Print

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

[chwhite]

http://councilroom.com/win_rate_diff_accum.html?cards=Cost%3D%3D6 is a pretty stark depiction of what I'm talking about.  By and large, Adventurer just doesn't belong in this cost tier.

that graph is a little unfair to Adventurer.  He's not alone in the negative slope of cards costing 6+:
http://councilroom.com/win_rate_diff_accum.html?cards=Cost%3E%3D6%20%26%26%20Action

Well, that graph is polluted by people buying lots of Forges when you only want one; all trashers have this problem. Even Chapel and Remake have negative slopes!  http://councilroom.com/win_rate_diff_accum.html?cards=Trash%3E%3D2%2C%20Remake

Not that Forge is Chapel-level strong (it is one of the weaker 6-plus cards), but I don't think there's any question it's better than Adventurer.

[WanderingWinder]

(All players)
Goons gained 87.4%, KC gained 84.1% (too much!)
Goons winrate with 1.04, winrate without 0.77 (!) KC winrate with 1.02, winrate without 0.92

Which is pretty irrelevant overall. You can't use these stats to say A>B for many many reasons (but that would deserve its own thread). However, you're general that KC is more often ignorable than goons. Just, that doesn't make it better.

[brokoli]

I think minion is overrated. A pure minion strategy is nice, but not so easy to pull off. I don't understand why it's higher than Ghost ship, which is a very strong attack.
Same problem with torturer : nice card, but it's often a trap. You should almost never buy a torturer without villages.

Margrave is a bit too low. I would exchange vault and embassy also.
I completely agree with chwhite about stables and mountebank.

[WanderingWinder]

For all WW's support of KC, looking at his stats is even more telling than mine:

As in 'I dislike and misuse KC'? Yeah, I think it's stronger. That doesn't mean I use it better (though, there too...).

Gain KC 54.6% (!), winrate with is 1.10, winrate without is 1.34 (!) Sample size 551 games.

Yeah, so a) I don't gain it often enough. For a looooong time I've been playing BM virtually every game, which is just a mistake. And KC is bad in BM. Further, I'm worse at the engine games where I do buy KC than in average games. I'm also worse in Platinum and colony games. Check out my stats on those - doesn't mean they're bad cards. I also have a bit of a thing with KC, sorta like Amb, where I try to prove it's possible to play without it whenever I can.
Overall, it's sorta close. I think Goons is more often useful, KC usually more powerful, and I give KC a nose overall lead thereupon.

[petrie911]

I'm really surprised by the big gap between Lab and Stables.  Lab is better when there's trashing, and Stables is better when there isn't.  But they serve almost exactly the same purpose and both do it very well.  And obviously neither can compare with the awesomeness of Hunting Party.

[Fabian]

Well I mean, you certainly seem to have done well (77% wins) when ignoring King's Court and going straight BM or whatever in those ~250 games. Having a 193 - 57 record with BM vs lots of KC opponents speaks volumes imo. Those games where your winrate is 77% obviously doesn't have to do with misusing KC, too, since they're not in your deck.

The "more powerful" distinction, I feel like we did in some thread recently, didn't we?. King's Court is "more powerful" than Ambassador, Chapel, Silver, Festival, Goons, etc. It's not "better" than all those cards. The above is also true for Possession, which usually is close to the bottom on the Potion cards list. Making a list where you rank cards on power level seems really unfair for lists where cards have different costs; it's pretty clear to me we're after the "best" cards on this list, no? Otherwise Possession should be close to the top of any list, which it never is.

To sum up, Goons is much better than KC according to any reasonable'ish definition of "better" I can think of. If we're not after which card is "better", but something else, I guess I've misunderstood the purpose of these lists, as have the people who rank Possession (I think you're a pretty outspoken anti Possession guy too right?).

It was surprising to me you didn't change your mind about the card after seeing 193 - 57 record of yours. That's a lot of success from not bothering with a slow, but powerful, card (hi Possession!) imo.

[ackack]

To sum up, Goons is much better than KC according to any reasonable'ish definition of "better" I can think of.

Except, apparently, "more powerful."

I think most would agree that you want Goons in more decks than you want KC. However, often when you want KC it is a completely dominant card. The situations where a true Goons engine is possible (and thus dominant) are somewhat rarer.

[Fabian]

That's not a reasonable (or even reasonable'ish) definition. Didn't you read my post?

[jonts26]

I think when making the distinction between more powerful and 'better' one has to consider cost, which is really the point of making these separate lists. If ambassador is 'better' than KC, it's only because it's much cheaper. If KC cost 3, well...silly things would happen. So when comparing KC and Goons, we need to consider how much that $1 makes a difference. And I'd say, it's pretty small. Overall, I'd tend to agree that KC is #1 with Goons a very close second.

And if we still care about councilroom stats, my effect with/without KC is 1.68/0.20 with 77.4% gained. Simply put, that card can do silly things. And I know Goons can too, but not nearly as often.

[olneyce]

Just went and checked my rankings and I apparently put Grand Market first.  WTF was I thinking?  Yikes.

I also put Mountebank first, but now fully realize that Witch is better.  I think Apprentice is too low, as is Embassy.  Those are very powerful cards.  And I think Minion is somewhat overrated.  It's good but not THAT good.  Same goes with Margrave.

But put me on the side who thinks Goons goes ahead of King's Court.  KC is really really good, of course, but it's so expensive and pretty dependent on what else you have going on.  Goons is almost always good and usually the defining card on the board.

Adventurer is the worst card in the game, relative to price point.  And I don't think there's really any competition. 

[chwhite]

It was surprising to me you didn't change your mind about the card after seeing 193 - 57 record of yours. That's a lot of success from not bothering with a slow, but powerful, card (hi Possession!) imo.

King's Court isn't slow.  Certainly not anywhere in the same planet as Possession.

I'd expect WW to have bad stats with King's Court, since he tends to build the exact sort of decks that need a KC the least.  Arguing against the supremacy of KC using my stats is far more persuasive, since I'm mostly an engine builder (though even I'm not the most engine-y player out there).

[WanderingWinder]

Well I mean, you certainly seem to have done well (77% wins) when ignoring King's Court and going straight BM or whatever in those ~250 games. Having a 193 - 57 record with BM vs lots of KC opponents speaks volumes imo. Those games where your winrate is 77% obviously doesn't have to do with misusing KC, too, since they're not in your deck.

The "more powerful" distinction, I feel like we did in some thread recently, didn't we?. King's Court is "more powerful" than Ambassador, Chapel, Silver, Festival, Goons, etc. It's not "better" than all those cards. The above is also true for Possession, which usually is close to the bottom on the Potion cards list. Making a list where you rank cards on power level seems really unfair for lists where cards have different costs; it's pretty clear to me we're after the "best" cards on this list, no? Otherwise Possession should be close to the top of any list, which it never is.

To sum up, Goons is much better than KC according to any reasonable'ish definition of "better" I can think of. If we're not after which card is "better", but something else, I guess I've misunderstood the purpose of these lists, as have the people who rank Possession (I think you're a pretty outspoken anti Possession guy too right?).

It was surprising to me you didn't change your mind about the card after seeing 193 - 57 record of yours. That's a lot of success from not bothering with a slow, but powerful, card (hi Possession!) imo.

That's 67%, not 77%. And I think it's more telling of my style than of objective strength.
More recently, though, I'm sure the stats swing.
Anyway, interesting discussion. We're all agreed that it's between these two cards though, I assume? And can be disappointed when people have voted GM #1?

[WanderingWinder]

Adventurer is the worst card in the game, relative to price point.  And I don't think there's really any competition. 

Oh, I do. Transmute? Outpost? Thief? These are probably the worst three for me... and then adventurer.

[jonts26]

I agree on thief and transmute but not outpost by any stretch. It needs a good bit of help to be good, but when it is, it can be really good.

[Fabian]

King's Court is slower than most cards, wouldn't you agree? Maybe I should have put "relatively slow" or something, but which cards are slower in the game? Possession, Forge/Expand, Grand Market? Platinum I guess if that counts. Most cards certainly come online a lot quicker than KC, in any case. Most cards also have a less powerful effect, of course.

Again, WW doesn't have bad stats with KC, that's not the thing. WW has excellent stats WITHOUT KC. And he ignores it A LOT. You have pretty bad stats both with and without KC, which I agree is somewhat telling and interesting.

Well anyway, I think we've said most that can be said. WW just crushed me in a game with KC (though arguably Swindlering away my Witch was more important?), so maybe that's a fitting final word?

WW, uhm yeah, I fail at math. Awkward. And I think we all agree it's between Goons and KC, yeah.

[olneyce]

Adventurer is the worst card in the game, relative to price point.  And I don't think there's really any competition. 

Oh, I do. Transmute? Outpost? Thief? These are probably the worst three for me... and then adventurer.

I thought about Transmute.  Outpost, no way - it's usually bad but can be quite useful in a reasonable number of games.  Same with Thief, which also at least is much better once you go past two-person games.

This reminds me of the Warehouse/Cellar discussion, except that the card that's clearly better than Adventurer is...Gold, which is always available.  In order to make your Adventurer useful you almost have to trash your Coppers.  But if you're in a kingdom with easy trashing, then why in the world would you ever buy Adventurer? 

I would buy Adventurer in a curse-heavy game where I lost the curse race, and where I've already got a fair amount of good treasure in a very diluted deck.  That's about it.

[chwhite]

Adventurer is the worst card in the game, relative to price point.  And I don't think there's really any competition. 

Oh, I do. Transmute? Outpost? Thief? These are probably the worst three for me... and then adventurer.

I'd swap out Outpost for Philosopher's Stone, which I find worthwhile even less often than Transmute. Other than that I agree.

[Tables]

I'm not sure I agree with Witch > Mountebank, as some people are saying now. Okay, +2 cards is better than +$2 in general, except when your deck is going to be very low value, like... in cursing games for example. Well, even then it's still probably going to be pretty even. But even if +2 cards has the edge it's a small one. Then the cards actual effect. Mountebank hits harder. It can be blocked, but it's pretty unlikely until the opponent has about ~3 curses. I just don't think Witch's higher reliability makes up for that.

[kn1tt3r]

Okay, +2 cards is better than +$2 in general, except when your deck is going to be very low value

Why is that?

[Tables]

+2 cards>$2 because in general, your average card value is better than $1, you cycle a little, and if you have extra actions you might chain into more actions you can play. But if your deck is low in value, well, generally getting $2 now is going to help more. I'd expect.

[WanderingWinder]

I'm not sure I agree with Witch > Mountebank, as some people are saying now. Okay, +2 cards is better than +$2 in general, except when your deck is going to be very low value, like... in cursing games for example. Well, even then it's still probably going to be pretty even. But even if +2 cards has the edge it's a small one. Then the cards actual effect. Mountebank hits harder. It can be blocked, but it's pretty unlikely until the opponent has about ~3 curses. I just don't think Witch's higher reliability makes up for that.

Cards is still better than money here, the coppers are fairly irrelevant in the cursing game, and the huge huge huge effect is that the curses can be blocked by others. It's absolutely massive.

[toaster]

Yes, if you're talking about BM+Mountebank vs. BM+Witch (as simulators will back up)....but then, copper isn't nearly as damaging to a BM deck as it is to an action deck. 

I'd certainly agree with Mountebank > Witch in general myself.

[kn1tt3r]

+2 cards>$2 because in general, your average card value is better than $1, you cycle a little, and if you have extra actions you might chain into more actions you can play. But if your deck is low in value, well, generally getting $2 now is going to help more. I'd expect.

But in heavy cursing games your average card value might possibly be less than $1.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Um, vault strikes me as a pretty big overrate. Only really good in BM or a few choice situations (w/tactician, scrying pool), and for BM, most every other terminal card draw that costs at least $3 is better.... Actually, they're better for engines too. So vault strikes me as a pretty big overrate here.

Vault is actually really really good for BM, not because it's faster than other BM cards (though it is faster than most, particularly on a 5/2), but because it's better at forcing the game to be fast. A lot of times, you can beat these BM strats by building a sick engine while the BM player stalls out. With vault, that's much harder to do, because it doesn't really stall out. So I don't think it's massively overrated, though I do have it a few slots lower (16).

I have to admit I'm pretty sure I underrated governor when I ranked it. It's really quite a strong card, not always dominant, not without it's flaws, but quite good. Better than Lab.

This is kind of funny, because you argued in the other thread that it should be in the bottom 5 . Governor has grown on me a lot too. I now have it much higher than I did when I made my list, but not higher than it sits on the composite list right now.

I mostly don't agree with WW on which cards are too low or too high, but he's totally right about Lab.  I had it just above Stables, because it's useful in a wider variety (read: Treasure-light) of decks, but really the two are almost identical in power. 

I've made a couple of complaints about cards being too far ahead of similar cards(farming vs walled village, bazaar vs market), but I can understand lab and stables being reasonably far apart. They are not really the same power level. Stables is much worse, because even though it's similar in a lot of situations, it's worse in the kinds of decks where you most often want non-terminal draw -- trimmed engine decks. Sure stables may be better in decks with lots of money, but neither card is particularly good in these situations. That's not to say stables is a bad card, but it never really shines the way lab does.

Regarding the Witch vs Mountebank discussion:
Mountebank is better when there is a chance to trash your way into an engine despite the curses, because that's when the copper actually hurts. But Witch is better in basically all other curse situations, since it can't miss, and copper is not so bad. The situations in which Witch is better are far more plentiful. While Witch may be ignorable more often, it's not ignorable that often (certainly not TWICE as often as mountebank). So I'm in the Witch camp.

I also think the biggest miss in the top 16 (besides maybe the omission of Haggler) is that IGG is too low, which I'm sure is an artifact of the newness. I'm pretty sure it belongs at #3, behind only Witch and Mountebank. Sure it's ignorable more often than Wharf, but it's simply more game-warping.

[toaster]

Regarding KC vs Goons, I'd definitely place myself in the KC camp (edit - oops, typed that backwards at first).  The thing that turns Goons from being very good to being a major game changer is it's ability to stack for tons of victory point token.  Although a combined Militia/Woodcutter/Monument is a good card, when it's used for that effect it's not as much of a game changer.  I feel that although King's Court may be a good purchase a little less often, it's more likely to be a complete game changer with mega turns than is Goons.

Of course, an interesting caveat for me is that Goons is one of my best "effect without" cards...I purchase it about 70% of the time, and my with/without win rates are tied at 1.33.  My effect without though is a whopping 2.55.