Print

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

[olneyce]

I don't really care one way or the other.  I never play with identical hands (I suppose because I enjoy the minor randomness generated by 4/3 5/2 splits), but I wouldn't mind if the tournament games were played that way.

It does seem to me that as a general rule the default ought to be *totally random* unless the individual players agree otherwise.  Same goes with veto.  I normally always use veto (because I enjoy it more) but if my opponent in the tournament refuses, that is 100% legitimate, and I would feel obliged to defer.

[theory]

Or, for that matter, the game end rules.  We know that the existing rules have a persistent pro-first player bias...and though it's a smaller magnitude, unlike the split it's an effect one that's guaranteed to benefit one player over another in every single match.

Add in a debate about point counters, and we'll be able to turn this thread into the trifecta of Dominion arguments!

[rrenaud]

You are assuming that there are 7 games in a best of 7 split, but that's also not true in expectation, even if players are equally skilled.

Also, it's certainly not the case that players are equally skilled. 

Of course, I'll certainly agree with you that the 5/2 luck effect is real and that forcing equal starting hands will tend to reward better play and better players, but really it's fundamentally a game design decision.  When I second guess Donald's game design decisions, it's going to be over something more important than deciding to apply shuffle luck to the entire game, rather than just the 90% subset where it's effect is the murkiest.

[permanoob]

What if I can't get in touch with my opponent (barsooma). I've sent him a PM and I'll keep an eye out on isotropic. What's the time limit for this?

[theory]

What if I can't get in touch with my opponent (barsooma). I've sent him a PM and I'll keep an eye out on isotropic. What's the time limit for this?

At the end of the week, on Sunday.  barsooma has logged in today, so I expect that you two should be able to arrange a time to play.

[mischiefmaker]

So, full disclosure: I am strongly in favor of identical starting hands for tournament play, I used to play only with identical starting hands, and I sometimes wish that automatch had an identical starting hands option.

I don't buy the "different splits make more interesting strategies" argument. I agree that they often make *different* strategies, but I would guess that the ratio of games that I've played in and would describe as "less interesting because of different splits", versus "more interesting because of different splits"* has got to be something like 3:1 or worse. I freely admit that number is completely made up and that it is likely highly influenced by selective memory, or whatever the term is that describes my tendency to remember the time I lost to a level 1 because he opened Witch/Chapel. (Not that I'm still bitter about that or anything.)

I'm not sure I buy the "these aren't the rules" argument either, and for two reasons:

1. The rules do not specify that the winner must win a best-of-seven, and they don't specify that point counters are required, and they don't specify that an opponent may/may not reject the proposed set until he finds one he likes (which is not addressed in the rules post, not that I would expect anyone to do this...at least, not if he wants to be respected in the morning). Since the tournament rules do specify best-of-seven and random kingdoms, clearly we are already making *some* concession to mitigating the effects of luck.

2. Imagine that the rules DID specify that each player were to get identical starting hands. Would you argue, for the purposes of running a tournament and determining a champion, that it would be better or worse to determine starting hands randomly?

[jonts26]

1. The rules do not specify that the winner must win a best-of-seven, and they don't specify that point counters are required, and they don't specify that an opponent may/may not reject the proposed set until he finds one he likes (which is not addressed in the rules post, not that I would expect anyone to do this...at least, not if he wants to be respected in the morning). Since the tournament rules do specify best-of-seven and random kingdoms, clearly we are already making *some* concession to mitigating the effects of luck.

The issue is not that some things aren't mentioned in the rules (best of 7 tournaments etc. and I'm not touching the point counter argument here) but that identical starting hands is explicitly AGAINST them. That's not to say you can't play any variant rules, but it's not a good comparison.

[Reyk]

1. The rules do not specify that the winner must win a best-of-seven

No and they don't have to. Rules for running a tournament could be an appendix or something like that, not more. You have the rules for the game itself on the other hand. This is this and that is that. Best-of-fourseven doesn't effect the rules for the game. Identical starting hand option does effect them.
Btw I think Best-of-fourseven is ideal. To play for more wins would take too much time. Best-of-threefive on the other hand puts you under pressure much more after an unlucky start.

2. Imagine that the rules DID specify that each player were to get identical starting hands. Would you argue, for the purposes of running a tournament and determining a champion, that it would be better or worse to determine starting hands randomly?

Hm, some kind of rhetorical question? ;-)

[DStu]

Btw I think Best-of-four is ideal. To play for more wins would take too much time. Best-of-three on the other hand puts you under pressure much more after an unlucky start.

With four = seven and three = five?

[Reyk]

Btw I think Best-of-four is ideal. To play for more wins would take too much time. Best-of-three on the other hand puts you under pressure much more after an unlucky start.

With four = seven and three = five?

Yes, thx. I somehow mixed it up.