Print

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

[Beyond Awesome]

I am a huge advocate for identical starting hands. I feel that as it is Dominion already has a ton of variance as it is. There are few ways to control this, but identical starting hands is one option we have. I know there are people against it, but I don't feel I have heard a compelling argument as to why we should not have the option available for those who want it. The main argument it is that identical starting hands is a variant. Okay, that's true, but below I will list my reasons as to why we should have it as a option.

1. For Tournaments, it makes the tournament more balanced
2. Makes Pro Games more balanced (also alternating starts between who wins and loses would help)
3. With Adventures it is possible to get even swinger openings that just outright win than even before
    Examples: Mint/Alms, Inheritance/, Goons/ (hey, I've done this before with Baker, not nice at all), Doctor Overpay of 5 or greater (7 would just be insane), etc. And, that's not counting openings that already are unfair like Mint/FG, Mountebank/Chapel or even Mountebank in general.
4. Eliminate swingy openings as mentioned above
5. Reduces luck

Now, I know some people really like the luck-base of Dominion, but it really sucks when you play against someone who plays sub-optimally and just kicks your ass because they got a God opening and there is nothing you can do to make a comeback.

So, anyway, please vote and explain your reasoning for your vote. If this poll is positive towards identical starting hands, I will pass it on to MF. If not and if I'm in a minority, I will just let it die.

[LastFootnote]

I voted no. I feel like it would just make mirror matches more common, and those are my least favorite games. Ironically, they're my least favorite games because they feel way more luck-based; we pursued the same strategy, but you got luckier, so you won. Yay.

[Infthitbox]

I would rather an option for board review and deck stacking if both opted in.

[jsh357]

I think as long as both players agree with it, it should be allowed. Like anything else.

[blueblimp]

You can't ever go too wrong by copying whatever isotropic did, and in this case, I think it offered identical starting hands as an option, but only for non-automatch games. I assume that's what you meant by "yes, but for unranked and Tournament only", so that's what I voted.

Although I don't really care about identical starting hands, I have sympathy because I'm also a fan of a variant that hasn't been supported post-isotropic.

[werothegreat]

I'd like there to be an option to select.

[LastFootnote]

If it's an option for automatched games, people will whine about sometimes getting matched with players who don't have it selected.

[Kirian]

If it's an option for automatched games, people will whine about sometimes getting matched with players who don't have it selected.

Only if there is no "only play with this on" option.

[blueblimp]

If it's an option for automatched games, people will whine about sometimes getting matched with players who don't have it selected.

Good thing you're here to whine about their complaints without them even needing to exist.

[LastFootnote]

If it's an option for automatched games, people will whine about sometimes getting matched with players who don't have it selected.

Good thing you're here to whine about their complaints without them even needing to exist.

Happy to help.

If it's an option for automatched games, people will whine about sometimes getting matched with players who don't have it selected.

Only if there is no "only play with this on" option.

Yes, otherwise it further fractures the player base.

[yed]

No, it means more mirrors.

[Donald X.]

Now, I know some people really like the luck-base of Dominion, but it really sucks when you play against someone who plays sub-optimally and just kicks your ass because they got a God opening and there is nothing you can do to make a comeback.

I feel like you're only considering half the people involved in that game! As the worse player, it's fantastic to know that you at least have some chance of winning, yes even if it just means you got lucky. As the better player, you win so much anyway, you can afford to give up a win here and there to the worse player. Also it can be good times for the better player to try to overcome difficulties to win, at least if they don't hate their opponent. If you hate your opponent, okay, it sucks if they get lucky and win. Friend/enemy lists should help some there.

As usual I prefer the game the way I made it, and I think online it's important to present the best possible game, i.e. the one with varying openings. Despite that I don't mind if tournament games have an option that people running in and playing in tournaments may prefer. In a tournament you may want to determine the better player even at the expense of making the game worse. If I were running an online tournament myself, I wouldn't use it though. The players would play Real Dominion, and I would even out luck some by having several games per round.

[Roadrunner7671]

No. It's gotta be random. What's next, 'should each person have to have the same shuffle luck?'

YMYOSL. This includes your starting hand.

[Awaclus]

YMYOSL. This includes your starting hand.

Well, that's exactly what this is trying to accomplish.

[ehunt]

I don't see anything wrong with having an option for people that mutually want it. That said, I don't like identical starting hands, and would really hate it if it became a de facto default. For example, the community norm, which used to be firmly anti-point-counter, has shifted so far toward point counter that there are even tournaments where you have to play with the point counter, and I wouldn't want to see something like that happen again.

[Burning Skull]

Why only identical starting hands? I have more suggestions:

• On turn 3 or 4, before you play your Swindler, your opponents must put a Copper from their decks on top of it.
• If you open Chapel your turn 3 hand automatically becomes Ch E E E C.
• After buying a Province in a Tournament game you immediately shuffle the deck and draw your Tournament with a Province on the next turn.
• If you finish your action phase with playing a terminal draw card it can't draw any Action cards for you.
• In a game with no KC and +buy your deck can't produce exactly 7 coins.
• Black Market deck always consists of 5x Chapel, 5x Fishing Village, 5x Witch, 5x Hunting Grounds, 5x Markets.

On a more serious note, I thinks it is a bad idea. That element of randomness is a big part of what makes Dominion such a unique and addictive game. It suggest the diversity of strategies, it sometimes leaves the bitter aftertaste of undeserved victory, it allows you to learn a whole lot of new coarse words, it even opens the possibilities for rookies who open Chapel/Scout ( ) to still win their games. Take that randomness away and we might as well play Monopoly.

[Awaclus]

On a more serious note, I thinks it is a bad idea. That element of randomness is a big part of what makes Dominion such a unique and addictive game. It suggest the diversity of strategies, it sometimes leaves the bitter aftertaste of undeserved victory, it allows you to learn a whole lot of new coarse words, it even opens the possibilities for rookies who open Chapel/Scout ( ) to still win their games. Take that randomness away and we might as well play Monopoly.

Identical starting hands doesn't really take away any randomness, all it takes away is asymmetry.

[Accatitippi]

I think it should definitely be allowed in unranked games, and then each tournament can have its own rules.
On a somewhat related note, it would be cool to be able to specify starting hands when setting up an unranked game. Lately I wanted to replay a board against a bot where the bot opened Mint/Chapel and beat me (oh the shame!) but I couldn't reproduce it since I had to restart the game again and again, and when the bot eventually opened 5/2, it didn't buy mint. Then I gave up.

[MdLC]

Balance is boring! As both a spectator and player, I like the occasional drama of the different starting hands. It is the only element of luck that cannot be influenced by the players. And yes, it can decide a few games, but only a few. Overall, I wouldn't want to see identical starting hands be a commonly played variant of Dominion.

If I put aside my disagreement, I also think the proposal for identical starting hands suffers from being a halfway measure on the way toward choosing your own starting hand. Identical starting hands reduces luck without comparatively increasing the skill involved. A chosen starting hand both reduces luck and increases the skill involved, especially in kingdoms where the best opening hand is debatable.

[markusin]

Balance is boring! As both a spectator and player, I like the occasional drama of the different starting hands. It is the only element of luck that cannot be influenced by the players. And yes, it can decide a few games, but only a few. Overall, I wouldn't want to see identical starting hands be a commonly played variant of Dominion.

If I put aside my disagreement, I also think the proposal for identical starting hands suffers from being a halfway measure on the way toward choosing your own starting hand. Identical starting hands reduces luck without comparatively increasing the skill involved. A chosen starting hand both reduces luck and increases the skill involved, especially in kingdoms where the best opening hand is debatable.

I remember hearing about some tournaments that let you choose your starting hand. That seems ideal to me as it allows you to have the fun opening whatever that may be.

I wouldn't want that to be standard in pro-mode play though. In tournament settings there aren't enough games played for balance through many games played to take effect, but that isn't the case online.

[Kirian]

In the end, pro or con, I don't trust MF to add 3 and 3 and not get "A suffusion of yellow," so I suspect the point is moot.

[popsofctown]

Automatch doesn't work well enough for me to use the product, so I don't know why features like this even matter

[popsofctown]

Actually, if anything, the failings of automatch indicate this should not be allowed until automatch is fixed.  Randomness makes more of the awfully matched games actually close, kinda what Donald was talking about.

That said my last game I drew 3/4 and my 5/2 opponent bought Witch during her third shuffle.

But I mean, that 5/2 gave me a chance that she might decide Witch feels like a better idea than Council Room because it's Friday or something.

Whatever, Hearthstone time.

[liopoil]

After playing in the Uconn tournament, I love the idea of stacking your starting deck and would not mind playing every single game of Dominion from now on like that.

[singletee]

To me, being able to stack your starting deck removes a very important part of the game. "Cultist/Rebuild/Mountebank are out? Guess I'm getting 5/2!" You're reducing the space of possible Dominion games you'll play.
If an option like this were to be made available, I would be strongly in favor of a starting deck arrangement being randomly chosen, and then everybody gets that same one.

[Roadrunner7671]

YMYOSL. This includes your starting hand.

Well, that's exactly what this is trying to accomplish.

No, this is trying to substitute shuffle luck with symmetry.

[Nyarpy]

Since having played in a tournament where everyone stacked their starting deck how they wanted it, I've played all my IRL games that way and definitely prefer that.

[markusin]

To me, being able to stack your starting deck removes a very important part of the game. "Cultist/Rebuild/Mountebank are out? Guess I'm getting 5/2!" You're reducing the space of possible Dominion games you'll play.
If an option like this were to be made available, I would be strongly in favor of a starting deck arrangement being randomly chosen, and then everybody gets that same one.

Hrm good point.

[liopoil]

To me, being able to stack your starting deck removes a very important part of the game. "Cultist/Rebuild/Mountebank are out? Guess I'm getting 5/2!" You're reducing the space of possible Dominion games you'll play.

Why is this a bad thing?

[Awaclus]

YMYOSL. This includes your starting hand.

Well, that's exactly what this is trying to accomplish.

No, this is trying to substitute shuffle luck with symmetry.

YMYOSL means eliminating shuffle luck (by playing well). This is exactly that.

[eHalcyon]

On a more serious note, I thinks it is a bad idea. That element of randomness is a big part of what makes Dominion such a unique and addictive game. It suggest the diversity of strategies, it sometimes leaves the bitter aftertaste of undeserved victory, it allows you to learn a whole lot of new coarse words, it even opens the possibilities for rookies who open Chapel/Scout ( ) to still win their games. Take that randomness away and we might as well play Monopoly.

Identical starting hands doesn't really take away any randomness, all it takes away is asymmetry.

Since the possibility of asymmetrical starting hands in Dominion is up to random chance, enforcing identical starting hands really does take away randomness.

[Awaclus]

Since the possibility of asymmetrical starting hands in Dominion is up to random chance, enforcing identical starting hands really does take away randomness.

Well, technically that's true, but it doesn't take away any randomness that you can plan for or try to mitigate.

[qmech]

Since the possibility of asymmetrical starting hands in Dominion is up to random chance, enforcing identical starting hands really does take away randomness.

Well, technically that's true, but it doesn't take away any randomness that you can plan for or try to mitigate.

You absolutely have to play to mitigate the effect of your opponent opening 5/2 with Witch/Cultist/Mountebank on the board or you having 5/2 when there is Familiar.  It's mitigation after the fact rather than trying to juggle something like terminal density in advance, but you do the same thing when you draw all of your Gold in the first hand of a reshuffle and have to play around your next few terrible hands.

[Awaclus]

You absolutely have to play to mitigate the effect of your opponent opening 5/2 with Witch/Cultist/Mountebank on the board or you having 5/2 when there is Familiar.  It's mitigation after the fact rather than trying to juggle something like terminal density in advance, but you do the same thing when you draw all of your Gold in the first hand of a reshuffle and have to play around your next few terrible hands.

No matter how much you mitigate the effect of your opponent getting a better opening split, you can't change the fact that the odds were stacked against you before the game even began and there was nothing you could have done about it. When you draw all of your Gold in the first hand, you can only blame yourself for building your deck that way.

[theJester]

I think it should definitely be an option, both for unrated and rated games. I know I would often play with it - playing a game where one player has much more favourable opening split is like watching a 100m race where one racer starts on 30m mark. If I'm on a winning side - my victory his somehow marred by the fact I had important starting advantage; if I'm on a losing side - it's frustrating to play catch-up with your opponent, just hoping he errs somewhere, but generally losing without being able to do much about it.

And it shouldn't be that hard to implement. Much like how there are three options now on MF's starting panel (play with AI, play with humans, play with either), they could easily make one more such triplet (play with identical starting hands, play with random starting hands, both are fine). If big majority of community are opposed to it - problem would solve itself: identical-starters would be too few in numbers, wouldn't be able to find enough similar-minded opponents and would have to switch to random-starters.

[qmech]

You absolutely have to play to mitigate the effect of your opponent opening 5/2 with Witch/Cultist/Mountebank on the board or you having 5/2 when there is Familiar.  It's mitigation after the fact rather than trying to juggle something like terminal density in advance, but you do the same thing when you draw all of your Gold in the first hand of a reshuffle and have to play around your next few terrible hands.

No matter how much you mitigate the effect of your opponent getting a better opening split, you can't change the fact that the odds were stacked against you before the game even began and there was nothing you could have done about it. When you draw all of your Gold in the first hand, you can only blame yourself for building your deck that way.

It's a difference in degree rather than kind.  You do not in fact make your own shuffle luck, and sometimes you get screwed over.

[schadd]

one time my brother and i were playing chessmaster over LAN, i was in the basement and he was on the first floor. both computers were running windows XP, but the computer i was using was dubbed the 'old XP' because we got it sooner. the biggest attraction of playing over LAN was really, chess on the computer, different floors, what even is this century.
 
i wasn't old enough to have a playstyle for chess. at some point, you accumulate that sort of charm that comes with interacting with people over 20 and not having the immediate repulsive effect of, this person doesn't even have that nebulous additional syllable in his age, and thus you necessarily devise ways of describing yourself that inflate your intrigue; "i am a rather organized chess player." this described my brother, he likes to describe the way he does things, and he liked to be established on the board, have a layout of his pieces that he liked to look at and that he felt would consistently lead to success. i didn't have anything like that.

being 5 years older, at a point where that is a huge chunk of your life, is enough to be the favorite in a chess game. at some point, he had four queens, and was making the most out of his second estate, just clearing a massive portion of the board to house his queens, maybe escort his remaining pawns to the end. i saw an opportunity, his king was sort of nestled in some place that he wasn't paying mind to. i could mate it if a pawn was there, protected by my rook. there was one of his pawns, in the way, though. if i took the 5ish turns to advance it, not even considering that he might send a queen over to clean that whole situation up, he would still take it with that g'd pawn. so i had to take another 5ish turns yet to send a decoy pawn that he would take and clear a path for the real assassin.

i spent 10 turns after noticing the situation to just, move up a pawn. he didn't care, it was just a pawn, he had like 6 queens by now. i wasn't even paying attention to his festivities, just staring at the pawn, making sure that it would indeed be the mate that i thought it was. i was on the edge of my seat, probably, it was kind of a crummy seat; i was in the basement after all.

checkmate. he was dumbfounded. no takesies backsies, it was computerized, nothing he could do, other than try not to laugh amid his own distress and deny that it could even be possible.

that became my chess style. sneak up on you, be an opportunist, have no trouble playing from behind.

i voted no, unqualified.

[Roadrunner7671]

YMYOSL. This includes your starting hand.

Well, that's exactly what this is trying to accomplish.

No, this is trying to substitute shuffle luck with symmetry.

YMYOSL means eliminating shuffle luck (by playing well). This is exactly that.

YMYOSL is defined as 'you make your own shuffle luck.'
By magically deciding whether or not you have a 5/2, you are making your own shuffle luck.

Why doesn't Adam come down and enlighten us?

[Awaclus]

It's a difference in degree rather than kind.  You do not in fact make your own shuffle luck, and sometimes you get screwed over.

Usually when you do get screwed over during the game, you could have done something differently to make it less likely or make it less bad if it does happen (it might or might not have been a good play to do so). When you get screwed over before the game, there's nothing you could have done about it. If it's a difference in degree, the degrees to which you have control over the situation are "not nothing" and "nothing", which pretty much does make it a difference in kind rather than degree.

[popsofctown]

Removing asymmetric starting hands removes some space of all possible Dominion games and all possible strategic considerations from the game.

However, refusing to implement any given shitty fan card I come up with ALSO removes some space of all possible Dominion games and all possible strategic considerations from the game.  The same argument applies to, should we have an option to allow the 4$ lab with a discard, which Donald removed for poor balance in testing, to the game.

In both cases, Dominion is not starving for possible scenarios and variety - if you owned nothing but base Dominion, 4$ sifty lab might be a positive addition if you were going to play 300 games of base Dominion, and so would randomizing starting hands.

If you take out a large number of possible scenarios, but a large proportion of them are unfun unwanted scenarios, you get a net positive supposing the game is big enough to take the hit.

But, people who don't take Rebuild out of the randomizer deck when they play at home probably are going to want to play with randomized starting hands, naturally, if varied possible outcomes is important to them.

Donald's point about giving the underdog a shot is true and that's important for games with players of different skill level, but supposedly we're supposed to get similar skill levels using automatch, and if that hypothetically happened, that particular line of reasoning is weakened.

[blueblimp]

Looking back at the poll, the wording isn't clear whether "yes" means "yes identical starting hands should be an available option" or "yes I personally prefer to play with identical starting hands" (or even "yes identical starting hands should be the only way to play", although I assume that's not what was meant).

[Beyond Awesome]

Looking back at the poll, the wording isn't clear whether "yes" means "yes identical starting hands should be an available option" or "yes I personally prefer to play with identical starting hands" (or even "yes identical starting hands should be the only way to play", although I assume that's not what was meant).

Yes means that we should have the option of identical starting hands including pro games.

Anyway, as pops says two posts above, when playing against players of the same skill, getting a different hand can often be the difference of life or death for that game.

Also, someone mentioned something about mirrors. However, in many cases going the mirror is the correct move. For instance if Mountebank is on the board, I still want to get it even if my opponent opens it. But, as is too often the case, him getting to get a couple of plays off it before I even get to buy my first MB can have a serious impact on the game.

Some extreme openings are often game over such as MB/Chapel or any 5-cost junker with Chapel, probably Mint/Alms, 3/4 on a board with weak $5s, and I could go on.

[xyz123]

When playing for fun I think everything should be random, kingdom selection and starting hands.

For tournaments though I think a lucky or unlucky 5/2 opening can make too much difference. I would advocate players being able to choose their starting hand. Analysing the board and deciding whether a 4/3 or 5/2 opening is preferable is adding some skill. I do not agree with forcing the same hands. If someone wants to open 4/3 and their opponent would rather start 5/2, why shouldn't they be able to start that way?

[LastFootnote]

Having identical starting decks actually increases first player advantage. Normally the second player can tailor his buys in response to the first players' openings. But with identical starting decks, Player 1 gets part of that advantage, since they know what Player 2 can afford ahead of time (on top of the first-player advantages they already enjoy).

[Donald X.]

Some extreme openings are often game over such as MB/Chapel or any 5-cost junker with Chapel, probably Mint/Alms, 3/4 on a board with weak $5s, and I could go on.

It turns out that there continues to be luck after the opening. Sometimes they open Mountebank / Chapel and then shuffle them to the bottom. The game snowballs, but they aren't just guaranteed everything they want because they got the first thing they wanted.

I have to feel that identical starting hands just shifts the moaning a step down to the first shuffle. It's a better target anyway; it matters a lot whether or not there's an exciting $5 or whatever. It's a little less visible to normal players but looms so large.

Any particular element of randomness in a game with randomness might be one we were better off without. Man the idea isn't to have randomness that makes the game suck. And as noted the game has plenty of ways to give the worse player a lucky edge. Having a variety of openings should be justified.

And it is! The intention was in fact to have a variety of openings. It's just hugely positive. We start with different cards more often, which makes the game more interesting. I make decisions without knowing what you would have done, because I got 4/3 and you got 3/4.

I think you could make a case for forcing non-identical hands. Let's always have that good thing! You could have an app generate the starting hands for you; otherwise it's a little awkward IRL. Obv. it only works for 2-4 players, with a mild exception for Shelters. And then you'd have extra information when making your opening buy. And you'd see 2/5 and 5/2 hands way more often. Still it has a certain something. Some games just start with different positions, bam, and the potential for heavy mirroring gets cited by some as an issue they have with Dominion. With Cosmic Powers or whatever, the best move for me is no longer necessarily the best move for you. Of course the natural progress of the game normally gets us some of that, hooray.

I have to think that your problem is just, who is this 13-year-old I'm playing against, oh man he's going to act like he's better than me because he got lucky. Try playing against friends! People win Dominion games due to luck sometimes; it's something to come to terms with, and once you have, you don't need to come to terms with it an extra time specifically for the luck of the opening split.

Or maybe your problem is just that certain openings are extra strong. It's possible that at some point we will have tiny "do not want" lists online and you can put Mountebank on yours. IRL, just don't play with it. Me, I've beaten turn one Mountebank, but maybe I just got lucky.

[Cave-o-sapien]

Some extreme openings are often game over such as MB/Chapel or any 5-cost junker with Chapel, probably Mint/Alms, 3/4 on a board with weak $5s, and I could go on.

It turns out that there continues to be luck after the opening. Sometimes they open Mountebank / Chapel and then shuffle them to the bottom. The game snowballs, but they aren't just guaranteed everything they want because they got the first thing they wanted.

I have to feel that identical starting hands just shifts the moaning a step down to the first shuffle. It's a better target anyway; it matters a lot whether or not there's an exciting $5 or whatever. It's a little less visible to normal players but looms so large.

YES! I have always felt like the variance in the first shuffle trumps the opening split, and certainly it would be ridiculous to "de-randomize" that first shuffle.

But now I'm curious: has anyone attempted to quantify the size of these effects using log data?

Me, I've beaten turn one Mountebank, but maybe I just got lucky.

This was brilliant.

[Beyond Awesome]

Some extreme openings are often game over such as MB/Chapel or any 5-cost junker with Chapel, probably Mint/Alms, 3/4 on a board with weak $5s, and I could go on.

It turns out that there continues to be luck after the opening. Sometimes they open Mountebank / Chapel and then shuffle them to the bottom. The game snowballs, but they aren't just guaranteed everything they want because they got the first thing they wanted.

I have to feel that identical starting hands just shifts the moaning a step down to the first shuffle. It's a better target anyway; it matters a lot whether or not there's an exciting $5 or whatever. It's a little less visible to normal players but looms so large.

Any particular element of randomness in a game with randomness might be one we were better off without. Man the idea isn't to have randomness that makes the game suck. And as noted the game has plenty of ways to give the worse player a lucky edge. Having a variety of openings should be justified.

And it is! The intention was in fact to have a variety of openings. It's just hugely positive. We start with different cards more often, which makes the game more interesting. I make decisions without knowing what you would have done, because I got 4/3 and you got 3/4.

I think you could make a case for forcing non-identical hands. Let's always have that good thing! You could have an app generate the starting hands for you; otherwise it's a little awkward IRL. Obv. it only works for 2-4 players, with a mild exception for Shelters. And then you'd have extra information when making your opening buy. And you'd see 2/5 and 5/2 hands way more often. Still it has a certain something. Some games just start with different positions, bam, and the potential for heavy mirroring gets cited by some as an issue they have with Dominion. With Cosmic Powers or whatever, the best move for me is no longer necessarily the best move for you. Of course the natural progress of the game normally gets us some of that, hooray.

I have to think that your problem is just, who is this 13-year-old I'm playing against, oh man he's going to act like he's better than me because he got lucky. Try playing against friends! People win Dominion games due to luck sometimes; it's something to come to terms with, and once you have, you don't need to come to terms with it an extra time specifically for the luck of the opening split.

Or maybe your problem is just that certain openings are extra strong. It's possible that at some point we will have tiny "do not want" lists online and you can put Mountebank on yours. IRL, just don't play with it. Me, I've beaten turn one Mountebank, but maybe I just got lucky.

First, I don't have a problem if a 13-year old opens 5/2 and beats me and thinks he's better than me. Good for him. My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Sure irl I can play however I want. However, online, I have played thousands of games. At this point, for me, it is not about putting Mountebank on a 'do not list' online. I actually like the card.  Now, if I had only played a few hundred games, I probably would not care, but more often than not, you start a game, and its gg whether you realize it or not. Almost always, I play through a game out of a stubbornness despite having a huge disadvantage. Sure, sometimes I beat a turn 1 MB opening. But, usually that's because of my opponent getting bad shuffle luck or not playing well. Assuming the opponent is of similar skill to me, pretty much they would have to get bad shuffle luck.

Now, nothing can really change MB and Chapel both missing the shuffle. However, the game can be changed in such a way that the opening hands can be changed whether it be through having identical hands or allowing players to choose what starting hands to start with.

I love your game, by the way. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even started this poll. I'm not trying to ruin or change your game, but make it more enjoyable for those who feel the same way about starting hands as I do. I know that you play Magic but remember, as well, that EDH/Commander was created by fans of the game that wanted to create their own variant. Now, EDH is insanely popular and makes a ton of money for Wizards of the Coast. Obviously, players  having whatever hands they want to start won't make more money for you, but it isn't as big of a change as creating EDH either.

[eHalcyon]

My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

New variant for you then: every time you would shuffle the deck, instead you get to decide the order exactly.  (Bring on the Chancellor master decks.)

You probably don't actually want to mitigate as much of the luck as possible, because it's possible to mitigate pretty much all of it.  It just wouldn't make a good game.  You can have a variant to choose your starting hand.  OK, cool, but why stop there?  After your first reshuffle, maybe you get to peek at your bottom two cards (or have a third party do it or whatever) and if both of your opening buys are there, you get to mulligan!  But actually, just one opening buy on the bottom would still be a distinct disadvantage then, so maybe mulligan that too.  And so on.

The opening split probably doesn't matter as much as luck of the first shuffle, or other shuffle luck that accumulates as you go.  However, it's one of the most visible pieces of luck in the game, which is why it gets more complaints than it really warrants.

I'd like to add that merely mitigating luck doesn't make a game more skill intensive.  They're not mutually exclusive like that.  A luckless game isn't necessarily high skill, and a highly luck-driven game can still be skill intensive.  I once again link to this excellent talk by Richard Garfield:

[LastFootnote]

My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Please keep your Smogon out of my Dominion. I really don't want to have to find another favorite game.

[markusin]

My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Please keep your Smogon out of my Dominion. I really don't want to have to find another favorite game.

Genuinely curious, what did Smogon do to mitigate luck in Pokémon? Was it when they banned stuff like those 1-hit KO moves and attacks like Swagger?

[liopoil]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

[markusin]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

Over half of the voters votes "No" though. Are some of the people who voted for stacked decks among them.

[popsofctown]

The Quick Claw ban is the only smogon ban I can think of that bans randomness that I know for sure isn't also a rule that balances the game (A hold item that randomly lets a pokemon go first from time to time, no matter how slow it is.  It's not very plausible it'd be more omnipresent or meta-skewing than Leftovers).  If you want an example.


Randomness is a slider you want to pull to a certain point, not something you either want to absolutely maximize or absolutely minimize.  I certainly disagree with Beyond Awesome saying "we should remove as much of the randomness from the game as possible for the sake of skill".  Some of it is good, and important.  Dominion has a bit more than is really necessary, it's safe to remove a little for those that prefer to.

If randomness was super awesome and always good we'd flip a coin every time we buy a Province to see if we actually gain it as a result of buying it. Or CCG designers would let everyone run 1 free cantrip with a small bonus per each deck to add some extra random pizzazz, improving the game. 

[eHalcyon]

My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Please keep your Smogon out of my Dominion. I really don't want to have to find another favorite game.

Genuinely curious, what did Smogon do to mitigate luck in Pokémon? Was it when they banned stuff like those 1-hit KO moves and attacks like Swagger?

They've done a lot more than that.  I don't keep up too much (not sure if Swagger is actually banned outright, though maybe with Prankster parafusion) but they've done some complex bans like no Baton Pass with certain boosting moves.  That's not so much luck though.  Some luck things include sleep clause, evasion clause, moody clause.  Here, I found this list.  A generation out of date, but it gives you an idea.

FWIW, in general I think Smogon does a good job.  I think most of the luck-based things they ban really are highly luck-based, and they are often all-or-nothing.  OHKO moves, for example -- if you succeed, you just win.  If you don't, you just lose.  There's no in-between, not really any room for counterplay or skill to show through.  In contrast, the randomization of starting hands in Dominion promotes counterplay and skill.  Having the "wrong" split is not at all an instant loss, and having the "right" one isn't an instant win.  (The other things they ban tend to be highly centralizing.  Some people complain that the bans remove diversity, except the actual intent and effect is the exact opposite.  The Baton Pass complex ban is one of those; apparently those teams were the only thing you could run at that point.)

I believe Smogon's bans are community driven too.  So hey, it's nice to have this discussion here about it.  I see in the poll that No has a solid majority.

A difference is that Smogon is an unofficial way to play the game while Dominion Online is official, so Donald has a lot more sway.  (Shuffle)Luckily, Donald's opinion aligns with the majority here.

The Quick Claw ban is the only smogon ban I can think of that bans randomness that I know for sure isn't also a rule that balances the game (A hold item that randomly lets a pokemon go first from time to time, no matter how slow it is.  It's not very plausible it'd be more omnipresent or meta-skewing than Leftovers).  If you want an example.

Quick Claw doesn't just let a Pokemon go first.  It's actually a bit weaker than that -- it moves the Pokemon to the top of their speed bracket.  So if I used a priority move like Quick Attack while you used a regular move like Tackle, Quick Attack would go first even if your Quick Claw triggers.

[jsh357]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

Over half of the voters votes "No" though. Are some of the people who voted for stacked decks among them.

I personally am in much higher favor of deck-stacking than just identical starting hands. That option wasn't on the poll. I think deck-stacking is an interesting variant. Naturally, I don't think it should be forced.

[ConMan]

Clearly we need to borrow a lesson from Hex - let the shuffles fall where they may, but after both players* have their first turn, the second player chooses whether to swap seats with the first player.

* Because all true Scotsmen Dominion players play two-player games only.

[Donald X.]

First, I don't have a problem if a 13-year old opens 5/2 and beats me and thinks he's better than me. Good for him. My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Playing lots of games totally evens out the luck. Look at the league.

It's a game with a significant luck element. I think playing more games is the only good approach for isolating skill. The online ones go fast. And they're fun, you're playing Dominion.

But, usually that's because of my opponent getting bad shuffle luck or not playing well. Assuming the opponent is of similar skill to me, pretty much they would have to get bad shuffle luck.

In conversations about luck and skill, it frequently comes up that someone says something like this, and then someone else steps up and says "if you and your opponent are of equal skill, what's left to determine who wins besides luck?" Sometimes I am that person.

Maybe you're thinking, you want it to be that, you are equally skilled, but you played better this game. But I mean. For the period of time we're interested in, you were more skilled (or luckier, or didn't win, or it was a draw).

I love your game, by the way. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even started this poll. I'm not trying to ruin or change your game, but make it more enjoyable for those who feel the same way about starting hands as I do. I know that you play Magic but remember, as well, that EDH/Commander was created by fans of the game that wanted to create their own variant. Now, EDH is insanely popular and makes a ton of money for Wizards of the Coast. Obviously, players  having whatever hands they want to start won't make more money for you, but it isn't as big of a change as creating EDH either.

Thanks, I am fond of it myself.

It's fair to say that providing popular options in the online version might increase its popularity and ultimately make me money. Money isn't really relevant; the money is unlikely to make a difference, so I would just be pushing for those options to be friendly.

And I do. I push for options that I think will improve the game for some people. Soon I will start yelling at them about the VP counter matchmaking business; so far I have just stated my opinion in a calm speaking voice. I don't need a VP counter personally, though I'd probably use it against bots. It's not for me. My feeling is though, that the VP counter makes some people have more fun, and is not a negative for them. They just totally come out ahead if it's provided, and have less fun when it isn't.

The identical starting hands thing, that makes the game worse, so I don't want it. If there are a few people who actually totally have more fun that way, well there will be more people who use the option but are actually having less fun. That's what Donald X. actually thinks.

I can see being friendly to people who want to run tournaments with it though, I know it's been a thing in the past. I wouldn't go any farther, because the more it's being used, the more joy it's removing.

Dominion actually had more luck day one. If you had to draw 3 cards and there were 2 left, you shuffled first, shuffling in those 2. It was a concern, when taking that out, that there be enough luck left. There was! It all worked out. So I mean, you dodged a bullet there.

[polot38]

These two things can't co-exist in the same ranking system. Ideally, people are playing others with similar skill levels to their own most of the time, but realistically this isn't the case: people on the ends of the spectrum of skill levels aren't going to play people at similar skill levels to them, and people can also simply choose not to play equal opponents. Having a system of identical starting hands drastically reduces variance between games, and thus favors better players. This, in turn, means that two people of equal skill with different preferences in this regard will likely not be ranked the same.

With this in mind, I think the only real options are either always yes or no. I like no for many of the reasons posted before me.

[liopoil]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

Over half of the voters votes "No" though. Are some of the people who voted for stacked decks among them.

Yes: I am.

[blueblimp]

I don't get why there's so much discussion of stacking your deck in this thread. That's not even comparable to identical starting hands because it'd feel like a completely different game, and would require a UI to be created especially for it. Realistically, I wouldn't expect it to ever be implemented by Making Fun. (Identical starting hands does not require UI aside from choosing whether to play with it.)

Identical starting hands is still pretty much the same game as standard Dominion, because you're still shuffling the deck. Even the opening hand is still randomized. The difference in a 2 player game is that you see 5/2 vs 5/2 more often than standard, never see 4/3 vs 5/2, and see 4/3 vs 4/3 a little more often. The stats:

• 4/3 vs 4/3 (standard 69.4%, ish 83.3%)
• 4/3 vs 5/2 (standard 27.8%, ish 0.0%)
• 5/2 vs 5/2 (standard 2.8%, ish 16.7%)

If you were to play a mix of standard Dominion and identical starting hands Dominion, you'd see more variety than if you only play standard Dominion, because of seeing the otherwise-rare 5/2 mirror more often.

I feel there are also a lot of strawmen being thrown around about trying to eliminate variance. Identical starting hands obviously does not eliminate variance, but it does reduce variance. It's not some wild idea to use rulesets that reduce variance in a tournament setting. (Isn't that even discussed in the "luck vs skill" video? It's been a while since I last watched it.)

Maybe it's the case that MF simply doesn't consider it worth putting resources towards implementing identical starting hands, and that's okay. I didn't use ISH on isotropic because of mostly finding games through automatch, so that wouldn't bother me particularly. I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

I suppose the real question is: do you want ISH enough to throw variable into the already sketchy matchmaking?

Based on my experience with the VP counter option, having the option to "prefer ISH" seems like it would just slightly increase the percentage of games with identical starting hands.

[blueblimp]

I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

I suppose the real question is: do you want ISH enough to throw variable into the already sketchy matchmaking?

Based on my experience with the VP counter option, having the option to "prefer ISH" seems like it would just slightly increase the percentage of games with identical starting hands.

I think the most natural way to implement it is how isotropic did, which is that automatch never uses ISH, but it's available as an option for manually arranged games. Same idea as how designed kingdoms are only available for manually arranged games.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

I suppose the real question is: do you want ISH enough to throw variable into the already sketchy matchmaking?

Based on my experience with the VP counter option, having the option to "prefer ISH" seems like it would just slightly increase the percentage of games with identical starting hands.

I think the most natural way to implement it is how isotropic did, which is that automatch never uses ISH, but it's available as an option for manually arranged games. Same idea as how designed kingdoms are only available for manually arranged games.

That makes a lot of sense. I can't see why anyone should object to it.

[Voltaire]

The players would play Real Dominion

I for one would love to play in this magical land of no VP counter.

[JW]

I think the most natural way to implement it is how isotropic did, which is that automatch never uses ISH, but it's available as an option for manually arranged games. Same idea as how designed kingdoms are only available for manually arranged games.

On a related note, being able to order your starting deck (for non-rated games) would also be great if you want to test a board while starting with a 5-2 split. Otherwise you need to hit "end turn" a lot with a human testing partner, or resign a bunch of games if against a bot.

I assume that there's no way to play solo games on the new client analogous to "Secret Chamber" from Goko, but if someone knows a method that works, would be interested to hear it.

[Elestan]

I think I started the "stacked starting deck" method for IRL tournaments.  I decided to run that way for a few reasons:

• I don't want to feel like I have to balance the 4/3 and 5/2 openings in every kingdom (I still often try, but sometimes it's hard).
• There isn't time for a lot of games the way there is in a league format, so we can't rely on repeated play to smooth out luck's effects.
• There are some kind of stakes on the line, so players are going to be more upset when luck spoils their chances.

Shuffle luck still comes into play, of course, but I bill my tournament primarily as an event for experienced players, and I think they end up happier if they're given a little more control over their fate.  That's really the deciding factor - I want happy players.

For other venues (like online), I think it would be nice to have as an option if both players want it.  It doesn't hurt anyone, and makes it easier to test out playing different openings.

Forced identical starting hands doesn't interest me...it seems unnecessarily constraining.

[mith]

Another option for two player games: Stack your opponent's starting deck. Still likely to end up with identical choices, but mixing it with stacking your own would reintroduce some variety (i.e. play boards with strong 5s with a 4/3 sometimes) without forcing them to be random and identical.

I think I prefer random these days, though, after preferring identical in the BGGDL days.