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

2012 / Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion

« on: December 09, 2012, 01:57:35 pm »

I think if you guys were in the same room actually talking about this, you'd quickly realize that you agree with each other.

I think Piemaster's saying the "Isotropic levels" used for seeding will be inaccurate for a variety of reasons (he's not saying "ratings don't matter", just "Isotropic ratings (levels) can be misleading").  And I think WW is saying ratings are useful, but that "Isotropic levels" don't do a good job of capturing them.

So you both agree that "Isotropic levels" aren't a particularly good ratings metric.

52

2012 / Re: Re: Upsets

« on: December 08, 2012, 08:23:54 pm »

You seem to think that experimentation and trying to give yourself the best chance to win are mutually exclusive. This isn't true at all, and I don't know why anybody would think that.

I don't think they're always mutually exclusive, but I think there will be plenty of instances where they are.  I'd say this becomes obvious when you realize that it's quite possible for the strongest strategy on a board to be totally different than the strategy you play the best.  In a case like this, trying to play the strongest board strategy may not give you the best chance to win, simply because you're not skilled in it.  But if you never play that strongest strategy because it doesn't give you the best chance to win, you're not going to improve in it.  So you have to be willing to take some losses in order to improve your long-term play.

This is a known phenomenon that happens in other games, as well.  I follow Starcraft / Starcraft 2 a bit and foreigners (non-Koreans) who go to Korea to train sometimes talk about a "breaking down" period where their overall play gets worse as they re-invent their game.  These guys realize they have to take a step backwards in order to break bad habits / ruts so they can rebuild into an even stronger all-around player.

53

2012 / Re: Re: Upsets

« on: December 08, 2012, 04:32:06 pm »

basically I think the only criteria that matters for describing ability is how well you perform

I think this is a short-sighted view of ability.  It gives you an instantaneous view, but it doesn't easily make provision for learning.  For example, if a player tries a new strategy and they lose, you might say "ah, not performing well - this means low ability".  But it's likely that player learned something from the new strategy that will improve their overall game.

Let's look at it from another angle.  Take a player who pours all their attention into the game, but isn't very creative.  So they have a couple of very strong BM strategies and they're really good at the obvious engines.  They win a lot - at the things they're good at.  But, by focusing so much on a narrow portion of the game, they've limited their ability to perform in the subtler scenarios.  I think this shows that choosing your personally-strongest strategy for each game does not necessarily make you a better overall player.  Sometimes the lessons that come from experimenting and losing are more valuable than another notch on the belt.

54

2012 / Re: Re: Upsets

« on: December 07, 2012, 10:33:46 pm »

Ah, thanks!  I knew about the levels and uncertainty; I just didn't realize it was also called "mean skill".

But now I'm confused why WW puts 3 pleases before asking you to use it instead of level.    Is it vastly preferred in some circles?

i am going to oversimplify here, but basically mean skill is a more accurate measure for skill for people on the top end of the leaderboard (or who have a ton of games played) and the isotropic level is a better measure for less skilled or newer players.

I see the high-level reasoning there.  Shouldn't that be easily tunable with the Isotropic parameters?  I mean, couldn't it further reduce uncertainty as you increase in level / games played so that it was accurate at either end?  This is purely academic, I suppose, but I guess I'm just not understanding WW's seemingly-passionate preference of TrueSkill.  As you pointed out earlier, it doesn't seem to make too too much of a difference.

55

2012 / Re: Re: Upsets

« on: December 07, 2012, 10:15:17 pm »

Sorry, but what's "mean skill"?  If it's something specific and well-known, I'm not Googling well.  Or do you just mean something like "for the amount you play, you should be better"?

mean skill is the first (leftmost) number you will see on the leaderboard. it is what trueskill thinks your level is. there is a degree of uncertainty there, and this uncertainty is subtracted from the mean skill to determine your level on the leaderboard. there is a little more detail here if you are interested.

Ah, thanks!  I knew about the levels and uncertainty; I just didn't realize it was also called "mean skill".

But now I'm confused why WW puts 3 pleases before asking you to use it instead of level.    Is it vastly preferred in some circles?

EDIT: I should say I did read the Wiki and Iso FAQ (again) and saw that the Wiki said there was some debate, but I'm not familiar with that debate.  Is there a thread talking about why TrueSkill is/isn't better than TrueSkill + Uncertainty?

56

2012 / Re: Re: Upsets

« on: December 07, 2012, 07:05:04 pm »

Funny, I do sorta consider myself a bad player...

Level 43   51.721 ± 8.108   20   10486   WanderingWinder

if you are bad then the 7919 of us lower down on the leaderboard must just be hideously awful.

Well, two things. One, please please please use mean skill, not level.
Two, I was originally going to make some complaint about Insomniac saying that he doesn't consider himself a bad player, because everyone thinks they are a good player - self-reporting bias! So i thought to myself 'who considers himself a bad player', and I was like, gee, I sorta do.

Sorry, but what's "mean skill"?  If it's something specific and well-known, I'm not Googling well.  Or do you just mean something like "for the amount you play, you should be better"?

More-specifically, what qualities about yourself or your play would lead you to sorta consider yourself a bad player?  As a player I look up to, I'm wondering if you have any insights I can learn from.

57

2012 / Re: Upsets

« on: December 06, 2012, 03:38:25 pm »

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting this!  If you happen to notice another, would you also take note of the game split? Convincing upsets are even more interesting than narrow ones.

58

Dominion General Discussion / Re: House rule for reducing luck factors?

« on: November 26, 2012, 08:47:49 pm »

This is utterly different from counting cards, which many people can manage.

I feel like it's only a difference of scale, though. You can't compare counting a deck of 52 cards to knowing the 1,002nd digit of pi. If you add enough decks of cards, you hit the same issue; neither you nor I have the calculatory capacity to derive the answer, even though it's fully mathematically derivable.

I think we're just defining words differently, though; I don't look at "I can't figure out the Nth digit of pi fast enough" as me being unlucky; I look at it as being unskillful in that particular aptitude test. The new test that I'm giving myself (Guess a digit) is completely luck, but I don't think that makes the original question a luck-based one.

Rather than say the original question is a luck-based one, I'd say it's at a specific place on a continuum of luck.  I'd also argue that, as you consider all factors affecting a game, you quickly arrive at the conclusion that literally everything has some element of luck (even if it's a lame definition like "were you lucky enough to have the aptitude for the skill this game requires").

Looking at it another way, you have to separate calculating pi from the hypothetical game itself.  The core task of calculating pi digits is mechanical.  But the game "Guess the Nth digit of pi" puts constraints on that such that you cannot predict the outcome (which is Garfield's definition of luck).

59

Dominion General Discussion / Re: House rule for reducing luck factors?

« on: November 26, 2012, 02:24:38 am »

Also, FWIW, I was curious about Richard Garfield's thoughts on luck vs skill and found this, which is about an hour long



I think this basically has the same content as what DXV was referencing.

The biggest thing that helps clarify DXV's statement in this thread is that Garfield defines luck as simply as "uncertainty of outcome".  By that definition, literally all games have some amount of luck (if nothing else, a meteorite could kill a player, after all) but, IMO, it's more interesting to talk about where they fall on the luck/skill axes.

60

Dominion General Discussion / Re: House rule for reducing luck factors?

« on: November 26, 2012, 01:57:38 am »

This is really interesting, Donald.  Can I pick your brain a bit on the role of luck?

Valerie wanted the more conventional "draw then shuffle" (just to be more conventional, not for any other reason). And that sounded fine, except, would it reduce luck too much? As it turned out, it didn't.

From this, it sounds like you're content with the amount of luck in Dominion.  If all other things were equal, would you prefer a different amount of luck in Dominion?  More or less?

Related, for the shuffling mechanic, do you prefer the original (pre-Valerie) or the current (more conventional) approach?  Would you prefer a game where a card could potentially never be drawn (trapped on the bottom)?  Or is it a wash to you?

61

Rules Questions / Re: Unexpected (to me) ruling on Smugglers

« on: October 04, 2012, 08:00:41 pm »

Plunk us has a history of rude posts.

That post was certainly rude / ill-advised, but I'm a bit surprised that's even temp-bannable.  The second post was certainly bannable but the first was just typical internet jerkwaddery.

Seems more like theory got sick of the guy than anything.  I would hope it's more than that.  If this community gets too large, theory's gonna have a full-time job just banning rude members.

62

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Amazon just shipped my copy of Dark Ages!

« on: August 31, 2012, 02:53:34 pm »

(a) The theme is side-effects going off almost at random, which can feel like walking through a fireworks factory which has itself caught fire. This set was absolutely born to be played on Isotropic, with a really reliable engine resolving everything correctly, and a minimum of book-keeping. In my one game, I persistently had 7 or more Actions, frequently losing count since they arrived via Procession and thus were not tallyable using a binary tree of cards on the table; and I typically held an entire deck of 40 or so cards in my hand. It's not satisfying to be saying "well, I've lost count, but I've got lots of buys and actions now" so often.

I also use the binary tree method but I have a system for handling the card multipliers.  I lay the Throned (or Processioned) cards sideways just overlapping the bottom of the Throne (together they look like an upside-down T).  That lets me see at-a-glance exactly which cards were Throned and broadens the exposed area below the card to continue the tree.  Same thing with King's Court but I space the cards below the Kinged card a little wider so I can see how many "slots" I have left.  Describing this via text is a little awkward.  Let me know if that's not clear and I can mock something up.

63

Dominion General Discussion / Amazon just shipped my copy of Dark Ages!

« on: August 28, 2012, 07:26:57 pm »

Happy to be the bearer of good news.  If you pre-ordered it, it should ship soon (or maybe already has)!

64

Game Reports / Re: Torturer vs. Minion

« on: August 21, 2012, 08:46:22 pm »

Not sure about the ideal strategy on this board, but I'd say your opponent was playing like an idiot here.
He does nothing to build his economy and gets stuck at <= $4 until turn 10!

I would say he was playing more like a noob.   It looked like he was hoping for an early $5 with only coppers (that he's trashing) and no draw...  Not very likely to work.

Also, in case we need a reminder, opening with any Village is pretty much always a mistake.  It generally does nothing to help the second pass through your deck.  Unless you're very confident your strategy wants that Village first thing, just don't do it.

65

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Ask FunSockets anything!

« on: August 20, 2012, 08:58:45 pm »

Dark Ages has an especially large outtakes section since I haven't talked about stuff that seemed like it might be rescued someday, and as of Dark Ages there was not much stuff left in that category.

That's what I was looking for.  Awesome.  I'm excited to read the next one whenever you post it.  Thanks!

66

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Ask FunSockets anything!

« on: August 20, 2012, 07:27:16 pm »

I'm curious if you've created any variants in Dominion that you found particularly fun, but that didn't turn into an expansion or mechanic. Like, maybe creating per-player mini-kingdoms?  I'm just spit-balling here.  There are lots of possibilities; are there any you tried and liked, but couldn't fit into the game?

We can draw a line between spin-offs and stuff for Dominion proper. For Dominion, nope, anything I came up with that I thought was worth doing has made it into an expansion. There is a tiny residue of okay cards that no-one will miss that didn't fit. Dominion is already different each game due to the starting ten cards; whatever you might want out of a variant, just get it there.

In the very early days, when there were no expansions, I considered doing events for an expansion. Every n turns, something happens. It just seemed like pointless complexity when new cards give you so much.

For spin-offs, I might do who knows what.

Cool, thanks.  Any chance of those omitted cards getting described in a Secret History?  Maybe sometime after Guilds?  Or are they not even interesting enough for that?

67

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Ask FunSockets anything!

« on: August 20, 2012, 05:30:33 pm »

Not sure that I agree this is "obviously not cheating". It's just cheating that everybody is party to.

I am totally fine with people playing variants that everyone has agreed to. I do not think it's reasonable to call such things "cheating." They are playing variants that everyone has agreed to.

@Varsinor: Okay to avoid miscommunication over issues that people feel strongly about, let's say instead you were talking about a variant in which, say, you can pay $0 to give another player a Curse, as your buy. I have chosen this as a random thing I don't like that I have heard of people doing.

It's one thing to provide some cards and be fine with people making up their own rules for them. It's another to specifically program a variant and offer it up. I do not wish to offer up variants I don't like. The "pay to hand out Curses" variant has no chance.

Dominion has a lot of variety to it. So providing variants isn't really that exciting. The campaigns do have variants. That variant sounded good for campaigns. A variant for the main game - such as the existing "add platinum/colony plz" variant - is going to have to sound really good to me.

Since you're discussing variants already:

I'm curious if you've created any variants in Dominion that you found particularly fun, but that didn't turn into an expansion or mechanic. Like, maybe creating per-player mini-kingdoms?  I'm just spit-balling here.  There are lots of possibilities; are there any you tried and liked, but couldn't fit into the game?

68

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Ask FunSockets anything!

« on: August 20, 2012, 05:08:47 pm »

Yet another thread turned into a 'hey I don't like how this guy thinks, how about I debate it inside a thread not made for this exact debate!'
Followed by the usual
'I really think the way I think is fine, I'll debate back!'
'Fool doesn't realize he is totally wrong! DEBATE DEBATE DEBAAAAAAAATE!!!'
'This fool is right, that fool is wrong! DEBATE!!!'
'Man you are both wrong, the fool that you think is wrong is right! You fools! DEBAAAAAAATE IT UP!!!'
And it goes on... and on.... and on.... and on... and on... until theory comes in and closes the thread/deletes the posts and stops the debate once and for all.

IMO, this is largely a failing of this format of forum / threading.  See Reddit for an example of a threading system that lets people get as off topic as they want without forcing everybody else to read it.

69

Game Reports / Re: Ghost Ship's a tarp.

« on: August 19, 2012, 06:49:24 pm »

Mis Qsenoch opens 5/2 ghost ship native village to my militia -BM strategy...

I buy provinces turns 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19.

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201208/13/game-20120813-155946-7896dc63.html

I don't think this is a good representation of this matchup.

Mic Qsenoch (whose confusing name I will just call MQ) unfortunately NV'd his Ghost ship on turn 3, so he didn't get to play it until turn 5.  In addition, despite buying Silver in five of his first eight turns, he didn't hit $5 again until turn 9, while you hit $6 for Golds on turns 4, 6, and 7 and $8 for a Province on turn 8.  When MQ finally did hit something useful again, it was $8 and you'd already bought a Province, so he followed you.  To illustrate how bad his hands were, your Militia didn't affect the value of them at all until turn 10.

So yeah, I really don't know if Militia / BM is generally stronger than GS / BM, but I don't think you can read much into what happened here.

70

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Funsockets Payment Model

« on: August 13, 2012, 04:43:15 pm »

1) Yes
2) Not yet, but it might in the final release, and it was in a previous version. (Could have been shelved for the moment due to the lack of players online during the beta)

Cool, thanks.

Just thinking about it, given the answer to 1, I imagine auto-match will create a kingdom with the union of the players' purchased "packs".  This avoids segmenting the player base, increases player exposure to exciting new things, and provides a really straightforward opportunity for upselling ("Did you like those cards you don't own?  Buy them here!").

71

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Funsockets Payment Model

« on: August 13, 2012, 02:25:36 pm »

You realize most full games in the iTunes store sell for between $0.99 and $5, right?

Our game is free!

That's the model everyone likes these days - free but you pay for more stuff. Valve has a game coming that's paid for entirely with hats.

I'm happy to get any of it for free! 

My apologies if these have already been answered, but:

• If I buy all the expansions, can I use them with people who have none of them?
• Is auto-matching supported?  How does this interact with the answer to question 1?

I'm sure Donald knows this but, depending on the answer to these questions, charging per "pack" could potentially segment the player base in deep ways that selling hats does not.

72

Dominion World Masters / Re: Dominion US National Championships

« on: July 20, 2012, 01:08:44 am »

That said, let it be known that Jay never expressly stated that he opposed the creation of a healthy tournament Dominion setting. It's just that he himself doesn't want to do it because he couldn't care less about tournament play. On our first night at the hotel (and Ed should remember this), there was a guy sitting at the table that Jay wanted to help coordinate future tournaments. For all we know, this is in someone else's hands. The only thing that Jay did say was that both he and DXV agree on 3 player being the preferred tournament format.

Oh, I don't think he (or anyone) really opposes a tournament Dominion scene.  I just think it's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to care much about tournament play WHILE he's in charge of fostering it.  I don't think a lasting community can easily form around that, so it's very encouraging to hear that somebody else may take the helm for future tournaments.

If a real tournament scene does emerge, it'll be interesting to see what the final format is.  Sounds like it will start at 3 players but I hope it ends up wherever the community as a whole prefers it, whether that be 2, 3, or 4 players.

73

Dominion World Masters / Re: Dominion US National Championships

« on: July 19, 2012, 08:52:09 pm »

I wouldn't be too quick to jump on whoever Joe is.  When I was about 3 months new to the game, I went to an informal tournament that was won by somebody who had literally never played before that night.  Granted, it's anecdotal and not nearly the level of play that happens at a national tournament, but there were multiple people there who knew the game well.

So, as much as I love Dominion, I also think there several key issues that prevent it from being a good tournament game.  The biggest one is that there's enough luck to require somewhat large sample sizes before you can confidently determine relative skill; that's hard to do in a day / weekend.  Obviously, the variance in starting 4/3 vs 5/2 on a given board is also huge.

A more subtle issue is that Jay (who I don't know and can't speak for) seems (based on hearsay / forum reports) to have what I would call a "casual gamer" mentality.  It's disappointing to hear that he "really hates" 2-player, as I see a lot of value in it as a competitive format.  Also, I get the impression that he's focused on a nebulous idea of "making it fun", which sounds really weird to say.  Dominion should be fun, but people have fun in different ways.  A community that cares about tournaments also cares about technicalities, rules decisions, and minimizing variance.  That is part of the fun for competitors.  I'd be really disheartened if I flew to a tournament and felt that the weekend amounted to "hey, let's hang out and play some Dominion."  A tournament should be about determining skill because that's a lot of why competitive players even show up.

This is all from my limited perspective; I'd love to hear others.  Again, I don't know Jay; I don't want to vilify him or accuse him of anything.  But my impression is that the guy in charge of official Dominion tournaments is a pretty casual about it, and that makes me a little sad.

74

Game Reports / Re: Lose the Curse split 1-9, DM;WG

« on: July 09, 2012, 08:36:09 pm »

Here's a not-so-high-level game where I won with all 10 curses in my deck.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120209-224719-f074e782.html

I got badly, badly out-cursed and won because 1) I realized how screwed I was, 2) I just started trying to buy out piles, 3) I got a little lucky at the end, and 4) my opponent didn't adjust fast enough.

75

Dominion World Masters / Re: DominionStrategy Qualifer Results

« on: July 06, 2012, 06:14:42 pm »

OK.  Let's try to arrange a time with ednever, then, ASAP.

This is obviously a weird game because I have no incentive to win and the two of them only care about beating each other.   Ah well.

Well, with Nationals on the line, you have every incentive to win.  Go theory!  I hope you make it to Chicago!

(That was a joke)