Print

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

[Merudo]

If I were to try to "fix" this problem in a Dominion variant, one thing to try would be to give each players their own supply piles to buy from. That way, both players can get 10 Minions if they really want to. Obviously this has some big downsides, like removing end-game tactics related to opportunistic 3-piling and split-winning tactics. It still might be more fun overall for some players.

There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of ideal examples of lotteries in Dominion. Treasure Map and Tunnel are both kinda close, although in both cases, if you play a good strategy including either of these cards, you're more likely to succeed than to not, so it comes out more like an anti-lottery at high levels of play. Venture is a better example: usually hits a Copper (not bad, but basically a $5 Silver), but occasionally something better (yay, a Gold-or-more for $5).

I'd consider Tournament to be a classic example on some boards.

[Awaclus]

There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.

There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.

[LibraryAdventurer]

Minion is similar to Swindler in how there are both plenty of reasons to love and to hate it, but it has a little bit more going for it. Well, for one it can't turn Followers into a curse, but it also combos with a lot of other cards, which tends to be pretty interesting. Something that does bother me though, is how a deck with 5 Minion's isn't actually that good, and I'd often rather do something else, but you have to go for Minions to prevent your opponent from getting all 10. So, you both take half of a thing that works best as a whole, and in the end noone is truly happy.

...except me.
Kinda funny that I like minion for almost the exact same reason you dislike it. It's ideal to get all the minions you can, but when there's Minion on the board, you know you probably won't be the only one going for them so you make a strategy that includes having a few minions but not all of them. I think it's fun.

[Merudo]

There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.

There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.

Disagree! If there is no attack cards on the kingdom, or if they are weak / don't work well with the rest of the board, there will be almost no interaction beyond deciding when to start buying provinces - and even that will be more limited, given the elimination of 3-piling.

Granted, the timing of provinces buys is a very interesting decision - but it's certainly not what I'd consider "lot of interaction".

[Awaclus]

There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.

There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.

Disagree! If there is no attack cards on the kingdom, or if they are weak / don't work well with the rest of the board, there will be almost no interaction beyond deciding when to start buying provinces - and even that will be more limited, given the elimination of 3-piling.

Granted, the timing of provinces buys is a very interesting decision - but it's certainly not what I'd consider "lot of interaction".

If your opponent's buys aren't affecting your buys, you are playing it wrong.

[eHalcyon]

There is already not that much interaction in Dominion, especially in 1 vs 1. With your change it would become a glorified solitaire.

There is a lot of interaction in Dominion. Especially in 1 vs 1.

Disagree! If there is no attack cards on the kingdom, or if they are weak / don't work well with the rest of the board, there will be almost no interaction beyond deciding when to start buying provinces - and even that will be more limited, given the elimination of 3-piling.

Granted, the timing of provinces buys is a very interesting decision - but it's certainly not what I'd consider "lot of interaction".

Lack of attacks does not mean lack of 3 piling.  There are cards that have direct non-attack interaction. And good players will often adjust their strategy to their opponent's.

[enfynet]

[...] And good players will often adjust their strategy to their opponent's.

What about the rest of us?

[silverspawn]

I'm not sure it's right to say that you usually adapt your play to your opponent. sure, you sometimes do it, but often you just play the best strategy, regardless of what your opponent does

the most amount of interaction is probably in the late stages, you often have to react when your opponent starts to green. so, if that counts, i guess you have interaction in the majority of games.

[sudgy]

Also, how much of a pile is gone can affect if/when you buy it.

[eHalcyon]

I'm not sure it's right to say that you usually adapt your play to your opponent. sure, you sometimes do it, but often you just play the best strategy, regardless of what your opponent does

the most amount of interaction is probably in the late stages, you often have to react when your opponent starts to green. so, if that counts, i guess you have interaction in the majority of games.

I'm talking more tactically.

[Watno]

What are the reasons one would like Minion? Definitely my last favorite card.

[silverspawn]

What are the reasons one would like Minion? Definitely my last favorite card.

It's strong, it's action packed, it's pretty high skill, and it combos with a million different cards. I think playing a strong minion deck can be pretty fun, especially if you have good support. if you just have 5 minions, then there's the split problem, and it doesn't really work that well.

[enfynet]

If there's enough support, I don't see a problem with splitting them. It's not ideal, but it's playable.

[Hydrad]

I kinda have fun playing minions... But maybe that because most of the time I'm facing people who don't realize they are good and I get like 9 of them. The few times I get a 5/5 split I never know where to go from there and usually lose.

[Jack Rudd]

Just one Minion can be good if you have the right deck for it. I once had a memorable {Village} - Governor - Black Market - Minion deck that was really nice when it got going.

[Beyond Awesome]

I honestly don't have an opinion on Minion one way or the other. It's good when comboed with other actions to act as a drawing card. On boards where not much else is going on, you are essentially playing a game of 4-card Dominion (okay, not 100% true).

I mean, it is strong, but nothing groundbreaking. I agree, it is pretty high-skill at times and a much more fair card than say Cultist.

[-Stef-]

I'm not sure it's right to say that you usually adapt your play to your opponent. sure, you sometimes do it, but often you just play the best strategy, regardless of what your opponent does

the most amount of interaction is probably in the late stages, you often have to react when your opponent starts to green. so, if that counts, i guess you have interaction in the majority of games.

uh oh... time for an article again

[silverspawn]

uh oh... time for an article again

I usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.

but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.

[markusin]

uh oh... time for an article again

I usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.

but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.

For reference, Stef has already written this article about risk-reward.

http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/09/10/taking-risks-driving-the-p2-seat/

[Eevee]

uh oh... time for an article again

I usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.

but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.

I think the biggest adaptation thing is how long you want the game to go. Say you are playing an engine, against a rebuild rush, you can't play for the long game, because rebuild has no problem ending the game on you, whereas against almost any money based strategy, you want to prolong the game as much as possible because they'll stall and you can catch up. Recognizing when different decks peak, how they peak and if they are able to end the game is pretty important I think. That's why engines are good, they have the most control over ending the game.

[Mic Qsenoch]

uh oh... time for an article again

I usually feel like this aspect is overstated/overrated, because it sounds so good. Hey, you have to adapt your play to your opponent. what a skilled thing to say. it's just that you... often don't? I feel similar things when people say stuff like, you almost always have to play an engine. that also sounds good, because playing engines is the skilled thing to do, but it's just not true.

but maybe I'm wrong. an article about this would be cool. your article about black market was great.

I tend to think the interaction thing is very important, and I don't usually buy the importance of other "high skill" behavior like deck tracking or always play engine. It's hard to measure any of this stuff. In 2p, the big thing is that you want to maximize your chances of ending the game with more points than your opponent, not try to maximize your points per turn or (minimize) turns to 4-5 Provinces or whatever. This automatically links your choices to what your opponent is doing, and it's usually correct to sacrifice some speed in favor of consistency if you have the lead. Lowering your odds of getting points quickly while increasing your chance of winning. Which I'm sure you're doing anyway since you're a good player. I think the percentages you can squeeze out of "interactive" thinking varies a lot depending on the kingdom/game, but it can be significant.

2p player Dominion is a game of chicken, not a race, except when it's a race.

[Davio]

I think it's mostly about adapting to how well your opponent is doing more so than adapting to what he is doing, but usually it's a combination of both.

You're not playing in a vacuum, you're playing against an opponent you want to beat. That means you have to (end the game when you) get more points than him/her.

You might play a silly opponent who opens Treasure Map/Treasure Map (Baker board) and collides them on T3. Time to reassess that strategy you had to play a long game. Or you might be playing a similar pseudo-engine against an opponent who's having more luck putting it together. If you're going to continue, you're most likely going to continue trailing. Maybe there are some hail Mary cards which become more interesting now that you're obviously behind? Maybe with the right amount of luck, you can just clear out the Estates to inch out a lucky win?

I think it's actually a critical skill to continuously asses not only your own deck, but that of your opponent as well and make decisions based on both.

[ThaddeusB]

180. Minion
Minion is similar to Swindler in how there are both plenty of reasons to love and to hate it, but it has a little bit more going for it. Well, for one it can't turn Followers into a curse, but it also combos with a lot of other cards, which tends to be pretty interesting. Something that does bother me though, is how a deck with 5 Minion's isn't actually that good, and I'd often rather do something else, but you have to go for Minions to prevent your opponent from getting all 10. So, you both take half of a thing that works best as a hole, and in the end noone is truly happy.

I am glad Minions finally made the list - it is easily my least favorite card in the game.  First, it is very swingy - the attack can range anywhere from devastating to quite helpful.  Second, as stated, a few Minions is not very strong.  Yet, if the opponent goes for it you are pretty much forced to do so as well, as getting them all is extremely strong.  So most games turn into mirrors with the winner often decided by who has better luck hitting good hands with the attacks and stacking Minions in one hand (as just 1 in a hand is weak).  Third, and most importantly, it is painful to me to see my good hands discarded and have zero control over it.  Then when I get a bad hand and actually want it discarded, inevitably the opponent has no Minions for once.

184. Feast
Don't get me wrong, Feast doesn't add very much to the game. But it doesn't bother me either. If you don't want a second silver, you can open silver/feast instead, and then you get the fuzz, and the things, and the probabilities, and the 5$'s, but you don't keep the silver. That, and the interaction with KC/Procession can be pretty cute.

178. Chancellor
Hey, it's a terminal silver that discards your deck. It's good if you........................................ don't have anything else to buy? Actually, that's exactly when it's good. The problem with Chancellor is not that the effect is useless, it's that every other terminal silver is so much stronger.

Chancellor is actually among my favorites.  Why? Because it is the only card in the main set that most makes you go "hun? why does this exist".  If this motivates you to look into it (like it did me), it teaches you there is a lot of depth to the game.  I also do not think it is weak.  If there are villages, I usually will by Chancellor with my first 3.  Early cycling helps to build your deck a lot.  If there aren't villages, well I'm probably not buying any non-attack terminal silver.

Feast is kind of the same in that it makes you think "why does this exist".  I certainly thought it was the most pointless card in the game when I was a beginner.  Then I learned how important the 5s are on many boards and I understood why it exists.  Not a special card by any means, but certainly OK and worth having in Dominion.

175. Alchemist
Alchemist is the last potion card that costs P3$ (they're all pretty far down for some reason), so this is the last time I have to complain about the price. Aside from that though, Alchemist is a cool card. It's pretty neat how it's just a lab with a conditional topdecking ability, but it really gets an entirely new strategic value. Another minor complaint is how it takes ages to topdeck just some of your alchemists when playing online, though that's of course not a design flaw, it's a goko flaw.

I do not understand this obsession with 3P.  Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P.  Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle.  It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver.  Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5?  Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver.    The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins.  At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are.  I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path. 

(Philosopher's Stone's uses are much more specialized so making it cost 2P probably wouldn't hurt.  However, it doesn't have the same snowballing advantage of getting it first, so it's cost doesn't matter as much either.)

[GeoLib]

Chancellor is actually among my favorites.  Why? Because it is the only card in the main set that most makes you go "hun? why does this exist".

The only one? Chapel, Moneylender, and Feast (as you mentioned in the next paragraph) all spring immediately to mind).

I do not understand this obsession with 3P.  Alchemist and Familiar are strong enough that they are rarely skippable even at 3P.  Sure, it is possible for multiple players to go Potion/Silver and one to get an edge by the other missing 3P on the next shuffle.  It is also possible to miss 5 when both players open Silver/Silver.  Do you complain that Laboratory and Witch cost 5?  Indeed, that is even more of an "unfair" price as you can open 5/2 and possibly can a TWO shuffle edge with Witch over Silver\Silver.    The generally accepted rule of thumb is that potion converts to 2-2.5 coins.  At 4-4.5, Alchemist and Familiar would be even more unskippable than they already are.  I'd rather the game not force all (good) players down the same path. 

The probability of hitting 3P is about 65% on a S/P opening, compared to about 91% for hitting 5 on a S/S opening, so they're not really analogous. Also I think that the generally accepted rule of them is actually that costs form a partially-ordered set

[ThaddeusB]

Chancellor is actually among my favorites.  Why? Because it is the only card in the main set that most makes you go "hun? why does this exist".

The only one? Chapel, Moneylender, and Feast (as you mentioned in the next paragraph) all spring immediately to mind).

Oops, I meant to type "one" not "only".  Of course all cards can make you interested in strategy, but Chancellor is the one that most did it for me (with Feast being a reasonable second).

Chapel has a pretty clear (even if erroneous) purpose of removing curses.  Getting $3 for a $1 coin also is not too strange (even if you do not realize Copper is bad you might be willing to sacrifice one to get a better card).