turn I was drawing my deck, playing my single Trade Route for five coin, trashing the Curses from my opponent's Witch, and buying two VP cards, or Vineyards/Actions.  It was mojo synergy.

Anyway, I know I didn't play great, so I'm not sure if I found the best strategy.  Does anything beat Scout on this board?  Here's why I don't think so.

-Provinces will, I think, lose to Trade Route/Silk Roads/Great Halls, no matter how the Province player tries to mix it up with Witches, Trade Routes, and money.  There's too much Silk Road assistance to go for Provinces.
 
-If both players go for Trade Route/Silk Roads/Great Halls, the player who buys a Potion will win.  Once the Silk Roads are gone, those Vineyards will be nicer than Estates.

-If both players go Trade Route/Silk Roads/Great Halls/Vineyards, and they both buy a Potion, then the player who builds around Scrying Pools will beat the player who only buys a Potion late, or who rushes Vineyards early.  The Scrying Pool player might lose some opportunity at Silk Roads VP early, but the VP the extra actions add to the Vineyards will make up for it, and it's a useful card.

-If both players go for Scrying Pools, then the player who adds a generous helping of Scouts will outdraw by a mile the player who ignores them.

Obviously, there's a lot of room for errors in that chain of assumptions.  But if the winning strategy doesn't include Scout, what is it?

...

Here that?  It's silence.  Somewhere out there, a scout is scouting.  There's no need to thank him.  He doesn't do it for the glory.  He just likes to be around trees.

220
Game Reports / Re: I have no clue how I won this game
« on: July 09, 2012, 06:47:33 am »
Makes sense. So in general, when you're ahead in Torturer games when to do you want to pivot to improving your buying power

I wait until the Curses are gone.

221
But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.

I wouldn't go quite that far.  It's nearly always a "code of ethics" (in school, professions, etc.) rather than a "code of morality", and there's a very good reason for that.  The distinction is important here, where hopefully we can and must agree on what the ethical thing to do is, despite having moral codes that may conflict with each other, or come from different sources.

So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics

Yes.

I feel like I didn't make myself clear.  "Ethics" is a way of describing all the different possible moralities using clear, accessible systematized language.  It isn't about reaching consensus on what's right and wrong.  A "Code of Ethics" is a code because it has the word code, not because it has the word ethics.  "Ethics" doesn't describe a code, it describes all possible codes.

Codes are great, though.  Very useful.  They are an excellent substitute for absolute  moral truth, which we humans will never have, and for agreement, which we humans will never have.  We can all agree on the code, and then agree on what the code says.  But that's not the same as having certainty on what "the ethical thing to do is."  Let alone certainty and agreement!

222
Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.

In common usage, they're the same thing.  If there's a distinction, it's that morality refers to subjective feelings of right and wrong, supposed unreachable by rational discourse.  Beliefs.  Whereas ethics refers to the logical relationships between moral principles and behavior.  As in "principle X states that murder is wrong, thus if you hold to X, it is wrong to murder Joe."  So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics -- but it's only the logical relationships between principles and behavior that are objectively knowable, or can be quantified as true or false.  Not the actual values of any particular moral principle, which are unknowable without the aid of the supernatural.

But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.

223
The doping and speeding analogies illuminate some of the hidden depths of Personman's argument.

Speeding, as was said, is something basically everyone does.  The speed limit is not really enforced unless you're driving way, way over it.  As a result, just about everyone drives a decent ten miles over the speed limit.  As a result, there's a lot of pressure to drive ten miles over the speed limit.  But there's still a rule on the books saying you can't.  But it's not enforced; you can drive ten over right by a police cruiser.  They won't pull you over.  But maybe they will!

Doping is also against the rules, but for a time in the 90s, this rule was not enforced in professional sports.  This created a lot of pressure to violate the rules.  Players saw other players taking performance enhancements, and thus performing better, and they weren't being punished.

If you are caught in the jurisdiction of a rules-system like this, than you are trapped in a sort of double-bind.  The system is constantly sending you conflicting messages: "don't break the rules," and "break the rules."

An ethically designed system of rules actually should, I think, take into account the enforaceabililty of each rule so as to avoid placing its constituents in this double-bind.  If a rule can't be enforced, either because there aren't enough resources or because the rule is by its nature unenforceable, then there's a larger burden in justifying the rule's existence.  The rule should in this case be necessary to protect a larger principle.  That is, a good rule should be principled, or it should be enforceable, or both.  But it can't be both arbitrary and unenforceable.

It was exactly these criteria that were honored in the evolution from Throne Room to King's Court.  The rule that Throne Room <i>must</i> find an action was unenforceable.  And it was arbitrary.  So it was deleted.  King's Court, the newer card, <i>may</i> find an action.

So Personman's argument for changing the rules based on their unenforceability is perfectly valid.  Either he's wrong, and the rules can be enforced, or he's right, and the rule needs to be justified on higher grounds.  That principled justification seems like it's going to be especially challenging if you don't also object to the tepid point-counter that's much more mainstream.

Personman's argument isn't an excuse to violate the rules -- it doesn't make it okay to cheat on your spouse.  But it is part of a good argument for <i>changing</i> the rules.  Or, redefining the terms of the marriage, to Throne Room the marriage metaphor. 

Or, to Throne Room the Throne Room metaphor, Personman's argument doesn't allow that people who cheated with Throne Room weren't cheating.  They were.  But it does hold King's Court to be an ethically superior card.

224
Dominion Videos and Streams / Re: Video Etiquette?
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:50:45 pm »
So, if almost everybody wants the videos, perhaps the best course is to have future tournament rules explicitly state that video recording is allowed.  Then at least it's clear from the beginning and people can choose if they want to enter with that stipulation (just as they can about the point counter and identical starting hands).

Does almost everybody want the videos?  I mean, want them so much that they want to change the rules of the tournament so that players who don't want to be recorded can't have their wishes respected?  My personal feeling is, I will watch whatever Wandering Winder posts.  But if he doesn't post something, I won't really miss it.  The majority of tournament matches are unrecorded, and I don't ever feel deprived of them.  If one of WW's opponents is shy, or finds the camera distracting, then I'd rather not get to see the video then force that player to put up with something they don't like.

I do understand the perspective of "tournaments are a big deal, as far as on-line Dominion goes, especially cause there's a legitimate prize for the winner -- they should of course be broadcast for fans to appreciate."  So that a player requesting not to be filmed seems analogous to a first basemen for the Mets asking for the World Series to not be televised. 

But keep in mind, WW is not Major League Baseball.  He's just a player in the tournament; he's not part of management.  So I think there's a viable alternate perspective of "tournaments are a big deal, especially cause there's a serious prize  -- Wandering Winder should turn the camera off and become just another player in the tournament."

225
Dominion Videos and Streams / Re: Video Etiquette?
« on: June 30, 2012, 04:09:26 am »
Etiquette reqires that you obtain permission from your opponents before posting video of them.  That's especially true because in the videos, you're judging their play.

It doesn't matter that the logs are already recorded.  Everyone who plays on isotropic should have the understanding that their games are logged.  There's no similar understanding that you'll be recorded and your play publicly analyzed by other guests to the site.  Because players have no reason to assume they've given up that privacy, courtesy requires that you request their permission before taking it from them.  This used to be well-understood.  Remember when commenters wouldn't even post the logs of their matches until they had gotten explicit permission from their opponents?

I really enjoy Wandering Winder's videos.  I especially like the ones that feature me!  But, fellas, come on. 

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11

Page created in 0.168 seconds with 18 queries.