Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All

Author Topic: Definition of Combo discussion  (Read 22515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11817
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12868
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Definition of Combo discussion
« on: April 22, 2015, 02:51:17 pm »
+2

From the Storyteller + Bank thread:

I always kinda assume combo to mean the same sort of thing it means in MtG, since that seems to be the origin of the term, and in its case it is totally fine if two things don't literally win the entire game on their own, if they create a dramatic amount of advantage on their own, that's enough.  No one says Heritage Druid plus Nettle Sentinel isn't a combo isn't really a combo since it doesn't really kill the opponent.

I've always thought that combo means a certain kind of deck in both MtG and Dominion. Combo Elves (i.e. the deck that uses Heritage Druid and Nettle Sentinel) is combo, The Epic Storm is combo, and Belcher is combo. Ninja of the Deep Hours + Spellstutter Sprite + Standstill creates a very dramatic amount of advantage on its own, but Faerie Ninja Still is not combo, it's control. In Dominion, I think that Hermit/Market Square, Apprentice/Market Square, Native Village/Bridge, Chancellor variant/Stash, and various golden decks (the traditional Bishop golden deck, Bishop/Fortress, Masquerade pin, King's Court/Scheme, King's Court/Scavenger, Inn/Graverobber/Procession/Feast etc) are more or less the only viable combo strategies. Beggar/Gardens is a rush.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2015, 02:54:21 pm »
+13

My opinion: "Combo" in Dominion should just mean two or more cards/events that have positive synergy. Donald calls Dark Ages the "crazy combo expansion" and somehow I don't think he's just referring to the Hermit/Market Square combo.

I'm getting pretty sick of people shouting down others for using the word "combo" without meaning "combo that is an entire strategy". Cards that just work well together are still combos.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 02:55:32 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2015, 02:56:30 pm »
+2

Dominion has a vast amount of synergistic card interactions. I think there needs to be a distinction between the card interactions that are so powerful that they regularly dominate kingdoms and card interactions that are merely helpful.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2015, 02:58:04 pm »
+1

Dominion has a vast amount of synergistic card interactions. I think there needs to be a distinction between the card interactions that are so powerful that they regularly dominate kingdoms and card interactions that are merely helpful.

Great. Come up with some other name for it than "combo" and everybody's happy. You can even put "combo" in the name, like "Super Combo" or "Monolithic Combo".
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2015, 03:00:18 pm »
+2

Great. Come up with some other name for it than "combo" and everybody's happy. You can even put "combo" in the name, like "Super Combo" or "Monolithic Combo".

Okay. There are combos and synergies. Problem solved. Was this supposed to be an impossible challenge?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2015, 03:00:30 pm »
+2

Great. Come up with some other name for it than "combo" and everybody's happy. You can even put "combo" in the name, like "Super Combo" or "Monolithic Combo".

Okay. There are combos and synergies. Done.

Nope, wrong. Try again.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2015, 03:01:32 pm »
+2

Nope, wrong. Try again.

This is the epitome of maturity, folks.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2015, 03:03:56 pm »
+4

Was this supposed to be an impossible challenge?

No, it wasn't.

People use "combo" to refer to cards that synergize. It's obnoxious to keep telling them that they're wrong and to be a true Dominion "combo", it has to be strong enough to win a game by itself. They're not wrong. There's absolutely nothing inherent in the word "combo" to make me think that it should only refer to combos that are an entire deck. Why would that be the case?
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2015, 03:06:11 pm »
+1

People use "combo" to refer to cards that synergize. It's obnoxious to keep telling them that they're wrong and to be a true Dominion "combo", it has to be strong enough to win a game by itself. They're not wrong. There's absolutely nothing inherent in the word "combo" to make me think that it should only refer to combos that are an entire deck. Why would that be the case?

And yet there is something inherent in the word "combo" to make many other players (including myself) think that it should only refer to card combinations that constitute an entire strategy.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6367
  • Respect: +25712
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2015, 03:08:32 pm »
+15

A combo is when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. If you want a term for strong combos, I suggest "strong combos."
Logged

TheOthin

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 459
  • Shuffle iT Username: TheOthin
  • Respect: +447
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2015, 03:13:50 pm »
+6

From the Storyteller + Bank thread:

I always kinda assume combo to mean the same sort of thing it means in MtG, since that seems to be the origin of the term, and in its case it is totally fine if two things don't literally win the entire game on their own, if they create a dramatic amount of advantage on their own, that's enough.  No one says Heritage Druid plus Nettle Sentinel isn't a combo isn't really a combo since it doesn't really kill the opponent.

I've always thought that combo means a certain kind of deck in both MtG and Dominion. Combo Elves (i.e. the deck that uses Heritage Druid and Nettle Sentinel) is combo, The Epic Storm is combo, and Belcher is combo. Ninja of the Deep Hours + Spellstutter Sprite + Standstill creates a very dramatic amount of advantage on its own, but Faerie Ninja Still is not combo, it's control. In Dominion, I think that Hermit/Market Square, Apprentice/Market Square, Native Village/Bridge, Chancellor variant/Stash, and various golden decks (the traditional Bishop golden deck, Bishop/Fortress, Masquerade pin, King's Court/Scheme, King's Court/Scavenger, Inn/Graverobber/Procession/Feast etc) are more or less the only viable combo strategies. Beggar/Gardens is a rush.

Certain deck types are "combo decks", but if you're trying to say that's the only or even primary thing the term "combo" gets used to refer to in MTG, you're just wrong. People use the term "combo" all the time to refer to individual interactions like Staff of Domination + Elvish Archdruid that can be a notable part of a deck without the whole deck being built around it.

The same thing is true in Dominion. There are big combos that individually define entire "combo decks", and there are smaller combos that instead supplement a broader strategy. The use of the latter is so prominent that trying to dismiss it and restrict use of the term "combo" only to the former is just absurd.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2015, 03:20:13 pm »
0

The same thing is true in Dominion. There are big combos that individually define entire "combo decks", and there are smaller combos that instead supplement a broader strategy. The use of the latter is so prominent that trying to dismiss it and restrict use of the term "combo" only to the former is just absurd.

This. I think it's fine to define a "combo deck" as a deck where one combo is the bulk of your strategy. But trying to redefine the word "combo" to only refer to that kind of deck is silly.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2015, 03:22:02 pm »
0

Okay so real talk here, the problem with using "combo" to include weak card synergies is that weak card synergies still often lose the game. Village + Smithy is a "combo," and it's obviously a bad synergy with no other support (and it quite often needs substantial support in order to work, such as +buy, trashing, payload, etc.). Workshop + Gardens is also a "combo" and yet it loses to stronger forms of BM.

And so when someone posts a game or an article that talks about a "combo" and then an experienced player such as Mic Q or WW or Stef point out that such "combo" is actually a "nombo" because the synergy is not that strong even if it's greater than the sum of its parts, then of course everyone gets confused.



EDIT: I also believe that approaching Dominion from a combo-oriented standpoint hinders the progression of player skill. Synergistic card pairs can often have components interchanged with similar cards, so good players look at the entire kingdom and visualize how cards can potentially synergize rather than honing in on specific combos that they have been trained to look for (outside of the ones mentioned in the OP).

EDIT 2: Creating an arbitrary distinction between "combo" and "combo deck" is even sillier than narrowing the definition of "combo." Do you mean to tell me that most combos cannot form a combo deck? That's even more confusing!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 03:27:20 pm by dondon151 »
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2015, 03:23:44 pm »
+2

I like combo deck. It's in line with WW's deck types article, right?
Logged

iguanaiguana

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 600
  • Shuffle iT Username: iguana iguana
  • Respect: +1044
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2015, 03:24:26 pm »
+1

It is logical to have the narrower definition go by the more specific term. There are many lizards, but only a few iguanas. There are many combos, but only a few make a combo deck.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 03:26:18 pm by iguanaiguana »
Logged
Point iguana. Not that points really matter with a result, but still.
Igu is town or trying the hardest he ever has as scum.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2015, 03:26:21 pm »
+1

Okay so real talk here, the problem with using "combo" to include weak card synergies is that weak card synergies still often lose the game. Village + Smithy is a "combo," and it's obviously a bad synergy with no other support (and it quite often needs substantial support in order to work, such as +buy, trashing, payload, etc.). Workshop + Gardens is also a "combo" and yet it loses to stronger forms of BM.

And so when someone posts a game or an article that talks about a "combo" and then an experienced player such as Mic Q or WW or Stef point out that such "combo" is actually a "nombo" because the synergy is not that strong even if it's greater than the sum of its parts, then of course everyone gets confused.

Combo strength is a spectrum, and can depend on what else is available on the board. For any combo, there will always be situations in which it loses.

Usually I assume "nombo" means cards that have negative synergy, like Highway and Bishop.
Logged

TheOthin

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 459
  • Shuffle iT Username: TheOthin
  • Respect: +447
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2015, 03:27:53 pm »
0

How is that a problem? I can run an Elf deck that has the potential of using infinite Staff of Dominion to win near-instantly upon activation and yet still lose most of the time to overall stronger decks. It doesn't make it not a combo; it just makes it a combo that doesn't guarantee victory over other strategies on its own.

Workshop+Gardens sounds like something along the lines of a synergy or just a weak combo. The cards get along, but not enough to get far as a strategy. I certainly wouldn't call it a nombo; that suggests less than the sum of their parts, while this seems to be more an example of more than the sum of their parts but still not all that much.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2015, 03:29:26 pm »
+2

Standstill is a weird example because like poorhouse it's something that's really powerful by default, and then works as long as you DON'T do something.  In practice that might turn out the same but for semantic purposes and when you try to have discussions it's not a good starting place.

Divining Top + Counterbalance might be a better example of the same sort of thing.  The only reason that isn't called a combo in MtG is because it just doesn't cut the minimum requirement of how powerful an MtG player expects a 2 card synergy to be before he will call it a combo.  Teferi, Mage of Zhalfire + Knowledge Pool is very similar in nature but dramatically different in magnitude and almost everyone will call it a combo.

So in summary, reasons not to call something a combo:

1. It's not that strong.  Same way you might not choose to call the New York Giants 7th in the batting order a "baseball star".  This is inherently subjective, and can change over time and from person to person.
2.  Card Y is barely helping any more than some extra Card X spam would.  In this case it's a strong monolothic strategy or strong card in general masquerading as a combo.

Not reasons not to call something a combo:

1. Some other thing is necessary, like a village or +buys.  That kind of extra step ok as long as you are able to generate a dramatic amount of some kind of resource.
2.  There is some way to counter it.  That doesn't make it not a combo.  Any play strong enough to make counterplay necessary is naturally, in and of itself, part of the "play" and significant.  Oracle + Brigand shouldn't be overally poo-poo'ed.
3.  The tempo is rush, or the tempo is slog, or the tempo is vp loop or long game (vineyards), or the tempo isn't any of these things.  Combos show up in a variety of tempos, and some of them only thrive in a certain tempo.  It's still good to understand  the strong synergy and why you might want to force a certain tempo or unforce a certain tempo to stop it.
That's something people often argue about in MtG, since in eternal formats, combos are so fast and explosive that they kill on an even faster timetable than aggro and accelerating your combo becomes more important than deterring enemy aggro.  In standard formats, combos often aren't fast enough to be that way, so they appear within a control shell and appear alongside lots of controlling elements. 
In Dominion likewise it's not good to confuse a golden deck that would value an attack to slow down enemy progress while it gets setup to not be a combo just because NV bridge is so fast it should never buy anything without Bridge or Native in its name.
Logged

swedenman

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +118
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2015, 03:32:36 pm »
+2

The word "combo" works just fine to describe any cards that have positive synergy. Plaza and Library can't really win a game by themselves (unless the board is pretty weak, I guess), but they still combo with one another. Hell, a card can even combo with itself (the most obvious instance being Governor).

Now, if we're talking about combo decks as one of the five fundamental deck archetypes, then that's a different story. However, I always thought that combo decks were poorly defined and kind of just a catch-all for everything that's not an engine, BM, slog, or rush deck. After all, what else do you call a Golem/Counting House deck? But then if you call it a combo deck then everyone's going to be on your ass about how it's not always a viable strategy by itself so it doesn't constitute a combo. Well okay, a Village-Moat engine probably won't win games, either, but it still fits the fundamental definition of an engine. It's just a bad engine.

Anyway, I don't really see why anyone's getting their panties in a bunch over what actually defines a combo. So what if Death Cart/Rats isn't always going to be a game-breaking combo? It's still an interesting card interaction and I don't see any harm in there being an article for it on the wiki. If the wiki were overflowing with combo articles then maybe there should be some kind of standard to determine what merits its own article, but at this point I don't think that's really a concern.
Logged

TheOthin

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 459
  • Shuffle iT Username: TheOthin
  • Respect: +447
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2015, 03:34:56 pm »
+1

Power level cutoff is a good point. If an interaction between two cards is more than the sum of their parts, but still would be difficult to work into an actually good deck (going back to Workshop+Gardens), that sure sounds like a reason to call it not a combo, just synergy. The low threshold of "more than the sum of its parts" strikes me as more the definition of synergy than of combo. It's just that the high threshold of needing to define a combo deck is too restrictive of a criteria for calling something a combo. I can run a deck containing Elvish Mystic without it qualifying as an "Elf deck", and I can run a deck containing a combo without it qualifying as a "combo deck".
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2015, 03:39:16 pm »
+1

EDIT 2: Creating an arbitrary distinction between "combo" and "combo deck" is even sillier than narrowing the definition of "combo." Do you mean to tell me that most combos cannot form a combo deck? That's even more confusing!

Dude, think in practical terms. People have a natural intuition of what a combo is, and trying to globally redefine the word is a nearly impossible task with no real benefit for success. If you want to use the term "combo" only to refer to a subset of card combos, you go right ahead. But telling everybody else they're using the word wrong is a losing battle. That's why the burden to come up with a new term for "combo that is an entire strategy" is on the people who desire such a term.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 03:40:36 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

swedenman

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +118
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2015, 03:41:04 pm »
+3

I think part of the problem is that we're kind of unnecessarily fixated on categorizing decks. Someone calls Beggar/Gardens a rush, another calls it a combo. Well I couldn't really care less, either it works or it doesn't (usually it does). Obsessing over what to call it seems pointless to me. It's a rush strategy that exploits a synergy between two cards, how's that?
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2015, 03:42:03 pm »
+2

Anyway, I don't really see why anyone's getting their panties in a bunch over what actually defines a combo. So what if Death Cart/Rats isn't always going to be a game-breaking combo? It's still an interesting card interaction and I don't see any harm in there being an article for it on the wiki. If the wiki were overflowing with combo articles then maybe there should be some kind of standard to determine what merits its own article, but at this point I don't think that's really a concern.

There are tons of cards that have positive synergy. Death Cart/Fortress is a strong synergy. Death Cart/Ironworks is a weaker synergy but it still operates on the same principle as Death Cart/Rats. Death Cart/Magpie can also synergize this way. Not all of these synergies deserve combo articles, and in fact all of these synergies except for Death Cart/Fortress can be addressed in a Death Cart article with "works well with (non-terminal) Action gainers."

To elaborate on your Plaza/Library example, there are also Plaza/Jack, Plaza/Watchtower, Plaza/Minion, Hamlet/Library, Oasis/Library, Warehouse/Library, etc. Every single one of these is a combo, but there are so many of them that it's not worth thinking "oh I should look for this specific combo;" you should rather think "oh draw-to-X synergizes with cards that discard from hand."

Dude, think in practical terms. People have a natural intuition of what a combo is, and trying to globally redefine the word is a nearly impossible task with no real benefit for success. If you want to use the term "combo" only to refer to a subset of card combos, you go right ahead. But telling everybody else they're using the word wrong is a losing battle. That's why the burden to come up with a new term for "combo that is an entire strategy" is on the people who desire such a term.

Dude, I have a natural intuition of what a combo is, and it's obviously different from yours. Defining terms is not a futile exercise because any niche activity such as this one requires specific definitions and rules. People have a natural intuition that using Ironworks to gain a Great Hall and then revealing Trader to gain a Silver instead should yield +1 card, +1 action, too. People don't have a natural intuition that a "cantrip" refers to a card that produces +1 card, +1 action.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 03:49:12 pm by dondon151 »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10722
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2015, 03:45:33 pm »
0

There are tons of cards that have positive synergy. Death Cart/Fortress is a strong synergy. Death Cart/Ironworks is a weaker synergy but it still operates on the same principle as Death Cart/Rats. Death Cart/Magpie can also synergize this way. Not all of these synergies deserve combo articles, and in fact all of these synergies except for Death Cart/Fortress can be addressed in a Death Cart article with "works well with (non-terminal) Action gainers."

To elaborate on your Plaza/Library example, there are also Plaza/Jack, Plaza/Watchtower, Plaza/Minion, Hamlet/Library, Oasis/Library, Warehouse/Library, etc. Every single one of these is a combo, but there are so many of them that it's not worth thinking "oh I should look for this specific combo;" you should rather think "oh draw-to-X synergizes with cards that discard from hand."

It's all semantics. Here, check it out:

Quote
There are tons of cards that are combos. Death Cart/Fortress is a combo. Death Cart/Ironworks is a weaker combo but it still operates on the same principle as Death Cart/Rats. Death Cart/Magpie can also combo this way. Not all of these combos deserve combo articles, and in fact all of these combos except for Death Cart/Fortress can be addressed in a Death Cart article with "works well with (non-terminal) Action gainers."

To elaborate on your Plaza/Library example, there are also Plaza/Jack, Plaza/Watchtower, Plaza/Minion, Hamlet/Library, Oasis/Library, Warehouse/Library, etc. Every single one of these is a combo, but there are so many of them that it's not worth thinking "oh I should look for this specific combo;" you should rather think "oh draw-to-X combos with cards that discard from hand."

They're synonyms. And I agree, not every combo deserves a combo article. They're still combos, though.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 03:50:13 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Definition of Combo discussion
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2015, 03:49:35 pm »
+2

There's lots of combos.  Most of them don't deserve a combo article. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 20 queries.