Topic: Nomad Camp/Fool's Gold (Read 16046 times)

Graystripe77 · « **on:** December 09, 2011, 03:48:29 pm »

<player name="Nomad Camp/Fool's Gold" author="Graystripe77" description="One of my personal favorite strategies, using Nomad Camp's top-decking to accumalate lots of Fool's Golds quickly.">
 <type name="Fun"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="Combo"/>
   <buy name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="5.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Nomad_Camp">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Nomad_Camp"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Fool$s_Gold"/>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
</player>

Beats BMU: 86:10
Beats JoaT: 61:34
Beats Masq: 64:31
Beats Envoy: 68:26
Loses to most attacks.

This is just a quick implementation with no optimization.
Can it be optimized any further?

GendoIkari · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2011, 05:50:37 pm »

I'm curious how much better this is than the exact same bot replacing Nomad Camp with Woodcutter.

Kirian · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2011, 09:42:16 pm »

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 09, 2011, 05:50:37 pm

I'm curious how much better this is than the exact same bot replacing Nomad Camp with Woodcutter.

This one seems to be about 4% better vs Envoy.

jonts26 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2011, 09:53:48 pm »

Is there any way to differentiate between a 4/3 open and a 3/4 open in the simulator. I would imagine that 4/3 would be a significantly better for this combo, giving you the nomad camp and 2 fool's golds before your first shuffle.

Geronimoo · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2011, 04:23:46 am »

It always opens $4/$3 and $5/$2 if you set those options, never $3/$4 or $2/$5. It will open $3/$4 in a random setting.

WanderingWinder · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2011, 08:25:53 am »

Played this game last night: http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20111209-171424-232de643.html

I end up with a Nomad camp, 10 FG, 8 Provinces... and an estate in my deck after 16 turns. Well, the bishopping opponent helped, but on the other hand he was almost able to catch up (I felt I actually needed to buy that estate!)

Graystripe77 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2011, 01:45:06 pm »

Also works pretty well w/ stables:
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/10/game-20111210-104431-f872ab12.html

timchen · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2011, 03:30:57 pm »

Does this not imply Fool's gold is kind of broken? Actually a bot buys nothing but Fool's Gold beats BMU 2-1 and beats single smithy. Who says Fool's gold is bad in the wrong situations?

If the simulations are right, I feel very wrong. At $2 it is definitely a card that looks strong for it cost on first sight. In addition, as Donald himself pointed out, for cheap cards, the +buy effect is important to consider. This guy beats even single envoy more than 2-1 by a wood cutter! This is without any trashing. I would say if the simulations are right, the Fool's Gold is much better left costing $3.

Geronimoo · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2011, 03:37:45 pm »

It won't be broken in casual games where I'm sure people will not be buying Fool's Gold over the real thing (while they should be).

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2011, 10:37:55 pm »

Quote from: timchen on December 11, 2011, 03:30:57 pm

Does this not imply Fool's gold is kind of broken? Actually a bot buys nothing but Fool's Gold beats BMU 2-1 and beats single smithy. Who says Fool's gold is bad in the wrong situations?

If the simulations are right, I feel very wrong. At $2 it is definitely a card that looks strong for it cost on first sight. In addition, as Donald himself pointed out, for cheap cards, the +buy effect is important to consider. This guy beats even single envoy more than 2-1 by a wood cutter! This is without any trashing. I would say if the simulations are right, the Fool's Gold is much better left costing $3.

I don't think it's broken, but I do think you can't let someone buy *all* the fool's golds. If your opponent is massing FGs, you probably have to buy a few just to block it. If you have a deck in which you chose to forgo silvers or $4s/$5s for fool's golds but only end up drawing 3 together once or twice, you're going to be behind someone who bough good core cards and added in a couple FGs to trash into golds.

And in the situation where there is a +buy, going for fool's gold is simply a good strategy. It's not broken; it's just a strong combo.

DG · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2011, 11:21:37 pm »

The script can be optimized a little more. It is an even match for fishing village + jack of all trades but that deck is much more resilient to attacks and can adjust for other kingdom cards (dukes, embargoes). Under that comparison the fool's gold deck isn't broken.

Code: [Select]

<player name="Nomad Camp/Fool's Gold" author="DG" description="Variant of the script posted on the forums">
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="Fun"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="Combo"/>
   <buy name="Province">
      <condition>
         <left type="countBuysLeft"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Province">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Fool$s_Gold"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="5.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Nomad_Camp">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Nomad_Camp"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Nomad_Camp">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Nomad_Camp"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInPlay" attribute="Nomad_Camp"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countBuysLeft"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Fool$s_Gold"/>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
</player>

timchen · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2011, 12:28:37 am »

Quote from: HiveMindEmulator on December 11, 2011, 10:37:55 pm

I don't think it's broken, but I do think you can't let someone buy *all* the fool's golds. If your opponent is massing FGs, you probably have to buy a few just to block it. If you have a deck in which you chose to forgo silvers or $4s/$5s for fool's golds but only end up drawing 3 together once or twice, you're going to be behind someone who bough good core cards and added in a couple FGs to trash into golds.

And in the situation where there is a +buy, going for fool's gold is simply a good strategy. It's not broken; it's just a strong combo.

The two points you have made is precisely why I say it seems to be kind of broken:
(i) It cannot be ignored whenever* the dominant strategy is to buy treasure: without a stop to it, it is simply stronger than the usual treasures, namely Silvers and Golds. Would you say some treasure is broken if you always buy them preferably? Also, even at $3 the Fool's Gold still beats BMU if you run the simulator... If there is no supply constraint, I am fairly sure this card is totally broken. This is probably the only card published up to now with this property.

(ii) If some card just combos so well with any kind of +buy due to its price, from the inverse of the designing principle I quoted, it is probably priced too cheap. While you can argue with this, again I cannot think of any other card in the game that shares this property.

*: probably the interesting point is that with 3p or 4p games, the number of FGs becomes a severe limit, and "defending" by buying one or two starts to make sense. In 2p games I feel in order to defend it becomes more or less playing the same strategy myself.

chwhite · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2011, 12:53:04 am »

Quote from: timchen on December 12, 2011, 12:28:37 am

Quote from: HiveMindEmulator on December 11, 2011, 10:37:55 pm
I don't think it's broken, but I do think you can't let someone buy *all* the fool's golds. If your opponent is massing FGs, you probably have to buy a few just to block it. If you have a deck in which you chose to forgo silvers or $4s/$5s for fool's golds but only end up drawing 3 together once or twice, you're going to be behind someone who bough good core cards and added in a couple FGs to trash into golds.

And in the situation where there is a +buy, going for fool's gold is simply a good strategy. It's not broken; it's just a strong combo.
The two points you have made is precisely why I say it seems to be kind of broken:
(i) It cannot be ignored whenever* the dominant strategy is to buy treasure: without a stop to it, it is simply stronger than the usual treasures, namely Silvers and Golds. Would you say some treasure is broken if you always buy them preferably? Also, even at $3 the Fool's Gold still beats BMU if you run the simulator... If there is no supply constraint, I am fairly sure this card is totally broken. This is probably the only card published up to now with this property.

(ii) If some card just combos so well with any kind of +buy due to its price, from the inverse of the designing principle I quoted, it is probably priced too cheap. While you can argue with this, again I cannot think of any other card in the game that shares this property.

*: probably the interesting point is that with 3p or 4p games, the number of FGs becomes a severe limit, and "defending" by buying one or two starts to make sense. In 2p games I feel in order to defend it becomes more or less playing the same strategy myself.

Can it beat Ironworks/Gardens? Can it beat a Mountebank/Chapel opening? Can it beat KC-Goons-Masq on a board that can set that up reasonably quickly? Does it dominate strong treasureless strategies in general? If not, then I'm quite comfortable calling it "not broken". Okay, Fool's Gold is better than Silver and Gold when Nomad Camp is around, so what? I mean, Lighthouse just about strictly dominates Silver in Minion matches, and we don't call Lighthouse "broken".

timchen · « **Reply #13 on:** December 12, 2011, 12:56:30 am »

Your points are valid, except that it is always better than Silver and Gold, not limiting to the cases with Nomad Camp. And it is better than Silver and Gold even if it were $3.

chwhite · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2011, 01:15:19 am »

Quote from: timchen on December 12, 2011, 12:56:30 am

Your points are valid, except that it is always better than Silver and Gold, not limiting to the cases with Nomad Camp. And it is better than Silver and Gold even if it were $3.

Wait, are you saying that Fool's Gold is always better than Silver and Gold in every setup? Really?

timchen · « **Reply #15 on:** December 12, 2011, 01:37:19 am »

Well, if I put this precisely: if you want to go for a BM-ish strategy, and if the game is 2p, then the FG is better than silvers and golds.

This claim is supported by the simulation, if you compare a FG-only strategy with BMU. If you constrain the bot to buy FG only when it has $3 or more (which should emulate a $3-cost FG) it still beats BMU. Any +buy put this FG only strategy better than BM+envoy.

Whether this corresponds to every setup, in a rough sense I would say yes. At least in a setup when you want lots of silvers and golds, FGs are better. The caveat is that in the case you get initial silvers to transit to action heavy decks, I would imagine silver is still better. But I am not sure; I once got beaten by an opponent by just getting FGs on a minions board without trashing. Maybe some bad luck is involved, but I found this recent simulation suggested that FGs are strong enough even without support.

Deadlock39 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 12, 2011, 10:26:50 am »

I can't add any real data to this conversation, but I can say that my feeling just from playing games is that Fool's Gold is stupidly powerful. My attitude has evolved to the point where it angers me if I see my opponent start buying them because I know I either have to start buying them too, or I will get stomped (or I am already in a position where I can't make use of them and I have no options). This probably means I should recognize the cards strength and not let my opponent be the first to go after it, but it doesn't feel right for a $2 card.

I mean, this thing is called Fool's Gold... It's supposed to be a trap right? No, not really; just buy as many as you can and magically you have a deck full of Golds or "Silvers and a half" that you bought for $2. I can see where this is ultimately a 2 player problem, since you aren't going to get the density for it to work if you have two players to block you. (But then we just have a scenario where you just have a meta game on the board where everyone has to add 2-4 crappy cards to their deck to block the others.)

I'm not going to throw around words like broken here, since that would just be silly. There are lots of cards that simply can't be ignored on a majority of the boards they are on (or even half), but those cards are almost exclusively priced at $5. There are very few cards that annoy me in Dominion, and I never reject matches based on cards on Iso, but Fool's Gold is the first card that has started to make me consider taking up the practice because I anticipate not enjoying the game when I see it on the board.

Geronimoo · « **Reply #17 on:** December 12, 2011, 10:41:13 am »

You'd expect this card is only a problem in 2-player games, but it isn't. If you simulate 3 Nomad Camp/FG players against 1 Nomad Camp/Silver-Gold player the "Fools" are still winning the majority of the matches (23% to 17% for the non-Fool).

DStu · « **Reply #18 on:** December 12, 2011, 10:43:54 am »

Quote from: Geronimoo on December 12, 2011, 10:41:13 am

You'd expect this card is only a problem in 2-player games, but it isn't. If you simulate 3 Nomad Camp/FG players against 1 Nomad Camp/Silver-Gold player the "Fools" are still winning the majority of the matches (23% to 17% for the non-Fool).

But at least the Smithy now has a chance (65% [Edit:70% if it buys FG at $2]). But Two Smithies lose 50/20/20 against NC/FG.
So given you are player 3, and 1 start NC, the other one Smithy, have fun on deciding between a 20% winchance and a 12.5% winchance. (Or better try something completely different)

DG · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:18:02 am »

Quote

Maybe some bad luck is involved, but I found this recent simulation suggested that FGs are strong enough even without support.

The nomad camp is near perfect support. If you are buying one fool's gold each turn then the card is really slow. Buying them early in quantity is very important. The simulator always starting 4/3 is a massive boost too.
I don't have a problem with a Dominion card that is very strong on some boards using revolutionary tactics but very weak on other boards using conventional tactics. In fact I'd say that was an exceedingly well designed card. A card that is always moderately strong and always dictates play in the kingdom is a badly designed card.

timchen · « **Reply #20 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:58:57 am »

Quote from: DG on December 12, 2011, 11:18:02 am

Quote
Maybe some bad luck is involved, but I found this recent simulation suggested that FGs are strong enough even without support.
The nomad camp is near perfect support. If you are buying one fool's gold each turn then the card is really slow. Buying them early in quantity is very important. The simulator always starting 4/3 is a massive boost too.
I don't have a problem with a Dominion card that is very strong on some boards using revolutionary tactics but very weak on other boards using conventional tactics. In fact I'd say that was an exceedingly well designed card. A card that is always moderately strong and always dictates play in the kingdom is a badly designed card.

huh? I was referring to the fact that buying FG only beats BMU. That IS buying a single FG each turn... and it is not that slow at all. With any form of +buy, it becomes at least moderately strong, and always dictates play. Just in what situation do you think it is very weak, and in what sense buying a stronger treasure instead of Gold and Silvers revolutionary?

EDIT: I just did a few simulations. It seems always to be the case that a BM+X strategy is improved by getting rid of the gold and silver buy completely and just buys Fool's Gold. Maybe we can put up a challenge on when this is not the case.

DG · « **Reply #21 on:** December 12, 2011, 12:21:03 pm »

Quote

I was referring to the fact that buying FG only beats BMU.

That loses to a single courtyard and treasure so how can it be an excessively strong 2 cost card?

Quote

Just in what situation do you think it is very weak, and in what sense buying a stronger treasure instead of Gold and Silvers revolutionary?

Using multiple buys to facilitate a rush on low cost treasures is new. A nomad camp or remodel is probably a better agent for this treasure deck than a smithy or envoy. This is the revolution in treasure deck construction.

timchen · « **Reply #22 on:** December 12, 2011, 12:26:52 pm »

But a single courtyard loses to single courtyard+FG...

The point is, it is a treasure that is stronger than silver and gold. Whenever it is in the setup and if without FG you are going BM-ish, you will fare better with "FG-ish". Now if you don't think this is broken I have nothing more to say.

EDIT: It appears in the simulator a single courtyard can beat courtyard+FG... but if you look at the log, it seems the simulator will put a single FG back on deck when it has 2 and can afford a province if it had not done so; it also would not put excessive FG back when it has 3 or 4, instead it put back a green card.

Quote

Using multiple buys to facilitate a rush on low cost treasures is new. A nomad camp or remodel is probably a better agent for this treasure deck than a smithy or envoy. This is the revolution in treasure deck construction.

This is true, only if without the rush it is significantly worse. It makes more sense if it is worse than silver and gold with a smithy or envoy. If not, the +buy rush is just icing on the cake. To put it in an more obvious way, suppose you price the regular gold at $2. Everyone will agree this is broken. Yet this shares every characteristic of a Fool's Gold, including the rush on low cost treasure you mentioned!

chwhite · « **Reply #23 on:** December 12, 2011, 01:42:56 pm »

Well in that case the simulator is full of it, because in my experience FG without support (or even often with support) is very likely to be a losing strategy. CR stats say it has a win rate with of 0.96 and win rate without of 1.06; this is better than Silver but nearly everything is better than Silver by that metric; my personal stats show a similar spread, and I buy it only 34 percent of the time.

Or how about looking at actual games? My game search page shows 14 instances where one person ended the game with at least 3 Fool's Golds and the other player had none: the Fool's Gold player had three wins, one tie, and ten losses. That's not the mark of a broken card, not at all. It's the mark of a situational trap card. I think this game is a particularly fun example, though this one probably does a better job of refuting the idea that FG>Silver and Gold in treasure decks (yes, there was an engine, but it's the kind of engine that requires lots of actual treasure cards to work, and would have a better-than-average chance of lining up your FGs).

And, you know, even if it's the case that Fool's Gold is particularly good at BM or BM+X (I'll certainly agree that Fool's Gold is better than Silver in Council Room games), the fact of the matter is that BM+X is rarely the best strategy, so that wouldn't bother me either.

Voltgloss · « **Reply #24 on:** December 12, 2011, 01:46:15 pm »

Two related questions:

1. Do the FG bots trash FG's for top-decked Golds when the opponent buys Provinces?

2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," then how do the FG bots fare against an opponent pursuing a Duchy-centered (and/or other alternative VP-based) strategy?

The ultimate question, of course, being whether a reasonable counter to a FG rush is to ignore the Provinces and thus avoid feeding the beast.

(Rules question: am I right that, if you have a hand of 5 FGs, and your opponent buys a single Province, you can trash all 5 FGs for 5 top-decked Golds? Apologies if this is covered in the Hinterlands rules insert - I don't yet own the expansion.)

Dominion Strategy Forum

News:

Author Topic: Nomad Camp/Fool's Gold (Read 16046 times)