Print

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

[2.71828.....]

Code: [Select]

Duchess, Masterpiece, Farming Village, JackOfAllTrades, Tournament, Wandering Minstrel, Inn, Merchant Ship, Stables, Vault
Ok.  I need something settled for me.  I just won this game and the following took place in the chat:

I copied the log to a google doc and removed his name from the log because I don't want to make this a personal attack at all, I just really want some confirmation that I was not any luckier than what can be expected for a normal game of Dominion and that he is just a sore loser. 

(after I had played a tournament to gain followers turn 10)

him: pure luck
me: no it isn't, I bought two inns
him: that was a mistake
me: no it wasn't.  not with the jack on the board
him: (over the next several messages) no. it needs too much luck to meet.  and you trash money.  estates gone.  normally I would be faster.  but on turn 6, 7, and 8 I didn't have stables.  (or 8 money).  guy gets lucky and thinks like a hero. gg.  "gg"

and then he resigns.  I really really dislike when people blame luck for a poor result (especially good players- and he is in the top 50 in the isotropish rankings).  The "guy gets lucky and thinks like a hero" and the "'gg'" are really what irked me and made me want to post about this game.  So maybe he was slightly unlucky to not draw a stables on turn 6, 7, or 8, but it wouldn't matter.  He just chose to go stables+BM (after Jack) which is not a strategy that (by itself) will win this game.  Please correct me if I am wrong about this, but I don't think I am.

[DStu]

In my experience there is no such thing as 'luck'.


Don't know if to say more, the cards you bought had some synergy, esp. to connect Tournament/Province, so it shouldn't be that surprising that this workes out.  It's a bit mood to find out which strategy is better, may your opponent was a bit slower than expected ['maybe' as in: I can't deny it because I haven't looked into this], sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, as long as they are reasonably reasonable...

[shark_bait]

The Law of Tournament - In a game of Dominion featuring Tournament wherein both players pursue reasonable strategies one player will feel shafted regarding the luck of shuffling and/or player turn order.

If you think about your decks in terms of draw and cycling Stables cycles 3 cards while is net +1 Card in hand.  Inn cycles 2 Cards and is net -1 in hand.  However playing JoaT after in provides the same amount of cycling in addition to a net no increase in hand-size.  What's not taken into account is that the cycling affect from Inn takes place before Stables because of the on gain clause. 

I'm not really sure what to make of this.  Stables is a better card in general but Inn's benefit will come faster and it's loss is mitigated somewhat by JoaT.   In a Tournament game you really want the first chance to connect Province to Tournament.  Neither of you played unreasonably and by no means were you more lucky than he was.  Imo this is simply a case where the Law of Tournament applies.

[markusin]

Though I'm not sure if you were abnormally lucky, I don't see how you getting Followers even seals the game at all with Jack on the board and Inn as a village of sorts. Your opponent had more Stables than you, and could probably still get Provinces even with a 3-card hand. Without +buy on the board, you can't do much better than 1 Province a turn anyway. Okay, you can with Princess, but you didn't get that yet. Followers doesn't help too much in getting more prizes, so your opponent could still get the other prizes. In fact, Trusty Steed might be even better than Followers here due to the Silver gaining ability . 4 extra Silvers should be great for Stables BM.

[Awaclus]

I played some games against this person yesterday and he seems to have a habit of breaking the PPR. Calling this just pure luck sounds a bit weird coming from him.

[DG]

Followers should win here since it stomps on inn, stables, vault, and even masterpiece. Any opponent can take a second jack but it isn't as good.

I would probably have taken a stables first and then considered an inn after that. I think your opponent was right to be optimistic for a province by turn 8 with stables whilst in your game the provinces came by turn 9. Also by buying inns early you risk congesting your deck with inns later if you keep buying them to top deck the followers. Regardless, first player advantage is probably bigger than any advantage from inns vs stables.

[markusin]

The Law of Tournament - In a game of Dominion featuring Tournament wherein both players pursue reasonable strategies one player will feel shafted regarding the luck of shuffling and/or player turn order.

If you think about your decks in terms of draw and cycling Stables cycles 3 cards while is net +1 Card in hand.  Inn cycles 2 Cards and is net -1 in hand.  However playing JoaT after in provides the same amount of cycling in addition to a net no increase in hand-size.  What's not taken into account is that the cycling affect from Inn takes place before Stables because of the on gain clause. 

I'm not really sure what to make of this.  Stables is a better card in general but Inn's benefit will come faster and it's loss is mitigated somewhat by JoaT.   In a Tournament game you really want the first chance to connect Province to Tournament.  Neither of you played unreasonably and by no means were you more lucky than he was.  Imo this is simply a case where the Law of Tournament applies.

You forgot opening split. I remember this one game where I was a bit annoyed at having a 5/2 Copper split when my opponent didn't on a Tournament board with no $2's in the kingdom. But then I thought, "Hey, let me make the best of this situation. Do I open Vault or Wharf?".
Here's what ensued. I never got any prizes myself, but it didn't matter in the end.

Followers should win here since it stomps on inn, stables, vault, and even masterpiece. Any opponent can take a second jack but it isn't as good.

I would probably have taken a stables first and then considered an inn after that. I think your opponent was right to be optimistic for a province by turn 8 with stables whilst in your game the provinces came by turn 9. Also by buying inns early you risk congesting your deck with inns later if you keep buying them to top deck the followers. Regardless, first player advantage is probably bigger than any advantage from inns vs stables.

It doesn't necessarily stop Inn if you have some Jacks in your deck, although I think the opponent only had 1 Jack in the deck and had no Inns. It does hurt Stables when treasures are discarded. Looking at the log, 2 treasures did indeed have to be discarded when e played Followers.

[jaybeez]

I was sure your opponent in this game was tgorm, until you said he's in the top-50 of the Isotropish rankings.

That guy has to be the whiniest player on Goko.

[dondon151]

Your early turns maybe qualify as lucky, but you choose to make your own luck with Inn/JoAT, and your opponent didn't.

[shark_bait]

I was sure your opponent in this game was tgorm, until you said he's in the top-50 of the Isotropish rankings.

That guy has to be the whiniest player on Goko.

I was once automatched against him.  Thanks to you guys I declined.

[Smartie]

From the log, it didn't seem like getting followers from you could have decided on the fate of the game, especially with JoaT on board. This lack of perseverance from him already showed his level of play. Having said that, I do sometimes wonder how reliable are goko rankings 

[GeoLib]

From the log, it didn't seem like getting followers from you could have decided on the fate of the game, especially with JoaT on board. This lack of perseverance from him already showed his level of play. Having said that, I do sometimes wonder how reliable are goko rankings 

They're not particularly reliable, but the ranking the OP refers to is this one (http://gokologs.drunkensailor.org/leaderboard/), which is an independent implementation of a true-skill style system.