Print

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

[Forge!!!]

Partially because I just want to see more interesting discussion, partially because I figure I'll probably end up hovering around level 30 some day. So what separates the two?

[jonts26]

This, I think, is a question with a much more concrete answer than the 40 to 45 thread. A level 30 player is certainly very good at dominion. But a level 40 player is elite. If I had to sum up the difference in one word, it would probably be experience.

If I had to sum it up in many words I would probably do it like this:

1) A level 30 player has a good grasp of the power cards and power combos. But they will probably overbuy these cards, failing to notice the times when they arent dominant or when there are good counters in the way a level 40 player might not. Mr. Level 30 might fail to notice less powerful combos on boards without power cards.

2) If a level 30 was playing a level 40 with a dominant combo on board, let's say torturer/fishing village, the level 40 player will have a feel of how to better incorporate the other cards on the board into their strategy in a way the level 30 probably won't. The level 30 player might have a hard time seeing beyond 'ooh torturer/village is the only way to play this board.'

Both of these issues really come down to playing more games, especially against better opponents. How many games it takes to get from 30 to 40 will certainly depend on a person's natural skill, but I feel like anyone good enough for 30 will be good enough for 40 given enough time.

[DG]

Level 40 players tend to close out games better and don't give their opponents a chance at a win if they don't need to do so.

[painted_cow]

Level 40 players tend to close out games better and don't give their opponents a chance at a win if they don't need to do so.

This is very true. 3-pile-ending is a win-option which a level 40 player will use much more often than level 30 players.

[hobo386]

1) A level 30 player has a good grasp of the power cards and power combos. But they will probably overbuy these cards, failing to notice the times when they aren't dominant or when there are good counters in the way a level 40 player might not. Mr. Level 30 might fail to notice less powerful combos on boards without power cards.

This actually sounds alot more like the difference between level 20 players and level 30 players to me.  As a level 30ish player (33 for now), I've gotten here primarily because I can see past the "obvious combo."  Most level 20 players can recognize torturer/fishing village, and can beat me if they get good shuffle luck and that's all there is on the board.

2) is a little closer to the truth.  I'll notice all of the cards that combo together, but I might not know the perfect order to buy them in, and I don't always accurately realize what my average hand will look like in a few turns.

Let's assume in the torturer/FV option, we also have militia, bridge, hamlet, watchtower, and menagerie.  All of the cards could be great in this game.  Militia beats up your opponent's hand even more and might let you get to $5 earlier. Bridge lets you get in better buys (but could potentially clog your deck, and militia might be better). Hamlet fits in well with multiple actions and might even be better than FV for consistency (but when do you buy one?).  Watchtower pretty much nullifies torturer in any hand that you draw it and combos with FV/Hamlet (but it doesn't always work well with other +draw).  And menagerie works great with small hands, diverse decks and Hamlet (but is it worth it with watchtower? and how many do I buy?)
Throwing in a slow trasher might be interesting as well.  Remodel? probably not worth it.  Upgrade? Nice, but you have to sacrifice a torturer buy, and when do you do that?


I can see that all these other cards would be useful, but it's a matter of knowing which part would add the most benefit.  Also, knowing exactly when to start greening might be difficult in a game like this.

On the other hand, I'm great at when knowing to ignore big engines and just go for doublejack, double masquerade or something similar.

Edit: I also agree with DG.  Often times I will use an equally good strategy to an opponent but lose because I make a lategame mistake like buying province>duchy>estate when simply eating up the estate pile would give me a win.

[cherdano]

I think a level 40 player is a little bit better at everything than a level 30 player.

But if I had to mention one thing: I am right in between (level 35) and I realized that I both improved and still have to improve in my sense of the speed of the board. This is really important - on a fast board, there might be no point in buying a strong but slow card at turn 5 anymore (unless you have a thin deck where you will still get to play it quite often...).

[DStu]

As level 32: what hobo386 says (mostly).

3piling I actually like, and often do, but I also have the impression that I have a slight advantage there against the average +-10 level opponent and could steal some victories this way. I should add that I have the feeling that I have problems with some engines, both with building and rating the value, especially the Library/Watchtower-type of engine.  Think I have gotten better with standard Village/draw recently.  Also there are often times where I realize in the middle of the game that one of my starting buys was complete crap, and that I could have known that before. I started with Loan in FV/Torturer this weekend for example, thought some trashing would be nice. But you don't really need much trashing (at least of Coppers) there, and it does not really help getting those Torturers. And I should have known that.

[Davio]

Having a level between 30 and 40 myself, I believe my biggest weakness is my lack of creativity sometimes and my abundance of creativity at other times.

I think the elite players are able to judge more precisely when a complex engine is needed and what they need to do to build it as fast as possible. They can also spot the times simple BMU+ is best.

I often find myself buying obligatory Silvers when I have $3 after the first or second reshuffle and I'm bummed out that I couldn't get to $5. I think I may buy too many Silvers which delays my reshuffles and doesn't add a whole lot to my deck.

So while I think I have a firm grasp of Dominion's fundamentals, I know I still have a long way to go and need to really focus to get better.

[jsh357]

The level 30s get beaten by level 40 players hiding as level 1s

[hobo386]

The level 30s get beaten by level 40 players hiding as level 1s

I'm assuming you just got beaten by a level 1?

[jsh357]

It happens pretty often, not gonna lie, post was a joke though.  I'm definitely not a level 30 player

[Axxle]

Having a level between 30 and 40 myself, I believe my biggest weakness is my lack of creativity sometimes and my abundance of creativity at other times.

I think the elite players are able to judge more precisely when a complex engine is needed and what they need to do to build it as fast as possible. They can also spot the times simple BMU+ is best.

I often find myself buying obligatory Silvers when I have $3 after the first or second reshuffle and I'm bummed out that I couldn't get to $5. I think I may buy too many Silvers which delays my reshuffles and doesn't add a whole lot to my deck.

So while I think I have a firm grasp of Dominion's fundamentals, I know I still have a long way to go and need to really focus to get better.

I only just climbed up to 36 myself from 22 a month ago, and I have to say that this thread speaks most about what I've gotten better at.  Recognizing the combos potential vs. BMU, recognizing what cards can help/hurt the combo outside of the combo cards themselves (ie.  would warehouse help bring the pieces together or do you need more buying power from silver?), and accidentally flooding your deck with silver have all been mentioned and are very applicable.  Reading the comments it seems like I have a stronger grasp at recognizing a possible 3-pile ending than most 35ish players, but have a weaker understanding of what percentage of engine cards my deck needs to make the deck truly shine. 

It feels weird, ever since I hit 30 I expected to drop, but I just keep gaining ranks.  I guess the feeling that the 40+ players feel seeps down to this level as well 

[olneyce]

It happens pretty often, not gonna lie, post was a joke though.  I'm definitely not a level 30 player

You really think it happens pretty often?

How do they keep their rank at level one with this alternate account, considering that they are level 40 players? 

As an example, I created an alternate account to experiment with.  After 15-20 games it was up into the teens.  Within 50 games it was above 30, I think.  The system is pretty responsive to a chain of victories.

[jsh357]

It happens pretty often, not gonna lie, post was a joke though.  I'm definitely not a level 30 player

You really think it happens pretty often?

How do they keep their rank at level one with this alternate account, considering that they are level 40 players? 

As an example, I created an alternate account to experiment with.  After 15-20 games it was up into the teens.  Within 50 games it was above 30, I think.  The system is pretty responsive to a chain of victories.

It happens to -me- pretty often (running in to a level 0/1 player who is clearly quite skilled)

[greatexpectations]

i've been hovering in the mid 30's for the past month or so.  here is my real quick take on what i think has gotten me past 30 as well as what i think is holding me back from 40.

getting over 30 -
- playing lots of games and reading this blog/forum are the primary reason, i think. (some of those early posts on the blog with the detailed match breakdown by top players blew me away.). on top of that, talking about the game with friends and opponents helps out a lot too.  it takes setting your pride aside some (and i am still usually too stubborn to do it) but i have learned a lot from losses to better players.
- teaching the game - i have had chances to discuss and teach strategy tp my brother, a friend or two, and a number of eager lower level players. teaching requires a clear understanding of the game, and some of their questions require you to think through some of the "feel" aspects of the game.
- 3 piling and alternate vp - keeping an eye on 3 piling is huge. i will regularly play a game deliberately aiming for a 3 pile ending from the start. and personally, i think that alternate vp is the dominant strategy on almost any cursing or attack heavy board, even colony games.

keeping me from 40 -
- crutch cards - i still rely on some of the cards and combos that got me into the 20's and 30's. they are good, but sometimes they are just too slow.
- cards i don't understand - there are a few cards i still have no idea how to use properly (governor, golem, trader, apothecary, trade route come to mind) and a few that i am not very good with.
- reliance on big money - i am a decent engine builder, but i think i over rely on straightforward big money type strategies. this just doesn't work so well on a lot of the higher level players. as part of this, i am way to reliant on silver.
- sticking to my strategy - i have no problem holding to my strategy against lower levels, but if i fall behind against a top player i tend to panic. i need to learn better when to stick to my plan as well as when to abandon my plan and swing for it.

[Davio]

A mistake I probably make too often: Trashing too agressively with Steward. In games that offer a very nice Action engine, I tend to trash everything first with Steward before I start grabbing the components. I think this is a little slower (depending on the engine) than grabbing some key cards first and worrying about trashing later. Especially if you're able to draw everything from turn X onwards anyway.

I'm too worried about bad draws, I guess...

[rod-]

Judging by the differences I just noted between
councilroom.com/player?player=rod-
councilroom.com/player?player=WanderingWinder

I think a lot of it may involve being selective about who you play with.  I've not moved much despite winning 70+% of my games over the last month, because i play with whoever i get paired with. (avg: level 10).  Meanwhile, Fabian and WW have leveled out at barely 60% win rates, but are selectively playing against people who aren't (on average) 1-2 turns slower than them.  The skill formula seems to recognize and reward that selectivity. 

TLDR: play selective automatch, +/- 5 or maybe +/- 10, if you're really looking to make level 40.

[Titandrake]

Judging by the differences I just noted between
councilroom.com/player?player=rod-
councilroom.com/player?player=WanderingWinder

I think a lot of it may involve being selective about who you play with.  I've not moved much despite winning 70+% of my games over the last month, because i play with whoever i get paired with. (avg: level 10).  Meanwhile, Fabian and WW have leveled out at barely 60% win rates, but are selectively playing against people who aren't (on average) 1-2 turns slower than them.  The skill formula seems to recognize and reward that selectivity. 

TLDR: play selective automatch, +/- 5 or maybe +/- 10, if you're really looking to make level 40.

I'm not quite sure what my "real" Isotropic rank is. I used to hover around 30, sometimes dropping on a bad day and spending a week clawing back up.

Then, I decided to play with +/- 15 instead of nothing for a change. Next thing I know my rank has jumped up to 34 because of some 1st player advantage wins against high level people, and some more convincing wins against similar level players. It's dropped a bit since then, some of that gain was artificial. But I don't think all of it was.

You should play with +/- something anyways: Dominion stops being fun when the other player doesn't buy Ambassadors and you go through the motions, and starts getting interesting when you see a 40+ player buy Saboteur.


EDIT: I normally don't do this, but it's so important that I have to.

3-piling. Watch out for it. You can end a game on 3 piles a lot more than people think. I've won back so many games with 4-6 or 3-7 curse splits by 3-piling.

If two piles are beginning to run low, buying up a ton of Duchies becomes a strong move, even stronger if the person you're playing against doesn't realize what you're doing. Always watch the amount of cards in each pile, especially if +Buy is an option. If you're playing an engine deck, 3-piling reduces the risk of stalling because of Victory cards. If you're playing an alternative VP strategy, you want to end the game before they can buy Provinces. If you can end the game and be the winner, then do it, and don't give them a chance to make a comeback.

[ecq]

Judging by the differences I just noted between
councilroom.com/player?player=rod-
councilroom.com/player?player=WanderingWinder

I think a lot of it may involve being selective about who you play with.  I've not moved much despite winning 70+% of my games over the last month, because i play with whoever i get paired with. (avg: level 10).  Meanwhile, Fabian and WW have leveled out at barely 60% win rates, but are selectively playing against people who aren't (on average) 1-2 turns slower than them.  The skill formula seems to recognize and reward that selectivity. 

TLDR: play selective automatch, +/- 5 or maybe +/- 10, if you're really looking to make level 40.

I think Isotropic generally tries to pair you with people around the same level where possible.  I know for a fact that WanderingWinder doesn't always set a rank constraint, because I've been auto-matched against him 4 times in the last month or so.  I'm 18 levels below him now.  I've been auto-matched when >20 levels below him, though.

I wouldn't attribute his rank to somehow gaming the system, certainly.  You can tell when someone you're playing is better than you.  He was clearly better than me.

[rod-]

If there was no difference in opponent skill,
All games   1.355
would not be rated lower than
All games   1.220
because 67% is more than 61%. 

(BTW, before anyone asks the question:  52+/-6 vs 48+/-9 ; yes, playing many thousands of games is a great deal of the difference, but certainly not the entirety of it)

It's not "gaming" the system to raise your skill by playing versus good players, because you still have to be better than good to have a good win rate against them, but since there are only two parameters in the skill calculation, (Win/loss, opponent skill), and the first parameter is higher in a 30 than a 40, the second parameter is clearly the difference between a level 30 and a level 40. 

WW is an excellent player and deserving of #1 in all respects.  I'm not trying to belittle him in any way, I'm just trying to give out some information that is, in my opinion, more relevant to the difference between level 30 and level 40 than "Play good cards at good times".

[Geronimoo]

I always set auto-match without restrictions to a player's ranking, so a lot of the time I'm playing against lvl10-ish players and I've still risen to the top so I don't think it matters (I play my fair share of high level games, don't worry). Just make sure you don't lose against the n00bs (show no mercy).

I feel a lvl+40 player just makes a few less mistakes than a lvl30. Often this is because the lvl 40 has made those same mistakes in the past, but learnt from them while a player stuck on lvl30 is probably continuing to make those same mistakes. So if you really want to get unstuck, be extremely critical of your play.

[theory]

I think the key lies in your playstyle.  Captain Frisk proved you could reach top 10 pretty easily if you did nothing but always win against really bad players.  I'm not as capable of doing that (e.g., I have doubts about my ability to beat the average level 10 98+% of the time), and instead raised my rank by being able to consistently achieve or slightly exceed 50/50 parity with the top players.  Either approach is a legitimate approach to raising your rank.

That having been said, I do believe that there is a concrete skill gap between the 40's and the 30's, and that it's not entirely (or mostly) explainable due to strategic opponent choice.  In my experience, I had about 50/50 parity with most 40+ players (certain players excepted), but usually achieved 60/40 or better against players that were stuck in the 30's. 

[Deadlock39]

I currently hover around 30, and I can definitely see a difference between myself and 40s.  I can beat them, but I'm always fearful of the hidden strategy that they can see and I can't.

This is an example game with Goons where the only way to get extra actions is by using Throne Room on Markets.  I saw the possibility, but figured it wasn't likely to work out.  shark_bait showed me how very wrong I was.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20111129-173131-050ef614.html

I probably should have tried to contest his cards when he started doing it, but I don't think my deck was in very good position to do so.  (The funny thing was that this was during the whole leaderboard debacle and shark_bait was showing up as lv17)

[WanderingWinder]

By the way, that's also a game where I expect workshop to be nice - you really want those throne rooms.

[rod-]

Geronimoo certainly falls into the "70% against the world" category - it seems both approaches can work. 

Perhaps I'm actually on the 30-40 transition and am just waiting on history to catch up, instead of being plateaued at 35+/-2 like i thought.  I stopped caring enough to graph my daily ranking a few months ago, as fun as it was to "know" every time i reached a skill plateau and force myself to shake up my playstyle afterwards.  Maybe that's worthwhile advice.