Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All

Author Topic: Qvist Rankings and Empires  (Read 15787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3118
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2016, 11:58:03 am »
+2

I guess I forgot to mention this earlier, but split piles need to be ranked together. Simply because, you will never see one without the other, and that affects the strength of the card immensely. Rocks is objectively bad without Catapult. It would be at the bottom of any $4 list, yet you'll probably gain it more often than Scout since you basically have to have a Catapult if you're buying Rocks. Emporium is a cute Peddler variant, with the opportunity cost of having had to gain like five Patricians, and that also needs to be a factor. The synergy is fundamental to how these cards work. They will never be in a vacuum so it doesn't make sense to treat them as such.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

SuperHans

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 120
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2016, 12:01:58 pm »
+12

I guess I forgot to mention this earlier, but split piles need to be ranked together. Simply because, you will never see one without the other, and that affects the strength of the card immensely. Rocks is objectively bad without Catapult. It would be at the bottom of any $4 list, yet you'll probably gain it more often than Scout since you basically have to have a Catapult if you're buying Rocks. Emporium is a cute Peddler variant, with the opportunity cost of having had to gain like five Patricians, and that also needs to be a factor. The synergy is fundamental to how these cards work. They will never be in a vacuum so it doesn't make sense to treat them as such.
I still think split piles can be ranked separately. The ranking of rocks should be understood with the context that catapults are available.
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1145
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1764
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2016, 12:07:28 pm »
0

I think ranking the cards by cost has always been a bit suspect, and now that there's debt, that makes it even less relevant. I suspect the original reason for that ranking system was to give players a sense of what cards they should usually look for first when they have an $X hand. Being able to identify the power level of cards in a kingdom is one step in evaluating what strategy to play. But it's a vanishingly small part of planning.

My suggestion would be a card database that lists a power level for the cards, from 1-10, with decimals (since it would be an average from a voting process.) That power level takes the cost into account. Expand would be one of the biggest power cards in Dominion at $3. It costs $7 for a reason. Chapel would be really marginal at $6 (I'd rather have a Count at that point.) The cost shouldn't be considered a separate thing from the rank.

The card database could be sorted, high/low or low/high, could be sorted by cost if that's what you're into, or even by set. There could also be checkboxes for card types and for card categories (draw, +actions, sifters, trashers, junkers, etc.) This starts seeming like a useful tool. It's not quite as useful as the Magic card database, which is set up much the same way, because you're not building decks from a collection, but still, a helpful study guide.

I realize that this might cause issues like Smithy having a higher power ranking than Nobles because of its cost. You usually wouldn't buy Smithy on $6 with Nobles in the kingdom (I said "usually" to avoid edge-case posts. I can think of a dozen.) But look at it this way: When you look at a kingdom with Smithy and Nobles on the board, the Smithy should jump out at you more than the Nobles, because it tells an important story about how quickly players are going to be drawing bunches of cards.

And that's really what it comes down to. When you look at a kingdom, which cards/events/landmarks should jump out at you as "pay-extra-attention-to-me" items due to their power level. Yes, sometimes there are a lot of different strategies in a kingdom and you should look for synergies and subtlety, and sometimes there are Goons.

This is only tangentially related, but I really wish we had a tier thing going on.
Like, you open "let's discuss"-like threads for each card to discuss where to put them. We have a good time, we discuss, we argue, strong feelings, a bit of lightearthed drama, yay.
Then if somebody is not satisfied with Forge being in the B tier they may open threads to motion for a change in tier, and we have more discussion, more arguments, more strong feelings, more drama, more yay.

The tiers could look something like:
S: You extremely rarely don't want to make use of this, and when you win without using this you want to post a thread in the Games Report.
A: Kingdom definer - This thing shapes the kingdom around itself
B: Solid - This thing enables other stuff, counters other stuff, you may or may not want it but you must carefully consider its viability
C: Mediocre - It has its moments, but it's unwieldy, not impactful or just eclypsed by better things in its cathegory (if its cathegory is common enough that competition is common)
D: Depressing - Hardly ever worth pursuing. The kind of card that you risk not noticing when you look at a Kingdom.

With plus and minuses as appropriate.
Logged

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2563
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4291
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2016, 12:14:16 pm »
+4

I think ranking the cards by cost has always been a bit suspect, and now that there's debt, that makes it even less relevant. I suspect the original reason for that ranking system was to give players a sense of what cards they should usually look for first when they have an $X hand. Being able to identify the power level of cards in a kingdom is one step in evaluating what strategy to play. But it's a vanishingly small part of planning.

My suggestion would be a card database that lists a power level for the cards, from 1-10, with decimals (since it would be an average from a voting process.) That power level takes the cost into account. Expand would be one of the biggest power cards in Dominion at $3. It costs $7 for a reason. Chapel would be really marginal at $6 (I'd rather have a Count at that point.) The cost shouldn't be considered a separate thing from the rank.

The card database could be sorted, high/low or low/high, could be sorted by cost if that's what you're into, or even by set. There could also be checkboxes for card types and for card categories (draw, +actions, sifters, trashers, junkers, etc.) This starts seeming like a useful tool. It's not quite as useful as the Magic card database, which is set up much the same way, because you're not building decks from a collection, but still, a helpful study guide.

I realize that this might cause issues like Smithy having a higher power ranking than Nobles because of its cost. You usually wouldn't buy Smithy on $6 with Nobles in the kingdom (I said "usually" to avoid edge-case posts. I can think of a dozen.) But look at it this way: When you look at a kingdom with Smithy and Nobles on the board, the Smithy should jump out at you more than the Nobles, because it tells an important story about how quickly players are going to be drawing bunches of cards.

And that's really what it comes down to. When you look at a kingdom, which cards/events/landmarks should jump out at you as "pay-extra-attention-to-me" items due to their power level. Yes, sometimes there are a lot of different strategies in a kingdom and you should look for synergies and subtlety, and sometimes there are Goons.

This is only tangentially related, but I really wish we had a tier thing going on.
Like, you open "let's discuss"-like threads for each card to discuss where to put them. We have a good time, we discuss, we argue, strong feelings, a bit of lightearthed drama, yay.
Then if somebody is not satisfied with Forge being in the B tier they may open threads to motion for a change in tier, and we have more discussion, more arguments, more strong feelings, more drama, more yay.

The tiers could look something like:
S: You extremely rarely don't want to make use of this, and when you win without using this you want to post a thread in the Games Report.
A: Kingdom definer - This thing shapes the kingdom around itself
B: Solid - This thing enables other stuff, counters other stuff, you may or may not want it but you must carefully consider its viability
C: Mediocre - It has its moments, but it's unwieldy, not impactful or just eclypsed by better things in its cathegory (if its cathegory is common enough that competition is common)
D: Depressing - Hardly ever worth pursuing. The kind of card that you risk not noticing when you look at a Kingdom.

With plus and minuses as appropriate.


I use a system like this in my personal ranking spreadsheet (yeah I have problems). Mine are:
5 - Centralizing cards that typically dictate the strategy on a kingdom (Cultist, Rebuild)
4 - Cards you almost never pass up but don't typically dictate the strategy (Hunting Party)
3 - Cards that are generally good options in most kingdoms (Village, Smithy)
2 - Cards that have key uses and don't get bought all the time (Baron)
1 - Cards that actively hurt your deck unless you have a plan (Thief, Rats)

The thing about my system is that you have cases like Thief vs Rats where Rats is clearly a better card, but I still stick it in the same tier because the system is about general use, not strict power. I don't think there is a perfect system that speaks to everything, personally, and when you add in aggregate scores from multiple people it gets even messier. If people are interested I could share my list, but I've already accounted for Empires, so I'll probably have to keep that off so you don't get hot playstester strategy tips. (lol)
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1682
  • Respect: +1145
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2016, 12:15:05 pm »
0

[...]
It's not even the separation by cost that I think is the problem; it's the fact that it's impossible (in my opinion) to separate (for example) Mountebank, Cultist, and Rebuild.  They're all power level 100.  Others would likely disagree, and they'd end up in a ranking, but I wouldn't have to find some way of ranking them relative to each other.
In that case you would almost need to assume an A vs B vs C scenario. While it's not entirely realistic, it would give an indication of the strength of those cards relative to each other with zero support.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8030
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +9283
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2016, 12:19:56 pm »
+1

I sternly object to switching to a point-based "rating" system or tier list. I like things the way they are, and I find it useful to have things ranked by cost. Harrumph.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7058
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9287
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2016, 12:46:38 pm »
+1

I sternly object to switching to a point-based "rating" system or tier list. I like things the way they are, and I find it useful to have things ranked by cost. Harrumph.

Well, until someone takes the time to do it, I don't think you'll need to worry! :)
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
  • Respect: +596
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2016, 01:14:49 pm »
+2

Separate quote/replies:

Quote
I sternly object to switching to a point-based "rating" system or tier list. I like things the way they are, and I find it useful to have things ranked by cost.

That's the point of the database. It could be filtered by cost, so you could tell it to show you, for example, all of the $5 cards, at which point they would be sorted by power level, and therefore ranked.

Quote
I think ratings from 0-100 (with a single decimal in the averages) would be nicer because of its granularity. It's not even the separation by cost that I think is the problem; it's the fact that it's impossible (in my opinion) to separate (for example) Mountebank, Cultist, and Rebuild.  They're all power level 100.

That's part of why I suggested it. A rating vs. a ranking system is superior not just for this reason, but because comparing cards isn't just about if one is better than the other, but how much better can matter. #4 and #5 on the list could be rated 95 and 87, or 95 and 94 (although the likely bell-curve-shaped distribution of ratings is likely to be pretty smooth with a large population like the domain of Dominion cards.)
Logged

Ankenaut

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
  • Respect: +123
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2016, 01:47:41 pm »
0

I like the idea of power rankings. In the absence of a nice web-based database, just throw it into a table on the wiki and include costs as a column. Then they should be sortable by cost or power ranking. 

My preference is a 10 point scale with 2 decimal points.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2016, 03:41:18 pm »
+1

The problem with grouping by cost is the cards have a literal cost different from its actual cost. For example, yesterday I played a game with Encampment/Plunder. The literal cost of Plunder is $5. The actual cost never dropped below buying/gaining 3-5 Encampments + the literal cost of Plunder.

If you're going by literal cost, then I'd just convert debt to coin cost. Playing debt off after buying the card is similar to saving up coin tokens before buying a card.
Logged

Voltaire

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 957
  • flavor text
  • Respect: +1093
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2016, 05:46:02 pm »
0

I think tiers make more sense (and then you can rank within tiers if you want, which is a diluted "all cards" ranking that maintains the best of both worlds). Tiers, like that thread where everything was ranked A, B, C, D that I can't find right now.
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1682
  • Respect: +1145
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2016, 06:27:34 pm »
0

Is there a way to set up a table with all the cards and a  vote-up/down option? I'm guessing something in Google Docs might be possible?
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

Willvon

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2016, 07:47:22 pm »
0

Because you are going to have to pay for it with coins, I feel that debt cards should be ranked according to their cost in debt with the other cards that have that same value in coins.

As far as split piles are concerned, I believe like Chris Is Me that they have to be considered together because that is the only way they will be in a game.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6922
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9511
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2016, 08:50:38 pm »
+5

As far as split piles are concerned, I believe like Chris Is Me that they have to be considered together because that is the only way they will be in a game.

They do have to be considered together. They 100% do not need to be ranked together.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2016, 01:03:57 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +839
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2016, 12:56:45 pm »
0

Now that you put this idea into my head, I'd also like a tier list comparing all of the cards (not Events and Landmarks, though) by their objective power relative to their cost. I'm not sure whether it should be points- or categories-based but it would make sense to comprise all cards in a single list, then. Similar to the Hearthstone tier list which is mainly used for Arena but is generally a very useful indicator and guideline for a card's power level. Of course, the ultimate card value changes with regards to the other Kingdom cards, your deck composition and other factors, like Shelters and Events.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2563
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4291
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2016, 01:01:57 pm »
0

Now that you put this idea into my head, I'd also like a tier list comparing all of the cards (not Events and Landmarks, though) by their objective power relative to their cost. I'm not sure whether it should be points- or categories-based but it would make sense to comprise all cards in a single list, then. Similar to the Hearthstone tier list which is mainly used for Arena but is generally a very useful indicator and guideline for a card's power level. Of course, the ultimate card value changes with regards to the other Kingdom cards, your deck composition and other factors, like Shelters and Events.

Categories are really tricky. You have cards like steward, which is a good trasher and weak terminal draw, but wouldn't be as good without both powers.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +839
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2016, 01:05:17 pm »
0

Now that you put this idea into my head, I'd also like a tier list comparing all of the cards (not Events and Landmarks, though) by their objective power relative to their cost. I'm not sure whether it should be points- or categories-based but it would make sense to comprise all cards in a single list, then. Similar to the Hearthstone tier list which is mainly used for Arena but is generally a very useful indicator and guideline for a card's power level. Of course, the ultimate card value changes with regards to the other Kingdom cards, your deck composition and other factors, like Shelters and Events.

Categories are really tricky. You have cards like steward, which is a good trasher and weak terminal draw, but wouldn't be as good without both powers.

Maybe category was the wrong term. I meant something like JSH suggested, basically 4 to 6 tiers in which cards can be ranked. But a number system (from 1 to 100) would be nice as well.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5451
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3393
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2016, 08:45:34 pm »
0

...

I agree with this post. I agree with it so much, that I am willing to make my own rating list and do the work. Yes, it will take absolutely forever, but whatever. I will probably do this once Empires has seen a lot more playing time. Possibly this Fall. Who knows. I might ask for volunteers to help count up certain cards each as well, so I won't spend an entire weekend. I might also consider having some of the top players in Dominion have weighted scores, so that their opinion is worth more, but that might not be fair.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 08:46:55 pm by Seprix »
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2016, 04:25:26 pm »
0

I think of splits cards as pretty similar to Travellers and Hermits and Urchins for this purpose. If we didn't rank Mercenary as its own card, I wouldn't rank Rocks as its own card. After all, if you ranked Rocks without considering it as specifically part of a Catapult engine, it would be terrible.
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

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2405
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2016, 07:55:44 pm »
+3

Okay, but Fortune is very much it's own card, so is Emporium. Also, urchin and travellers upgrade themselves. Split piles do not. You are literally gaining or buying cards every step of the way which is very different from upgrading.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 08:15:22 pm by Beyond Awesome »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6922
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9511
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2016, 08:01:53 pm »
+6

Rocks can absolutely be ranked on its own, it's just that you take into account that Catapult is always available in games with Rocks. It's like how you always take into account that Gold is available when you rank Cache (or any other card).

You can absolutely gain Rocks without having gained any Catapults. You cannot (edge cases aside) gain Page/Peasant upgrades, Madman, or Mercenary without buying their respective Kingdom cards.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2016, 10:26:35 am »
0

Fair enough, those are both persuasive arguments.
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

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10662
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11154
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2016, 11:09:34 am »
+9

I bet Donald X's creative process always starts with "how to screw up Qvist's lists this time?".
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's albums for free

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5451
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3393
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2016, 11:20:06 am »
+2

I bet Donald X's creative process always starts with "how to screw up Qvist's lists this time?".

"I think I'll make a card cost that changes every turn with the roll of a die. Try putting that in a ranking! Hahahaha!" -Donald X. Villain
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8030
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +9283
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2016, 08:45:53 pm »
0

I just realized - the power ranking of the top cards of split piles has to include the bottom card, not just because of potential synergy, but because you can't get the bottom card until the top card is gone.  This will make you want to buy more Gladiators than you might in a game with a pile of 10 Gladiators and a pile of 10 Fortunes, simply because you want to access the Fortunes, not because Gladiator has any particular synergy with Fortune.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All
 

Page created in 0.128 seconds with 21 queries.