Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control  (Read 3320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hilbert90

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2016, 01:57:58 pm »
0

Eh. I think people are thinking that only "pure" deck concepts exist.

My general argument is that the correspondence should go something like:

Attack ~ removal
Engine ~ tempo
Slowing the opponent ~ control

In Magic, having removal in a tempo deck doesn't make it control. It's just not an argument against what I'm saying to point out that it's smart to put attacks into an engine if it works. It's smart to have removal in a tempo deck as well. There's a continuum here, just like in other card games. You'll almost never have a pure deck of one sort or another.

In theory, one could make a pure lab engine, and this would be some sort of pure tempo deck. In theory, one could make a pure slog deck with lots of attacks to slow the opponent down and this may be a pure control deck. In practice, you'll probably never do this, but I guess I still have no idea what the counterargument is.
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1403
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1257
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2016, 02:13:15 pm »
+2

I think you're using engines differently than the usual definition (in dominion). Playing 10 Labs and then money is not an engine, it's just garbage you've wasted your time with.

I don't know if you're familiar with the term "payload", but if your engines don't have payload, they're not worth building. Payload can be a lots of stuff, most notably attacks, gainers or VP. It's an essential part of the engine, this is why I think you're analogy is a bit misled.

The easiest example of this is a kingdom of smithy and village: You'll never buy a village in that kingdom, ever. Add a Militia to the kingdom and it's very likely that you do.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

DG

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3784
  • Respect: +2257
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2016, 03:05:46 pm »
0

Attack ~ removal
Engine ~ tempo
Slowing the opponent ~ control

So where does the Dominion concept of trashing fit into this? If it doesn't fit in, should your model change to accommodate it?
Logged

hilbert90

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2016, 03:33:10 pm »
0

Huh. I'm not sure you've pointed out why my analogy is misled. My correlation of engine ~ tempo doesn't exclude payload, and I'm not sure why you're thinking it does. I said this several times in the last post even giving the example that in practice a tempo deck in Magic will always have some removal just like an engine will have attacks if they work. I haven't even mentioned other types of payload.

I'll reiterate that there obviously isn't some perfect correspondence, because the game form is fundamentally different. My classification has to do with the goals of the deck, and you're bringing up what looks like tangential things. The goal of tempo is to draw the deck. It can have many, many other things going on including VP, attacks, etc. The goal of control is to slow the opponent. It could draw the deck or it might transition to big money or slog. I think this is a useful distinction that correlates well to the traditional card game terminology.

So where does the Dominion concept of trashing fit into this? If it doesn't fit in, should your model change to accommodate it?

Trashing is a tool that can fit into many deck types, so I'm not sure it has to correspond to anything. I guess you could ask: how do Instants or Combat Tricks fit into deck archetypes in Magic, and the answer would be: they're useful in every type.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2071
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2250
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2016, 04:25:47 pm »
+1

Quote
Trashing is a tool that can fit into many deck types, so I'm not sure it has to correspond to anything. I guess you could ask: how do Instants or Combat Tricks fit into deck archetypes in Magic, and the answer would be: they're useful in every type.

While very few decks are worse off for trashing, and most get some benefit from it, trashing is of far, far, far more benefit to the engine archetype than any other type of deck. It's not even close.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

DG

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3784
  • Respect: +2257
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2016, 04:51:29 pm »
0

Trashing is a tool that can fit into many deck types, so I'm not sure it has to correspond to anything.

Anything can fit into many deck types so theoretically anything can correspond to anything else. My point was that trashing doesn't provide removal, tempo, or control by your terms, does it?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2016, 04:52:53 pm by DG »
Logged

hilbert90

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2016, 06:30:02 pm »
0

Anything can fit into many deck types so theoretically anything can correspond to anything else.

I mean, I pointed out in my response why that isn't true. I'm not sure why you would write this. Should Magic theorists say: instants can fit into many deck types so theoretically there are no deck types? I don't understand what point you're even trying to make with such a statement.

My point was that trashing doesn't provide removal, tempo, or control by your terms, does it?

And? As far as I'm aware trashing isn't a deck archetype. It's not like removal, tempo, and control describe every single card or archetype or strategy in Magic, and even if it did, not everything should be expected to have a corresponding part in Dominion.
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5115
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • Weed Whackers Will Return
  • Respect: +2591
    • View Profile
    • My Dominion Blog
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2016, 06:39:00 pm »
+2

Attack ~ removal
Engine ~ tempo
Slowing the opponent ~ control

Very incorrect.

Control is the ability to end the game while ahead. This manifests itself in the form of +buys, gains and alt-VP options (primarily VP chips).

Removal doesn't really exist in Dominion, and even silly things like trashing attacks aren't really 'Removal' in the typical sense.

Tempo is being built up to win faster than your opponent, through either simply employing a Rush strategy to beat the Engine or by building up in a more efficient way, using things like gains, trashing and more efficient buying. Deck shuffle luck also plays into Tempo.

All in all, this is a somewhat poor way to think about Dominion, but it can be done. Dominion is not like most typical TCGs with the mechanics, and it is better to have a unique system of thinking for every different game, even if they are similar in most cases.
Logged

hilbert90

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2016, 07:51:01 pm »
0

Control is the ability to end the game while ahead.

?

Where did you get this? That's not the standard concept of control. The term literally comes from a deck whose purpose is to control the opponents cards and progression. +buys, gains, and alt-VP all affect your own deck and does nothing to control your opponents. It forces your opponent to keep pace, which is why I called this "tempo." Now giving your opponent junk or making them discard controls their cards, i.e. "control."

...even silly things like trashing attacks aren't really 'Removal' in the typical sense.

There's no persistent board in Dominion to remove from. But you buy cards in order to play them. If you then force the opponent to discard, you've removed that card from their ability to play. This is probably the most clear correspondence of any from classical TCGs.

Tempo is being built up to win faster than your opponent ...

I don't know what it means to win slower than your opponent. This definition is meaningless in a game where the definition of winning is tied to speed. You've basically said "Tempo is winning." Also, any rush strategy that aims to go faster than an engine is more of an aggro strategy.

All in all, this is a somewhat poor way to think about Dominion ... it is better to have a unique system of thinking for every different game ...

I agree, and have tried to point this out in every reply. It just seemed some people were into this concept based on the original responses to the OP. I thought there was room to add in tempo decks instead of classifying that one big idea as a control deck. I kind of didn't expect this much pushback on something that was supposed to be very loose correspondences anyway.
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5115
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • Weed Whackers Will Return
  • Respect: +2591
    • View Profile
    • My Dominion Blog
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2016, 08:50:09 pm »
0

Control is the ability to end the game while ahead.

?

Where did you get this? That's not the standard concept of control. The term literally comes from a deck whose purpose is to control the opponents cards and progression. +buys, gains, and alt-VP all affect your own deck and does nothing to control your opponents. It forces your opponent to keep pace, which is why I called this "tempo." Now giving your opponent junk or making them discard controls their cards, i.e. "control."

Again, thinking in the TCG sense is not a great way of approaching Dominion. They are both fundamentally different things. I object to using TCG definitions because they're simply confusing. Control is messing up the opponents deck, which makes no sense for Dominion. You'd logically think control is controlling your own thing, right? It may make sense for the TCG end, but not so for Dominion.

I'm not even sure your definition is correct, either. I pulled a quote from Hearthstone wiki for a Control deck, and maybe it's different for say MTG, I don't know.


A control deck, also known as a late game deck, is a deck that attempts to attain victory in the late game, through a combination of early game removal and Taunts, and powerful cards in the later rounds of the game. These decks focus on controlling the early game in order to survive through to the later rounds, where they can use a string of powerful spells, or a steady flow of larger minions to overwhelm the opponent. -Hearthstone Wiki


Yes, it controls the opponent, but it's a subset of the general idea of controlling the outcome of the game, i.e. control of one's deck as well. I see no real objection to calling what I called 'control', because there isn't really a 'removal' type in Dominion in the first place.

Quote
...even silly things like trashing attacks aren't really 'Removal' in the typical sense.

There's no persistent board in Dominion to remove from. But you buy cards in order to play them. If you then force the opponent to discard, you've removed that card from their ability to play. This is probably the most clear correspondence of any from classical TCGs.

1. You make it harder to play all the cards they want. This is not removing them from the game.
2. Opponents will discard their worst cards, not lose their best ones.

Again, arguing this is going to be kind of moot anyways, Dominion and Hearthstone are two completely different games. You say it's a bad idea to compare the two later on, but then you do it anyways? Why?

Quote
Tempo is being built up to win faster than your opponent ...

I don't know what it means to win slower than your opponent. This definition is meaningless in a game where the definition of winning is tied to speed. You've basically said "Tempo is winning." Also, any rush strategy that aims to go faster than an engine is more of an aggro strategy.

You don't win slower than your opponent. That is why Tempo is important! Tempo is simply time. If you win before your opponent, you won faster than they did. It's not like your opponent didn't want to win! He was just slower at it. So yes, tempo is winning in a sense. I like more accurate definitions though, so if you have a better one, I'd love to hear it. I readily admit my definition is sloppy.

To win, you want to get to point A faster. And then point B. And then C, all the way to Z.

Quote
All in all, this is a somewhat poor way to think about Dominion ... it is better to have a unique system of thinking for every different game ...

I agree, and have tried to point this out in every reply. It just seemed some people were into this concept based on the original responses to the OP. I thought there was room to add in tempo decks instead of classifying that one big idea as a control deck. I kind of didn't expect this much pushback on something that was supposed to be very loose correspondences anyway.

Fair enough.  :D I don't mean to be this obnoxious person, I apologize. It's not universally agreed on with all of the terminology and how to think of Dominion, so there's a lot of heated debate about even simple things like 'control' and even 'engines'. It seems to be somewhat of a (insert some name that I forgot, I think it was Hilbert) Problem where sometimes reality won't ever 100% match a given definition. Another example is art. Art is very hard to define because anybody can make an exception for basically anything.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2016, 08:55:27 pm by Seprix »
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5115
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • Weed Whackers Will Return
  • Respect: +2591
    • View Profile
    • My Dominion Blog
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2016, 09:05:55 pm »
+1

I'll reiterate that there obviously isn't some perfect correspondence, because the game form is fundamentally different. My classification has to do with the goals of the deck, and you're bringing up what looks like tangential things. The goal of tempo is to draw the deck. It can have many, many other things going on including VP, attacks, etc. The goal of control is to slow the opponent. It could draw the deck or it might transition to big money or slog. I think this is a useful distinction that correlates well to the traditional card game terminology.

Reading this, it seems you're saying the same things we're saying, but with different names. The one I would contest is Control, but everything else I object to is basically because I'm not used to the term compared to what I've traditionally used. Anyways, I am sorry again for seeming a bit prudish.  :P
Logged

DG

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3784
  • Respect: +2257
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2016, 11:17:02 pm »
+2

Where did you get this? That's not the standard concept of control.

It is a valid concept of control for Dominion. If you put four curses into your opponents deck is it actually meaningful control if your opponent can buy three more curses to end the game for a win? Is it meaningful to control your opponent with curses if they have enough control of their deck to trash them all each turn?

I hope you're not finding this welcome to the Dominion boards unfriendly, but why are you trying to tell Dominion players that their terminology is wrong and that MtG strategies work better in Dominion than Dominion strategies do?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2016, 11:18:28 pm by DG »
Logged

hilbert90

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2016, 08:47:28 am »
0

I hope you're not finding this welcome to the Dominion boards unfriendly, but why are you trying to tell Dominion players that their terminology is wrong and that MtG strategies work better in Dominion than Dominion strategies do?

I hope I'm not talking about Dominion strategy at all. There are good ways and bad ways to play every deck archetype, and I've refrained from commenting on any actual implementation. I think the only time I said terminology was wrong was in reference to the TCG definition of control.

The original post was about the concept of control from MtG being imported to a Dominion deck archetype. I saw room to try to also tease out the concept of tempo, because it seemed like messing with your opponent's deck and hand was a fundamentally different goal from getting your own deck to work as fast as possible. (And again, before an argument breaks out, there is a continuum, they aren't mutually exclusive).
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +1905
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2016, 11:40:14 am »
0

It forces your opponent to keep pace, which is why I called this "tempo."

I don't know why, if you have this definition, you would conclude that engines specifically are tempo decks. Anything you do in Dominion should force your opponent to keep pace. Maybe there is an argument for attacks working differently (though in my opinion "keeping pace", i.e. winning the Curse split, is highly important for junkers). But any non-attacking deck is a tempo deck by your definition.
Logged
Wins: M30, M36, M41, M53, M55, M63, M66, M71, M74, M75, M77, RMM11, RMM12, RMM14, RMM16, RMM18, RMM23, NMV, M31, M42, M56, M65, RMM20, RMM24, RMM28, M61, RMM22
Losses: NM4, M33, M35, M37, M38, M45, M46, M60, M68, M69, M82, RMM13, RMM21, RMM26, M43, M51, M58, M72, M83, RMM15, RMM33

MVPs: M41, M53, M63, M65, M66, RMM20, RMM24, RMM28
Win percentage: 56.3 (27/48)
Modded games: M40, M50, M59, M69, M79, RMM19, RMM25, RMM30

Most people are complete idiots.

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +760
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2016, 11:50:49 am »
+1

In those quasi-solitaire deck, a bad shuffle can also be pretty devastating, without interaction.

Imagine the kingdom has a key $3 and a key $5 (village/Journeyman and everything else sucks monkeyballs to give a random illustration).

Well, having 2 $4 hands is way, way worse than a $3 and a $5 and almost equally likely.

That's also why I like dominion more when there are kingdoms with useful cards in every price range. It limits bad shuffles a bit.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9100
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +8890
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Strategy: The Art of Control
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2016, 01:48:02 am »
0

What you're doing superficially shouldn't really affect your definition of a strategy, because it's strategically irrelevant. One of the most important aspects of both control decks in MTG and engine decks in Dominion is that most of the time, your opponent is the "beatdown". That's why the comparison kind of makes sense (although slog would be a more accurate equivalent in that sense). Tempo decks in MTG, however, tend to be the beatdown quite often.
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.109 seconds with 21 queries.