Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Density gage/"thinning"  (Read 2004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elanchana

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 697
  • Princess of Derpminion
  • Respect: +1013
    • View Profile
Density gage/"thinning"
« on: August 12, 2015, 02:56:40 pm »
+1

Thinning = w(h)inning.

More specifically, though, when we talk about deck thinning, what we really mean is getting a high density of cards we want to be playing relative to cards we don't: action density for engines, high-treasure density for big money, etc. But of course, on boards without trashing (or even some boards with it), we go about getting that density in other ways, like trying to mass-buy desirable cards or avoid being on the wrong side of a junking battle.

I wanted to generate some discussion about card-type density, but I don't really know where to start, so here are some possible questions you guys can answer:
- Do you ever refer to decks without trashing as "thin" if they have a really good density of cards to be played, or do you just use that word for trashing?
- When would you use trashing to get better high-treasure density in a big money game?
- What kinds of boards make you confident enough that you could get an action-dense enough engine without trashing?
- Are there any kinds of engines that can consistently do well without good action density?
Logged
Sure it's just a game. The same way that your best friend in the whole world is "just a friend".

TwitchYouTubeMusic

!!CHANGED MY USERNAME ON 2.0!!

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2015, 03:11:27 pm »
+2

Real decks have curves.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2015, 03:20:32 pm »
0

On a more serious note, also related would be a concept of pseudothinning, I think, or sifting.  It replicates having high density by cycling through the stuff you don't want to find the things you do want.
Logged

AdamH

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2833
  • Shuffle iT Username: Adam Horton
  • You make your own shuffle luck
  • Respect: +3879
    • View Profile
    • My Dominion Videos
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2015, 03:23:48 pm »
+2

when we talk about deck thinning, what we really mean is getting a high density of cards we want to be playing relative to cards we don't: action density for engines, high-treasure density for big money, etc.

Hmm, that's not what I'm talking about when I talk about thinning. When I talk about thinning, I'm just talking about removing bad cards from my deck -- you could say "trashing bad cards" and it would mean the exact same thing -- and I use those other terms, action density and money density, to talk about those particular things. Thinning certainly helps with those.


- Do you ever refer to decks without trashing as "thin" if they have a really good density of cards to be played, or do you just use that word for trashing?
- Are there any kinds of engines that can consistently do well without good action density?

The reason being thin is good is precisely because of consistency. Yeah, your engine can work and kick off if you have enough good cards that can draw it, but if the operative word is consistency (which it usually is/should be) then removing stop cards is the most important thing. Sifting helps, having lots of components helps, top-decking with Courtyard or Scheme or Gear or Haven helps, having Wharves or Haunted Woods out helps, but nothing is as good at achieving consistency as thinning.

"Consistently do well"? Well of course you can do well enough consistently enough even without thinning and in the presence of junking attacks. More on that later.


But of course, on boards without trashing (or even some boards with it), we go about getting that density in other ways, like trying to mass-buy desirable cards or avoid being on the wrong side of a junking battle.

I wanted to generate some discussion about card-type density, but I don't really know where to start, so here are some possible questions you guys can answer:

[...]
- What kinds of boards make you confident enough that you could get an action-dense enough engine without trashing?

"confident enough", well if all of the components are there then I weigh the quality of the trashing and the quality of draw vs. the strategies that don't involve me drawing a bunch of cards. This is extremely abstract and the question "what kinds of boards" that you want answered is extremely difficult to answer. If you want the fish, sorry, you can't have mine :P but I will teach you how I go fishing. You're a musician, yeah? Sightreading is a very valuable skill more than practicing the same song over and over again.

"Quality of the trashing" is just how many stop cards can I get out of my deck and how quickly I can do it. Trade Route is bad. Hermit still leaves seven stop cards in my deck. Remodel is no bueno against Cursing attacks. Is the trashing non-terminal? That makes it much better because I can load up on trashers and not worry about collision.

"Quality of draw" is what does it take to increase my handsize? If the only village is Fishing Village and the only draw is Witch or Ghost Ship, I'm going to have a really really tough time getting a lot of cards in my hand. Talk through what your awesome turns look like, and if it sounds really laborious to get there and to play, then it probably is.

You also have to take your payload into account, but that's not what you asked, you asked about thinning. I'm also talking about draw because you can't really talk about one of those without talking about the other.

What are you comparing it to? Many times the landscape of the game is that it's hard to really do anything, which makes Big money really bad, so an engine is still best, but if there's a slog option or something that doesn't care about being full of junk or drawing cards, well then the engine becomes much less attractive.

So what do you take away from this? How do you know when it's good enough to play? Well I can't directly transfer that knowledge to you, and even if I could I wouldn't do it. I would tell you to go out there and learn it yourself. The next time you think it's close, play the engine. If the engine never gets there, you just learned something very valuable (don't be afraid of losing a pro game! I know this is something you don't like to do, but I promise you what you learn from that will pay dividends on your pro rating in a couple of months). If the engine is close, then don't say it was too weak, just look for ways to improve it and just tell yourself ymyosl. You'd be surprised how infrequently these things happen, though.


- When would you use trashing to get better high-treasure density in a big money game?

1. A Colony game
2. Estate-trashing is always good for Big Money
3. The presence of attacks (having a thin deck allows you to play your attacks more often and in some cases will allow you to make a deck that is more resiliant to attacks -- discard attacks in particular).

There are lots of decks where money is the focus where you want to do this, but you aren't playing Big Money at that point, so I'll assume that isn't what you're asking. This post is already long enough so I won't go answering questions you didn't ask.
Logged
Visit my blog for links to a whole bunch of Dominion content I've made.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2015, 03:43:03 pm »
0

Y'know, there's a difference between being thin and being small.

2 Villages, 3 Smithies, and 11 Coppers buys Colonies more consistently than 4 Villages, 6 Smithies, and 22 Coppers even though the decks are equally thing ("I'm just big boned" the second deck exclaims, and it is correct regarding the proportional number of fatcellcoppers)

The small deck works better due to sampling without replacement, when you draw 1 Village with the first deck, half the villages in your deck are gone, so by drawing that Village you've reduced the chance you get a 7 card Village Idiot turn.  With the second deck, drawing just 1 Village doesn't necessarily reduce you chances of being a Village Idiot that turn so much (It has little to do with the TOTAL number of villages in the deck being greater and it being possible to have a quadruple Village Idiot turn at all, because the number of Smithies is also greater and quadruple village idiot is just as bad as double.  It's about how drawing one copy affects expectations for subsequent draws).

Small decks are also more responsive to improvements made by thinning.  I think.  I don't have the math to back that up off the top of my head though :/ hrm.  On the other hand, the large thin deck doesn't care as much when you buy VP.

But anyway, a lot of times I think people play large, thin decks that are worse than small, thin decks and think they are the same (I might even accidentally give them too much credit in my head from time to time.  Or maybe I overcompensate instead, I dunno).  I think University is the posterchild for "thin, but large" deck phenomenon. 
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2015, 03:44:41 pm »
0

More specifically, though, when we talk about deck thinning, what we really mean is getting a high density of cards we want to be playing relative to cards we don't

When I talk about deck thinning, what I really mean is getting a high density of engine components relative to stop cards. Thinning does a lot more for you than just getting a high density of cards you want to play; it reduces the time it takes you to reach the point where you're drawing your deck reliably and you can start adding payload to your deck and it reduces the time it takes for a newly bought card to appear in your hand. If you want to be playing a lot of Bridges every turn, the kind of thinning you want to do does not involve buying a lot of Bridges early — while that does give you a better density of cards you want to be playing relative to cards you don't, it is not particularly excellent at making your engine come together faster, and it actually makes you draw your new cards later.

- Do you ever refer to decks without trashing as "thin" if they have a really good density of cards to be played, or do you just use that word for trashing?

Your deck is thin if you expect to draw the cards you buy this turn on your next turn.

Quote
- When would you use trashing to get better high-treasure density in a big money game?

When you don't lose momentum because of it. JoaT and Masquerade, for instance, are great for big money because they trash your cards while you also get a decent turn now.

Quote
- What kinds of boards make you confident enough that you could get an action-dense enough engine without trashing?

Boards where the payload is worth it. What engine components are available is also something to take into consideration, but the payload is definitely more important. You don't want to build a Village/Smithy engine with no trashing just to use the basic Treasures as your only payload, but for Highway and Market Square, you probably want to build the engine without trashing even when Counting House is the only draw on the board.

Quote
- Are there any kinds of engines that can consistently do well without good action density?

Yes: engines that don't need to work out every turn (such as the aforementioned engine with Highway and Market Square as the payload).
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

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2015, 04:40:25 pm »
0

- Do you ever refer to decks without trashing as "thin" if they have a really good density of cards to be played, or do you just use that word for trashing?

I'd say "thin" means a lack of stop cards that are an impediment to drawing. Sometimes actions that can easily draw the starting cards, such as apothecary and tactician, can make the starting deck look thin, at least compared to alternative ways of building the deck.

- When would you use trashing to get better high-treasure density in a big money game?

Getting good cards into play more often is a benefit for any deck and trashing out bad cards can deliver that for you. It has more to do with reward for quality than thinning though.

- What kinds of boards make you confident enough that you could get an action-dense enough engine without trashing?

All sorts. If the payload is worth it, whether it be attacks or a magaturn or something else, then an engine can be worth a struggle. Sometimes the engine components can work well enough that the fat of the deck can be discarded or drawn in bulk and not be an obstacle.

- Are there any kinds of engines that can consistently do well without good action density?

Yes but these can be quite specialized with big draw (wharves/tacticians), top deck control (scheme, inn, scavenger),  or digging (golem, sage). Events and callable cards probably open this up too.

For me the concept of a thin deck is most important when (a) the drawing is fragile or (b) you need control. Generally if you're using a series of +1 card actions then the drawing is fragile and your whole turn might stop when you play anything that can't continue drawing those +1 cards. Control can be important if you're trying to defend against junking, say, and any delay in cycling your deck will mean junk accumulates, cycling gets worse, and it becomes a downward spiral. Ambassadors are a prime example of this.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 04:57:31 pm by DG »
Logged

jomini

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
  • Respect: +766
    • View Profile
Re: Density gage/"thinning"
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2015, 02:18:28 pm »
0

Thinning = w(h)inning.

More specifically, though, when we talk about deck thinning, what we really mean is getting a high density of cards we want to be playing relative to cards we don't: action density for engines, high-treasure density for big money, etc. But of course, on boards without trashing (or even some boards with it), we go about getting that density in other ways, like trying to mass-buy desirable cards or avoid being on the wrong side of a junking battle.

I wanted to generate some discussion about card-type density, but I don't really know where to start, so here are some possible questions you guys can answer:
- Do you ever refer to decks without trashing as "thin" if they have a really good density of cards to be played, or do you just use that word for trashing?
- When would you use trashing to get better high-treasure density in a big money game?
- What kinds of boards make you confident enough that you could get an action-dense enough engine without trashing?
- Are there any kinds of engines that can consistently do well without good action density?

1. No. Even with an equally reliable end state (e.g. Kc/Scheme/Huntingrounds) the method by which you get from point A to point B is very different for thin deck vs a non-thin deck. With trashing you can oddly be much more liberal in your use of silver as you can pitch later, going with something like University/Draw, each Silver is a stop card.
2. Many, many cases. There are the obvious cards - Trader, Jack, Hermit, Trading post, etc. - that allow you to replace estates with more silver; Mint can also be a beast on a treasure board, particularly if you can use something else to trash out the Estates and coppers once you have gold or plat. There are the less obvious, but still useful: turn a busted mid-game hand into a late game duchy or province (e.g. Remodel is a decent shot at hitting Province + Estate or turning a mostly dead Witch into a Duchy; having flexibility in the end game can be huge), ways to quickly generate money that need initial thinness (E.g. Chapel/Market square; Chapel/Hoard), Venture decks (rare, but phenomenal when they are actually good), Fools gold (something like Forager is insanely good for winning the split, increasing the rate of Fg collision, and giving you +buy at end game to use a 3Fg hand for two duchies), Counterfeit (+buy and able to double tap late game treasures), and many, many more. Most any sort of setup where you care more about how likely are the odds of these two cards colliding than strict money counts has a potential place for trashing.
3. The usual stuff - good gainers (e.g. Uni); good draw (e.g. Hunting grounds); sifting (e.g. Cellar); things to lengthen the game like attacks, Embargo, VP chip potential, or alt-VP, colonies; reliability aids (e.g. Scheme, Inn, Herald, Durations); flexibility (+buys, VP gainers, multiple option cards; Iw is a good example, as are Count and Baron); dense payload (e.g. Kc, Grand market, Bank); and megaturn-engines (e.g. Bridge, Highway, even the odd Coppersmith setup).
4. Absolutely. One of my favorites is a Counting house engine. Something like Worker's village/Counting house/Cellar/Inn can become insanely good, you want all the copper in the discard, then play Wv -> Chouse -> Cellar -> whatever makes the engine great -> Chouse -> Cellar (discarding Chouse, Wv, Cellar, any action): buy an Inn, what you want, and then as much copper as you can manage. Shuffle up a hand of Inn, Chouse, Wv, Cellar, X and then have a discard full of easy draw. It is basically an Apothecary engine on crack. Reliability like this can make a lot of engines work with really low density. Prince of Storerooms for instance works quite well as you can search up to 10 cards to hit some major combo (e.g. Tr -> Tr -> Embassy). All manner of stuff, like say Count, can let stock away combo cards for next turn (like say dumping a Peddler and an Apprentice on deck top). You can get away with a lot lower action density if you do not need to worry so much about lining up stuff like village/draw in 5.5 card (or fewer) hand.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 20 queries.