Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller  (Read 18495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2016, 07:22:31 pm »
0



Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

OK, fair point.  But playing two terminals isn't really that difficult, especially since you can use one to draw the other. :P

Yeah, not saying it is. Though it does slow it down a fair bit, as you have to actually buy both terminals, in the type of deck where you might not want 2 terminals.  So you can't just rush this and hope to exhange every turn or anything.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2016, 09:07:09 pm »
0



Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

OK, fair point.  But playing two terminals isn't really that difficult, especially since you can use one to draw the other. :P

Yeah, not saying it is. Though it does slow it down a fair bit, as you have to actually buy both terminals, in the type of deck where you might not want 2 terminals.  So you can't just rush this and hope to exhange every turn or anything.

Oh, yeah.  I've been saying from the start that I don't think that this is at all viable unless you go in from a plan.  It doesn't seem rushable to me at all.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2016, 12:09:00 am »
0

Board a ship is quite a bit better than Walled Village in multiples. I kinda like it.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2016, 02:02:22 am »
0

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.
This. Basically Tournament on steroids.
Logged

Showdown35

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2016, 02:25:38 am »
0

Just a side note: Baghdad...
Logged
Check out my Dominion Fan Card Template for Photoshop  here

navical

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +268
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2016, 02:40:39 am »
+3

Quote
Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.
Two of these with the +card and +action tokens on the pike give you infinite money. Add the +buy token and you can just pick up the entire Supply.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2016, 02:51:01 am »
0

Quote
Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.
Two of these with the +card and +action tokens on the pike give you infinite money. Add the +buy token and you can just pick up the entire Supply.
Theoretical considerations of virtually impossible edge cases are fun but practical relevance is the only thing the matters for actual games:

Ignoring Teacher this is conditional on both Events being in the supply. If you play with only 2 Events, as it is recommended, it is not possible to actually get the +buy token. But even if you play with 2 Events the chance to get precisely these 3 Events is 3/20 * 2/19 * 1/18 = 1/1140.

So you either need to play Teacher 3 times or you need to have the 5, 6 and 8 to trigger 3 Events. If you have achieved any of these you can more or less gain a shitload of Provinces or Colonies with any deck.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2016, 05:55:50 am »
0

Quote
A.
$4
Action-Reserve-Traveller-Attack
+1 Action
+1 Card
Everyone with 5 or more cards discards a treasure or reveals a hand with no treasures.
When there is an A on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a B.
If not: put this on your tavern mat.
------
When someone buys a gold, you may remove this from your tavern mat.

Quote
B.
$5*
Action-Reserve-Traveller
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$2
When there is an A or B on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a C.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
When someone discards an attack card, you may remove this from your tavern mat.

Quote
C.
$6*
Action-Reserve-Traveller-Duration
+1 Action
+1 Card
Choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
At the start of your next turn: play your first action card twice.
When there is an B or C on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: you may exchange this for a D.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
When someone discards a duration card, you may remove this from your tavern mat.

Quote
D.
+3 VP
When there is an C or D. on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: the game ends at the end of your turn.
Put this on your tavern mat.
----
When D is on your tavern mat: it's worth a big amount of vp.

I would probably think of something along this line, and this for all 4 steps.
(1) It synergizes with itself.
(2) It's a deliberate strategy.
(3) And you can find a VP system that makes it similar in strength to other ALT-VP's, rathern than having to use VP's itself.

Some of your ideas can be recycled, I am sure.

You can put 'big' conditions on removing them from your tavern mat in order to upgrade them further. Or you can let them sit on the tavern mat and then every time start from A again. Or you can try to use several A's from the beginning.

I'd make each bonus worth it to keep it away from the tavern mat, but still don't want to necessarily discard it.

So you want a B on your tavern mat, so you can play your C without having to put it on your tavern mat.

So, I made a first suggestion. Does it make sense to you?

(1) Every step gives a real choice. You might want to upgrade, but you could also just stay there. (If it's too strong, you can always tinker a bit with it to make it less so.)
(2) It need not be autowin.

I might made it a little bit too strong, causing it to be unignorable, which was not my intention. So that should probably be toned down a bit, but I hope the overall idea is clear.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2016, 06:02:51 am by AdrianHealey »
Logged

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2016, 12:18:27 pm »
+2

Okay, I think this is a seperate card idea. It sounds interesting, especially because you can end the game without any Victory cards. Also the "pyramid" structure and the question when to call your cards is interesting. You could add some flavour and then open a new topic for it.  :)
For Marco Polo, I wanted to keep the cards as elegant (simple and thematic) as possible while having the upgrading tricky but not too hard.

Quote
Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.
Two of these with the +card and +action tokens on the pike give you infinite money. Add the +buy token and you can just pick up the entire Supply.
Theoretical considerations of virtually impossible edge cases are fun but practical relevance is the only thing the matters for actual games:

Ignoring Teacher this is conditional on both Events being in the supply. If you play with only 2 Events, as it is recommended, it is not possible to actually get the +buy token. But even if you play with 2 Events the chance to get precisely these 3 Events is 3/20 * 2/19 * 1/18 = 1/1140.

So you either need to play Teacher 3 times or you need to have the 5, 6 and 8 to trigger 3 Events. If you have achieved any of these you can more or less gain a shitload of Provinces or Colonies with any deck.
Interesting point. If you play only non-random sets, this could be an issue. Although tristan is right that it is quite hard to pull off with currently available cards.
Maybe Marco Polo could be a Treasure? But then you wouldn't have a guaranteed terminal for Board a Ship.
Or we could dump it and start with Board a Ship directly, maybe adding another step on the way.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.
This. Basically Tournament on steroids.
I don't think so. In a card game, when you have to bring together multiple cards from a bigger group, it should be less luck dependent than matching up 2 single cards. (Same as with rolling dice - the more dice you use, the more likely you are to hit the expectation value). Sure there are still freak values, but they are rare.
It is very very unlikely to draw On the Silk Road with a lucky early Province + 2 Estates if you didn't prepare for it somehow.

But by buying into this chain, you'll be slower to Provinces unless you've had a good plan all along.  Also, if you actually think about the effects, they aren't that amazing.

0-2 = Peddler.  You don't have to discard for this so it's always available.

3-10 = Double Lab.  That sounds amazing until you remember that you had to discard cards for it.  You draw 3 cards, but you're also discarding at least 2 cards!  This makes it barely better than Cellar.  Possibly worse, actually, since you can't discard Copper to it.
Hum, I intended it to be strong if you don't exchange it. You could also discard just one more expensive card to get the double Lab. Should it be stronger?
Maybe: less than 10 = draw twice the number of cards you discarded?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2016, 12:20:08 pm by market squire »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2016, 12:51:34 pm »
+3

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.
This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.

@market squire I'd test it first.  In the situation where it's Cellar, it's pretty good to have a Cellar.  My point isn't that it's too weak, only that people aren't actually thinking through what they are calling overpowered.

Edit: And yes, discarding one expensive card is good.  I'm exaggerating a little by calling it Cellar.  But the Peddler option is fine too, and the stronger option isn't a swingy major coup when you get it.  My first comparison to Stables may be better.  This is a little more difficult to activate than Stables, bit a little better when you do (discarding VP instead of Copper).  It's also much better when it whiffs.  With that in mind, I'd say that it's about as swingy as Stables.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2016, 01:47:15 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1795
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2016, 05:32:24 pm »
+1

My only issue with most fan-made travellers is that they tend to be too wordy/complex/hard to remember for me to really like them. I like the general concept of Marco Polo, and I like the concepts of the single cards (and the subtle ways to slow down your progression), but I'd like it even more if it could pack the same punch in 3 stages or so.  :)
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2016, 02:36:53 am »
0

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.
Yeah, totally hedges against the risk of not being able to exchange for Khan.  ::)

All of this nonsense reminds me of Freud's kettle logic: Tournament isn't really very random; OK, it is but you gotta show far more examples; OK, Tournament is random but this new card isn't.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 02:44:54 am by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #37 on: March 09, 2016, 04:19:40 am »
+3

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.
Yeah, totally hedges against the risk of not being able to exchange for Khan.  ::)

All of this nonsense reminds me of Freud's kettle logic: Tournament isn't really very random; OK, it is but you gotta show far more examples; OK, Tournament is random but this new card isn't.

Are you serious?  That is not at all what's happened here, and this is the troll-iest I've seen you be for a long while now.  I said from the start that Tournament can be swingy, but not so much as people tend to make it out to be.  Do you want some hard numbers?  Here.  Tournament tends to help the better player win, moreso than the likes of Village, Quarry, Market and many other cards that people don't complain about.  (And many thanks to Donald X. for linking that recently because I've been trying to find it; I remember other threads that have had similar findings from crunching the data, but the forum search is terrible.)

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.  I've explained in detail why it isn't, but you've ignored it all.  It's almost unbelievable, but it's not the first time.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #38 on: March 09, 2016, 04:58:50 am »
0

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.
Yeah, totally hedges against the risk of not being able to exchange for Khan.  ::)

All of this nonsense reminds me of Freud's kettle logic: Tournament isn't really very random; OK, it is but you gotta show far more examples; OK, Tournament is random but this new card isn't.
What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.
I actually have but whatever. The discussion is, as usual, pointless. You can believe whatever you want, that Tournament and Swindler and this Traveller line do not introduce a significant amount of randomness into the game.
Independent of your believes though the notion of a traveler end card that ends the game and provides 10 VPs, without particular hard exchange conditions (except for the last one which is Tournament gono loco), is utterly preposterous.

About your stats, thanks for posting them. Sadly they are fairly worthless as a t-test would most likely show the range of probabilities between 68,9% to 71,4% does not imply a statistically significant difference from a hypothetical average value.  But even if there would be a statistically significant difference (if the second value the guy posted are the confidence intervals this could very well be the case) t is still just a difference of 2,5 percentage points. Doesn't express a whole lot.
Furthermore the concept is dubious to begin with. The stats do not only measure card randomness but also card difficulty. A player with a higher ranking has more experience and can thus use a complex card better than a player with a lower ranking and less experience. This is probably why Goons is so high up the list (the card certainly isn't the most deterministic one). Takes quite some skill (I definitely suck at it) to tell whether you should go (intensively) for Goons or not in a particular Kingdom.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 05:02:42 am by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #39 on: March 09, 2016, 01:02:54 pm »
+3

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.
I actually have but whatever.

Quote it then. 

"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.  When Tournament is swingy, it's because you spike an early Province and line it up quickly.  But as a Traveller line, you can't get to the end card with the same speed.  And the reward isn't particularly compelling.  As already discussed, the 10VP could be 5VP or 0VP instead.  The card gives you end game control, something that you could already get just by having some +Buy.  The swinginess just isn't here.

This discussion is pointless only because you refuse to evaluate anything critically and ignore every argument that you are unable to refute.

Furthermore the concept is dubious to begin with. The stats do not only measure card randomness but also card difficulty. A player with a higher ranking has more experience and can thus use a complex card better than a player with a lower ranking and less experience. This is probably why Goons is so high up the list (the card certainly isn't the most deterministic one). Takes quite some skill (I definitely suck at it) to tell whether you should go (intensively) for Goons or not in a particular Kingdom.

So what you're saying is that the card takes skill to use.  That it isn't just a coin flip or die roll.  That you usually don't just randomly get lucky and win.  That it's not so much swingy chance, but player ability.

OK then.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2016, 05:48:01 pm »
0

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.
I actually have but whatever.
"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.
For Tournament you need a Province and for Silk Road you need a cumulated coin value of VP cards of equal to or more than 10. Totally unrelated.  ::)


Furthermore the concept is dubious to begin with. The stats do not only measure card randomness but also card difficulty. A player with a higher ranking has more experience and can thus use a complex card better than a player with a lower ranking and less experience. This is probably why Goons is so high up the list (the card certainly isn't the most deterministic one). Takes quite some skill (I definitely suck at it) to tell whether you should go (intensively) for Goons or not in a particular Kingdom.

So what you're saying is that the card takes skill to use.  That it isn't just a coin flip or die roll.  That you usually don't just randomly get lucky and win.  That it's not so much swingy chance, but player ability.

OK then.
I did not refer to this Traveller line but to the statistics you posted. And as I pointed out, they do not feature significant differences (2,5 percentage points) and they do not exclusively measure card randomness but also card complexity.
So much about how evaluates stuff critically and who does desperately googles for some stats without actually taking a really deep look at them.  8)
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #41 on: March 09, 2016, 07:20:33 pm »
+2

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.
I actually have but whatever.
"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.
For Tournament you need a Province and for Silk Road you need a cumulated coin value of VP cards of equal to or more than 10. Totally unrelated.  ::)

I can't help but notice that you didn't quote any explanation from you and instead cut out my request for you to quote it.  Thanks for proving my point.

And once again, you also cut out the part that explains why they aren't comparable:

"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.  When Tournament is swingy, it's because you spike an early Province and line it up quickly.  But as a Traveller line, you can't get to the end card with the same speed.  And the reward isn't particularly compelling.  As already discussed, the 10VP could be 5VP or 0VP instead.  The card gives you end game control, something that you could already get just by having some +Buy.  The swinginess just isn't here.

In other words, the timing is completely different between the two cards.  Marco Polo's end game kicks in late.  Tournament is only swingy when it kicks in early.

I did not refer to this Traveller line but to the statistics you posted. And as I pointed out, they do not feature significant differences (2,5 percentage points) and they do not exclusively measure card randomness but also card complexity.
So much about how evaluates stuff critically and who does desperately googles for some stats without actually taking a really deep look at them.  8)

I'm referring to the statistics too.  Maybe you should explain what you mean by "swingy", because if the card is complex enough that skilled players are better able to take advantage, that's the opposite of swingy in my book.  The stats measure "how hard a time trueskill has at predicting the winner".  If a card is really luck-dependent, then it's tougher to predict the winner because the better player could get screwed by bad luck or the weaker player could have good luck.  That's swinginess.  Tournament rates less swingy than people give it credit for.

Are the statistics non-significant?  I honestly don't know, and I'm not arrogant enough to guess at it.  The sample size is huge, and small differences certainly can be significant.  The stats were computed by rrenaud and recently referred to by Donald X, two very smart people.  I'm going to trust that they know what they are talking about.  But if you want to ignore statistics that don't support you, that's your perogative.

If you want to discuss this Traveller idea, I already posted a card-by-card overview that explains why I believe it all plays out in a decidedly non-random fashion.  Please feel free to go through that and tell me why you think it's wrong.  Seriously!  Because that would be actually useful discussion.  Or you can continue to post baseless one-liners, cherry pick lines to respond to and ignore everything of substance.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #42 on: March 09, 2016, 07:32:15 pm »
+7

market squire, sorry for my part in what this thread has become.  This Traveller line is a cool idea with a lot of potential.  I hope you try it out and report back!
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2016, 03:26:46 am »
0

Are the statistics non-significant?  I honestly don't know, and I'm not arrogant enough to guess at it.  The sample size is huge, and small differences certainly can be significant.  The stats were computed by rrenaud and recently referred to by Donald X, two very smart people.  I'm going to trust that they know what they are talking about.  But if you want to ignore statistics that don't support you, that's your perogative.
At least you admit that you don't know shIt about stastistics. Nice that you trust "very smart people" but if you had any idea of the scientific method you would know that this is an argument from authority. I never trust in anybody, be it Nobel price laureate or whatever, but check their arguments. You know, using your own brain, scepticism and so on.

I already pointed out the problem of theses stats so I will not repeat them. As expected you ignored them (or failed to understand them). Nice to have found who is analytical and who isn't though.  8)

I really like a lot of your fan cards and I learned quite a thing from you about Dominion (you might remember our discussion about cantrip trashers whose strength I underestimanted). But you have also have an overblown ego and serious issues with admitting that you are wrong.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 03:29:30 am by tristan »
Logged

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2016, 11:12:44 am »
+1

Again, here is what I think of the randomness factor of On the Silk Road.


On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.
This. Basically Tournament on steroids.
I don't think so. In a card game, when you have to bring together multiple cards from a bigger group, it should be less luck dependent than matching up 2 single cards. (Same as with rolling dice - the more dice you use, the more likely you are to hit the expectation value). Sure there are still freak values, but they are rare.
It is very very unlikely to draw On the Silk Road with a lucky early Province + 2 Estates if you didn't prepare for it somehow.


Please use your knowledge of statistics constructively and correct me if those thoughts are wrong. ;)
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2016, 01:01:24 pm »
+2

Something, something, decline of civility in the Marco Polo thread.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #46 on: March 10, 2016, 01:28:41 pm »
+1

Are the statistics non-significant?  I honestly don't know, and I'm not arrogant enough to guess at it.  The sample size is huge, and small differences certainly can be significant.  The stats were computed by rrenaud and recently referred to by Donald X, two very smart people.  I'm going to trust that they know what they are talking about.  But if you want to ignore statistics that don't support you, that's your perogative.
At least you admit that you don't know shIt about stastistics. Nice that you trust "very smart people" but if you had any idea of the scientific method you would know that this is an argument from authority. I never trust in anybody, be it Nobel price laureate or whatever, but check their arguments. You know, using your own brain, scepticism and so on.

I already pointed out the problem of theses stats so I will not repeat them. As expected you ignored them (or failed to understand them). Nice to have found who is analytical and who isn't though.  8)

I really like a lot of your fan cards and I learned quite a thing from you about Dominion (you might remember our discussion about cantrip trashers whose strength I underestimanted). But you have also have an overblown ego and serious issues with admitting that you are wrong.

I know enough to know that what they're saying is plausible.  I know that small numbers can still be significant, especially with a large enough sample size like in this case.  I don't know much about TrueSkill or conditional entropy, which is what these stats use, and it honestly sounds like you don't know much about them either.

I haven't ignored your comments about the stats. I addressed them.  I don't trust your assessment over theirs because you've only thrown out terms from introductory statistics classes like "t-test" and "significance" without any actually math at all, and one of your suggestions (that small = insignificant) is fundamentally wrong.

I'm always happy to admit when I'm wrong.  I've already done it in this thread, when someone (GendoIkari, I think) pointed out that one of the steps is a little harder to exchange than I thought since it would need 2 terminals after it is first played.  I'm also happy to admit when I lack knowledge in an area, as I've just done here.

But I'm not going to be convinced that I'm wrong by hand-waving arguments, false comparisons and sunglass emojis.  This whole time I've been requesting an explanation of how Marco Polo is too random, and you've yet to deliver.  If you want to give it some actual thought and consideration, I'll be waiting.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 01:30:17 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #47 on: March 10, 2016, 01:46:42 pm »
0

I mean, I think the basic idea is "getting to Khan first" => "(probably?) win game" => swingy games.  Shuffle luck will lead you to getting to Khan first/quickly.  Similar idea that getting Province and Tournament to collide early on gives you a much better chance of winning.  (I'm not really certain on the validity of the last statement, but I can understand thinking it.)

Of course, getting Khan may not necessarily lock in the victory. 

I can understand the comparison to Tournament at least.  I think it would take actual play testing to see how it affects games, though.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #48 on: March 10, 2016, 01:50:21 pm »
0

Is making it worth 10 VP you play it instead of giving out VP chips so that you can't TR/KC/Procession it?

Edit: Or to give it Scout synergy?!
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Polo, a game-ending Traveller
« Reply #49 on: March 10, 2016, 02:00:36 pm »
0

I mean, I think the basic idea is "getting to Khan first" => "(probably?) win game" => swingy games.  Shuffle luck will lead you to getting to Khan first/quickly.  Similar idea that getting Province and Tournament to collide early on gives you a much better chance of winning.  (I'm not really certain on the validity of the last statement, but I can understand thinking it.)

Of course, getting Khan may not necessarily lock in the victory. 

I can understand the comparison to Tournament at least.  I think it would take actual play testing to see how it affects games, though.

So my response to this (already given before) is that Tournament is only swingy if it happens early.  This could be too, but it is specifically designed so that you won't get it early, even if you get lucky.  Moreover, I believe the individual cards in the line are all relatively weak, niche effects such that investing in the line will result in a weaker deck overall.  The other player should be able to stay ahead, especially if the last card provides fewer/no VP.  By investing in this line, you are sacrificing immediate power for end game control.  I compare that to an engine full of +Buy that can end on piles.  Marco Polo is more decisive control, but I think it has higher opportunity cost to pull off.

tl;dr - I don't think getting to Khan first is a probable win unless it is backed up by a good plan and skilled execution.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.13 seconds with 21 queries.