Print

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

[Graystripe77]

Scout. The only truly bad card in the game. Others may be subpar, but at least they don't require a ton of support just to be mediocre.

Pearl Diver and Duchess, maybe Secret Chamber

Duchess is a terminal silver for 2, pearl diver cantrips, and secret chamber can salvage junk hands. Scout relies on your deck being crap, to put some of that crap into your hand so you can draw more crap faster. They're not good cards, but they're not bad.

[eHalcyon]

I've said that it introduces significantly more luck than Swindler, on average.

I'm catching up on this thread a month and a half later, but I can't help but notice that you completely ignored the data Donald linked which actively refutes this claim.  In case you genuinely missed it:

I always remember this thing rrenaud did: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2798.msg47781#msg47781

Remember that one guys? The idea there was to see how much the presence of a card changed your ability to predict who would win (based on their rating). You can fault it for including all games; it's showing you what cards help good players beat up bad players or vice-versa. And of course it's of its era, whatever era that was.

The difference between the best and worst predictors was not huge. Still, by this metric, Black Market is one of the cards that most means the better player will win. Swindler is at the other end, though still not as randomizing as oh Smithy.

[Jeebus]

I've said that it introduces significantly more luck than Swindler, on average.

I'm catching up on this thread a month and a half later, but I can't help but notice that you completely ignored the data Donald linked which actively refutes this claim.  In case you genuinely missed it:

I saw it, but didn't really know what to make of it. Embassy and Jack are the most randomizing card? And they, together with Smithy and Caravan, are more randomizing than Swindler? Well, it certainly goes against established wisdom as expressed pretty much everywhere on the wiki. Maybe it should all be rewritten from scratch. Or maybe that calculation was flawed somehow.

[Jack Rudd]

I've said that it introduces significantly more luck than Swindler, on average.

I'm catching up on this thread a month and a half later, but I can't help but notice that you completely ignored the data Donald linked which actively refutes this claim.  In case you genuinely missed it:

I saw it, but didn't really know what to make of it. Embassy and Jack are the most randomizing card? And they, together with Smithy and Caravan, are more randomizing than Swindler? Well, it certainly goes against established wisdom as expressed pretty much everywhere on the wiki. Maybe it should all be rewritten from scratch. Or maybe that calculation was flawed somehow.

What that chart tells me is "money decks are easy to play optimally, engine decks harder". The harder a deck type is to play optimally, the more likely the better player is to win.

[AdamH]

I, for one, would like to see that data computed again today, now that people playing are better in general and there are more cards.

[eHalcyon]

I've said that it introduces significantly more luck than Swindler, on average.

I'm catching up on this thread a month and a half later, but I can't help but notice that you completely ignored the data Donald linked which actively refutes this claim.  In case you genuinely missed it:

I saw it, but didn't really know what to make of it. Embassy and Jack are the most randomizing card? And they, together with Smithy and Caravan, are more randomizing than Swindler? Well, it certainly goes against established wisdom as expressed pretty much everywhere on the wiki. Maybe it should all be rewritten from scratch. Or maybe that calculation was flawed somehow.

What that chart tells me is "money decks are easy to play optimally, engine decks harder". The harder a deck type is to play optimally, the more likely the better player is to win.

Right.  And it confirms what SCSN and MicQ have said about Black Market being harder (and thus more skill-intensive) to play.

[ehunt]

I don't like black market, but i can count on one hand (out of 10000 games) the games i have lost because
1) my opponent got a game-warping card early out of the black market
even though
2) my opponent had done an equal or worse job than me in building a deck that could play black market a bunch

The mild amount of unfairness introduced by the mechanic is just dwarfed by all the other unfairness in Dominion; this one has never bothered me. Contrast, say, games where my opponent just spammed tournament and then got a followers before i had a chance; this happens quite often.