Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

51

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Grand Market vs Platinum

« on: October 23, 2012, 01:35:44 pm »

Actually, the value of drawing another card drops heavily when you draw your entire deck

Only when you can overdraw your deck with spare drawing capacity.

Yeah, a simple case is 4 Colonies and 9 GMs.
If you add a Platinum, you might end up with 4 Colonies and Plat in hand next turn.
If you add a GM, you are guaranteed $20.

The odds of 4 Col/Plat are pretty low (.05%). This has virtually no impact on expected utility.

The odds of hitting $23 with Plat are 35.7% (No Gm on the bottom of the deck).
Odds of hitting $21 or more coin  are 60.4% (odds of there not being two Gm on the bottom of the deck).
Odds of hitting $19 or more coin (break point for Col + Prov being 18)  are 77%.

I did a quick expected $ return similar to yours.  Except it breaks down each case (so odds of $21 would be 24.72% and so forth) and multiplied it by the dollars it was supposed to give you. 

Ironically, (I'm not totally sure why this is...) the expected return comes out as $20 (I double checked and my total probabilities added is equal to 1). 

Now given these two options.  I'm pretty sure GM is better here (as you are guaranteed $20).  Also in general, I would agree with DonDon that cantrip money is usually better than treasure money, as long as you aren't extremely over-drawing your deck CONSISTENTLY (ie. a crossroads deck, would not be consistent imo).

For math purposes, I did 5/14*9/13*8/12*7/11*6/10 for each succession by adding another n/n+4 on top.  Read Jomini's for more understanding.

There may be a flaw in my math, so please feel free to yell at me

52

Game Reports / Re: What's the best strategy for this?

« on: October 22, 2012, 05:25:18 pm »

Yeah, I know the benefits, but wonder whether it is actually useful picking up 1 or 2 over NVs. (or spare 2s once NV runs out, but that is probably too late).

Right, but in that case, there wouldn't be many swindlers out.  I mean the swindler player isn't going to waste $4-5 on a NV right?  There's no real way outside of markets, to grab multiple NVs. 

Thus, the only time you're seriously fighting for NV is if 2 people (maybe 1?) are vying for the same strategy.  In that case, yeah NVs are scarce and SC aren't a priority.  However in these situations, SC aren't going to be that helpful (fewer swindlers around) anyways. 

In short, I think times where you want to spend all to get every single NV and times you want to grab a couple SC are two different games that don't co-exist all that often. 

53

Game Reports / Re: What's the best strategy for this?

« on: October 22, 2012, 12:31:54 pm »

Assuming opponent going Swindler, would SC help with securing NV/Bridge combo?

For one, you'd be able to control with card is "swindled".  For example, you can now choose out of 7 cards, which card you want to be attacked.  This will likely be an estate or a curse.  That's pretty helpful. 

Two, the second card that goes back up would be the one that's put on that mat.  That again is useful, carefully tucking away estates/coppers of that sort.  (unless you get attacked again, then go through number 1 again). 

I'm not sure if it is totally worth the opportunity cost... but it plays better than moat as a defence here. 

54

Game Reports / Re: What's the best strategy for this?

« on: October 22, 2012, 11:16:37 am »

http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/01/02/combo-of-the-day-27-native-villagebridge/

This describes how to play the Bridge/NV combo.  It is somewhat susceptible to Swindler Attacking, but I don't think it would make it an unviable strategy.  It just might slow down the game a bit.

I think in 4P, it would do the total opposite.  Instead with players picking up 3 new cards a swindler play, it would speed the game up rather fast.  So if players are either picking up NV/Bridge parts, or attacking with swindlers.  It will end up being a fast game. 

This is under the assumption that those are the only two viable strategies (Swindlers galore, and NV/Bridge). 

I think Secret chamber would work as a wonderful defence and set up for native village. 

55

Game Reports / Re: What was wrong with my Potion/Fool's Gold opening ?

« on: October 19, 2012, 08:47:42 am »

I can understand Davio's frustration though.  He clearly has more money in the short run (after T4), with the silver > Fool's gold, then gets potion + <$3 two turns straight?  That's pretty brutal.  (It's hard to see in T6 but I'm pretty sure that is what he draws with his familiar).  I'm actually surprised it ended up 6-4 instead of 7-3...

Then add to the fact that he's getting cursed one cycle earlier than his opponent for the rest of the game.  It's a little annoying for sure knowing you weren't clearly beaten by a strategy vs. being beaten mainly by coin distribution. 

Would Fool's gold actually won? That I don't know.  But it is the best option at 5/2. 

56

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Grand Market vs Platinum

« on: October 18, 2012, 09:40:30 am »

Oh and another thing. Do we really need multiple "depends on the kingdom" responses in every thread asking for advice? It will be a sad state of affairs whenever we quit masking it even that much and we write "just make the correct play". It's true but not useful.

This isn't targeted at anyone in this thread particularly since most have gone on to give examples of the kinds of kingdoms where you might make one decision over another, but that phrase is getting a bit worn out. If the question is too vague to answer, then don't answer and ask for more details. If you have some useful advice for a particular situation, then describe that situation and give your advice.

I apologize for preaching.

I like this sentiment.  In short, instead of saying it depends on the kingdom.  Maybe just summarize your response in the depends on the...

For example, if I had a choice between trader/watchtower for defending curses.  I would say depends if there are viable engine options, instead of saying depends on the kingdom, then spilling out your answer anyways.  This at least provides a preview into your insight.

57

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5+ player strategy

« on: October 17, 2012, 10:25:34 am »

"1. In 4p, 5p and 6p, people are racing to 3 provinces/colonies, not 4."

This is often not sufficient. In theory, yes, but in practice, no. Often 1 or 2 players fall behind in the beginning of the game, either due to poor purchase decisions or poor draw luck. This means that the leader might need to contend for colonies/provinces with 1 or 2 other players only. This means to win he must strive for at least 4-5 of the cards in order to beat the 2nd place player.  A deck that stalls after only 3 may not cut it.

Your general gist though is correct. It does seem to be the case that BM wins quite often with multiplayer.

I think this is slightly out of context, he refers to this only in terms of game speed, and how the increased game speed helps Big Money.  Averaging 3 provinces a player compared to 4 a player leads to inevitably shorter games barring interactions in cards. 

On the flip side, say in 3 players, 1 of them is slow, then the other 2 players may have to get to 5 provinces. 

Now you can say, what if everyone went engine? Then there's the whole scarce resources problem, and kinda leads back to Big money anyways as an often dominant strategy.  There's an equilibrium somewhere, but I'm not sure where in Game theory, which leads to his mini-article #3. 

58

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5+ player strategy

« on: October 16, 2012, 04:54:08 pm »

Player 1 Coins: $5, $8
Player 2 Coins: $8, $5

This is a practical game occurrence which someone involved may perceive or call as "mirroring". Has very little/nothing to do with earlier post about theoretical mirroring.

I was talking about theoretical level mirroring. Concepts such as "What is the maximum gain from full mirroring everything in 2p Dominion (answer: max. outcome for 2P is 50-50 in theory, much less in practice)".

Theoretical level stuff is basically about finding the minimum and maximum values of given strategies. These are limits which can not be exceeded even in theory. They are theoretical, and unlikely to occur in real life (very small probability). It's about minmaxing, in a way.

Repeated simulation stuff is about finding real life averages of given strategies in order to negate the variation inherent in Dominion. Average strategy is often completely impossible to happen in real life: 3.2 VP in one turn is not possible under Dominion rules in practice under whatever rules because the cards have full numbers. If average always happened (which never does outside from calculus), there would be no random variation.

Both approaches have their uses. But I have not seen that much theoretical stuff around here. Except, well, about minmaxing first 2 buys because that is very much practice-related.

There's a good chance I do not understand this properly, but I saw you make a comparison between theoretical mirroring and simulating a bazillion times to show that P2 and P1 in basic big money is 50% win rates both ways. 

My understanding is that this is not the case.  In certain situations as above, that has nothing to do with either of the three... "conditions" you previously mentioned, player 1 has inherent advantages given to them.  This was what Blueblimp was alluding to. 

Now my situation probably doesn't affect a huge amount of games, but this sort of situation where if Player 1 "misses out" early in the deck shuffle, then Player 1 doesn't miss out said resource split.  However I THINK this is outside the realm you're talking about.  I just think the basic idea that Player 1 can end games with an extra turn is an actual advantage in this theoretical mirroring we are talking about. 

EDIT:

Thus, it's not really a luck thing

Yes, I should have called that "random variation" thing. My fault for not being precise enough while talking generic theory stuff.

My point is that I take is you think random variation will balance out.  Sometimes P2 gets advantage, hooray P2 wins.  Vice versa, all balances out.  However, there are times, mainly in PPR, where one advantage, then the opposite nets out to advantage in P1.  Thus, expected win rate of P1 > P2 in straight up BM. 

59

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5+ player strategy

« on: October 16, 2012, 04:29:40 pm »

@blueblimp: your comparison doesn't really work.

You're trying to make a point about mirror matches, but the example you use has P2 having gained a tempo on P1 (i.e. he has the opportunity to take the province lead) yet they're still down 2VPs some how, so it's not even nearly a mirror match, which totally confuses your point. To illustrate this, the situation you describe could equally apply to the players the other way round, and in fact it will be P1 who has to deal with the PPR normally in a hypothetical mirror match, not P2.

I don't really think Karhumies (stop me if I'm wrong) was thinking that mirror actually happened enough to have strategy ready, but was talking in terms of statistical probabilities/advatnages in the same way that the simulators do - an 80 - 20 win ratio is still no guarantee of a win, but it's still worth discussing right? As it turns out, P1 does have an advantage in a 2P game, but the (flawed) assumption does bring some interesting points to light.

I think the point blueblimp was trying to make was if both are going into their next shuffle, tied and with exactly similar deck contents.  The two following situation could happens. 

Player 1 Coins: $5, $8
Player 2 Coins: $8, $5

Player 1 would buy a duchy. If player 2 buys a province, 2 risks having Player 1 buying a province first, despite have less coins left in their deck and "half a turn" (or whatever you want to call it) behind.  Player 1 gets advantage

If the reverse occurred...  so:

Player 1 Coins: $8, $5
Player 2 Coins: $5, $8

This game would end up in a tie, even though it was just the complete reverse situation.  Player 1 isn't put into the same bind that player 2 was with Coin disbursement.  No such advantage

This is a situation that player 1 has net advantage in two opposite situations.  Thus, it's not really a luck thing (as opposed to say a 5/2 start vs. 4/3 start).

EDIT: I remember this being somewhere in the forums, I just don't remember where...

60

Help! / Re: I will try to post a game here every day.

« on: October 15, 2012, 03:09:46 pm »

1. I'm gonna have to assume steward should be used for trashing.  I only say this because if you are opening steward/silver, on a board with witch, you are suggesting there is a reason to trash.  If the decision for you was to gain $2 with steward to get your witch, you should have gone silver/silver.  Thus this decision should have been made prior to opening steward/silver. 

I think this is faulty logic (though the conclusion may be correct; I"m not sure. Depends on the Kingdom). At the time you chose Steward, you didn't know if you would draw it in the same hand as your Silver or not. You could have easily drawn it in a hand where using +$2 wouldn't have gotten you a Witch, in which case it being a Silver instead would have been worse. It's the same question as drawing 4 Coppers and Steward on turn 3, and trying to choose between Gold and trashing 2 Coppers.

See I never really understood this conundrum all that often.  Steward-BM isn't going to be the best option all that often.  Definitely not at all with a witch on the board. 

Lets say you conclude there's a decent engine you want to build (or some sort of decent strategy that likely includes a village), and you think steward/silver is optimal.  The only reason that it could be optimal is that you would want the trashing of steward or else you would have taken something else. 

You get steward + $3, and you decide to use it for a witch, that can collide and doesn't help Witch-BM whatsoever?  That kind of flip-flopping decision-making sounds detrimental.  Just trash and get going on whatever you decided to do earlier. 

I feel like it is a similar problem with ambassador/3 coppers/estate, there aren't many $3 that would make me choose to give back an estate instead of the 2 coppers. 

61

Help! / Re: I will try to post a game here every day.

« on: October 15, 2012, 02:20:41 pm »

Understood.  A couple of quick questions from games today that didn't merit full writeups:

-I opened Steward/Silver on a Witch board.  On the first use, is it better to use the trashing, or the +$2 to get Witch?  Does that change if your opponent opens Witch?
-If Amb and IGG are out, which would you prefer?  I tried to run both, and I feel it was self-defeating.

1. I'm gonna have to assume steward should be used for trashing.  I only say this because if you are opening steward/silver, on a board with witch, you are suggesting there is a reason to trash.  If the decision for you was to gain $2 with steward to get your witch, you should have gone silver/silver.  Thus this decision should have been made prior to opening steward/silver. 

2. The crux of this decision is in the engine possibilities.  IGGs lend to a very BM-esque game, in that other then a couple terminals you don't want much else here (That is not to say you should be aiming for provinces, yadda yadda).  Ambassador is quite the opposite, and with that in mind, they do clash to some degree.  Thus depending how the board feels, BM or engine, I would choose the appropriate card. 

The only time I would consider both, would be when I choose ambassador to start, and possibly go IGG after, but this would require a slim deck (and by that point, the is likely have much won already).  I would suspect going ambassador to BM + IGG would lose to straight up IGG, as long as there are mediocre terminal silvers in play. 

62

Help! / Re: I will try to post a game here every day.

« on: October 15, 2012, 01:10:00 pm »

I think the point is the order of the purchases, which is very important.  In your end deck, you have trade routes, a quarry, ironworks, and silvers in your deck.  We probably all agree these are important to the deck you want to build (well not the silvers, that sounds bad, but semi-necessary?). 

So what is important is when we purchase it.  The reason ironworks doesn't work so well at the start is, at best, it will be a gainer for quarry and provide you with another dollar, even possibly getting you to highway purchase.  While this case sounds good, the likelihood isn't all that great.  Quarry opening ensures early highway purchase on T3/T4.  You were very fortunate to hit highway still, while also having the 1 highway, and 1 ironworks line up afterwards. 

While the silver is necessary with the ironworks, as getting to $5 is pretty important, with quarry, it is not as essential for the counter reason.  Thus, the extra trashing from trade route is very much wanted at the start.

Moreless, this deck does not want treasures, so much so that your first gold is surely a mistake.  With that in mind, quarry is infinitely better than silver in this case, which makes the quarry/trade route opening a lot better. 

63

Goko Dominion Online / Re: FunSockets Q&A - Part 2

« on: October 12, 2012, 03:03:34 pm »

How do you plan on converting those users?

Sadly, I'm pretty sure they plan on "converting" those users by causing iso to shut down.

Of course they hope this is the case, but when iso shuts down, the users in question can either move over to goko, or stop playing.  Given that people are not moving over to goko in droves despite plenty of reasons (placement on the new leaderboard probably being the biggest), makes me suspect that option 2 might be more likely. 

I'm just curious as to what goko's take on the situation is, and what they might say to convince someone like myself to move over other than "You have no choice"

Yeah I am very much on this boat as well.  I get that they are trying to be the next cool thing that casual gamers will play (or at least that's how I feel about the development), but they are missing the simplicity of Iso that made is EASY to play. 

64

Help! / Re: Witch strategy lost to Hagglers/Golems. What gives?

« on: October 10, 2012, 08:00:03 am »

When I read the title, I expected to see two very distinct decks.  Yours which would consists of a witch or two, maybe something else that might complement it but also not complicate it.  I expected the other deck to be consisting of... a lot of things. 

What I ended up seeing, is two similar decks that outside the opening, looked to have similar ideas.  So essentially what Fabian said. 

65

Help! / Re: When to start greening when you play a crazy minion-conspirator engine

« on: October 05, 2012, 01:18:39 pm »

In these games, it usually is just reacting to your opponent, especially if the opponent is building a similar engine (and thus use similar pieces for sooner 3-piling).  As your opponent is playing... 'simple' you have enough time to do what you want to do. 

There were two things that probably could have gone better.  Outpost probably should have been included at some point here.  It is just too good in this setting to be forgotten. 

T15 - I don't know the specifics of deck and discard content, but I am pretty sure that the last minion should not have been discard.  It leaves you exposed for the next hand which was a dud.  Probably a similar idea for T13/T14, but those look more forced (ie. playing the GM has benefits).  Ooh similar idea again for T11. 

66

Dominion Isotropic / Re: Question about optimal strategy

« on: October 02, 2012, 02:23:07 pm »

Your opening is just about correct.  The silver's long term help doesn't help enough to warrant that short term gain.  FV is just too helpful in the cycling of this sort of deck. 

With that said, I don't really like the T3 potion that much.  I feel like you should have grabbed witch, FV, or courtyards only as this would help win you the curse war, as this is of main importance as there's no way to trash this.  Also with so much cycling with this sort of deck, you'd likely still be able to grab universities/cities at a good rate when you transition over. 

Quarry is no good here, it's pretty useless in a deck here.  There's just no +buy or $6/$7 actions you'd want. 

His anger probably stems from some really bad shuffle luck.  Never gets to connect a single FV with +cards. 

67

Game Reports / Re: Finally played a game I'm proud of

« on: September 26, 2012, 02:40:09 pm »

It feels great to win on early 3 piles doesn't it?

PS. Opening with a trasher probably makes it easier for you (ie. Remake) to build such a mega-turn deck.

Just try and solitaire the same set/strategy with remake to start. 

68

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Spice Merchant improves IGG rush?

« on: September 25, 2012, 01:42:20 pm »

Could you explain?

He means, if you avoid IGGs, then spice merchant is a good buy.  If you mirror, grab IGGs without spice merchant, then the spice merchant becomes bad as the +2cards (essentially trashing and replacing the cards) isn't all that valuable with the added curses and early greening.

Yeah it doesn't help, essentially any terminal is better.

69

Tournaments and Events / Re: Dominon Tourney

« on: September 21, 2012, 04:15:12 pm »

I'm around Toronto, so I could be interested in such a tournament.  This of course if it matches schedule and such. 

70

Game Reports / Re: In which Scout opening wins the day

« on: September 21, 2012, 09:08:14 am »

Yeah, venture is strictly superior to silver

Not with Grand Market around. Or Mint, Mandarin, Contraband, Counterfeit, or any of a number of deck-inspection cards. Or, of course, Feodum. Or in a slim deck. Or if you have $9 with your other cards and a Platinum on top of your deck.

So no, it's hardly strictly superior, but it's usually a lot better.

Oooh I know this one.  Is it "What are edge cases"?

I think that in the hypothetical case of this forum existing indefinitely with a finite membership, we would quickly approach a point where every statement was qualified with "usually", "often", "sometimes" or some such, just for the sake of avoiding being corrected with unconsidered edge cases. I think. Usually. In general, at least.

Exactly my point, and I wouldn't really like that.  I particularly do not like when people seemingly overlook a sound point/reason/etc. just to point out the few cases that it doesn't work.  I think Eevee makes some good points, but seems overshadowed by that one line. 

In short, I think focusing on edge cases to learn about dominion is the wrong way to go about it.  I rather learn/read about general knowledge than have to learn why silver is sometimes better than venture or even stash (differently named cards!). 

71

Game Reports / Re: In which Scout opening wins the day

« on: September 20, 2012, 12:09:16 pm »

Yeah, venture is strictly superior to silver

Not with Grand Market around. Or Mint, Mandarin, Contraband, Counterfeit, or any of a number of deck-inspection cards. Or, of course, Feodum. Or in a slim deck. Or if you have $9 with your other cards and a Platinum on top of your deck.

So no, it's hardly strictly superior, but it's usually a lot better.

Oooh I know this one.  Is it "What are edge cases"?

72

Game Reports / Re: $4 Village + Amba

« on: September 18, 2012, 08:28:28 pm »

...
This probably only works for Worker's village and Walled village.  I don't think farming village has the same utility here with ambassador.

Could you expound on this a little, please? Is the detriment the possibility of skipping over your estates, preventing you from Ambing them, effectively tanking your economy faster than with WV or WV?

Not being able to amb away skipped Estates also means missing out on junking the opponent's deck.  That could be part of it too, maybe.

It's not that farming village is bad... it is more walled village's purpose is to avoid collisions, and worker's village is just one of the better one.  Farming village could also probably work in that spot as well, I just like the other two more in this situation

73

Game Reports / Re: $4 Village + Amba

« on: September 18, 2012, 05:35:30 pm »

For what it is worth, I very much support $4 village openings with ambassadors for the most part.  Essentially, by going $4 village/ambassador, you are forgoing possibly double ambassdoring T3/T4 for an automatic $4 village.  The other method would risk collision and possibly not hitting $4 village on those non-collision turn. 

It will take either a strong $5 or Goons for me to consider silver... strong $2 or peddler for double ambassador. 

I give more reasoning for $4 village openings if there are no repeatable cards <$4.  Much the same reason you want Caravan/Tournament with your ambassador except those are probably stronger. 

This probably only works for Worker's village and Walled village.  I don't think farming village has the same utility here with ambassador.

If there's no village/engine and you open doubleamb over amb/silver I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong.

Oh you probably misinterpreted, but my answer was strictly for the case of there being a $4 village and a reason to ambassador in the first place (ie. engine).

In this game, I think there is reason to ambassador for most of the start.  Probably gets tricky on how to ambassador curses at some point for mountebank defence.  Then again, I am a big proponent of amb/amb a good chunk of the time. 

74

Game Reports / Re: 43 turns, a new personal record

« on: September 18, 2012, 05:22:27 pm »

...

...

... I am not good with Tactician apparently. >_____<

Whenever you see tactician, just look to see if there's a easy way to generate money without any money (or black market of course).  If that's the case, then see if there are other tools for an engine, +actions, an attack, trashing.  It doesn't need all of them (because double tactician lets you see so many cards) but can be a very nice alternative than buying silvers/golds. 

75

Game Reports / Re: $4 Village + Amba

« on: September 18, 2012, 02:38:33 pm »

For what it is worth, I very much support $4 village openings with ambassadors for the most part.  Essentially, by going $4 village/ambassador, you are forgoing possibly double ambassdoring T3/T4 for an automatic $4 village.  The other method would risk collision and possibly not hitting $4 village on those non-collision turn. 

It will take either a strong $5 or Goons for me to consider silver... strong $2 or peddler for double ambassador. 

I give more reasoning for $4 village openings if there are no repeatable cards <$4.  Much the same reason you want Caravan/Tournament with your ambassador except those are probably stronger. 

This probably only works for Worker's village and Walled village.  I don't think farming village has the same utility here with ambassador.