Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?  (Read 18410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dingan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1154
  • Shuffle iT Username: Dingan
  • Respect: +1728
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2016, 02:43:49 pm »
+3

This then leads to the question:  can we turn Dominion into a more-popular spectator sport?

Note that we just might be able to do this really easily in the near future.

A 'spectator mode' that allows you to observe any game running on the server, if the players permit it. For entertainment value, or just to wait until your friend is finished playing a game and can play against you.
Logged

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2016, 02:45:09 pm »
+2


And Dominion is missing, I think, one key element:  there's just about zero incentive for a FLGS to sponsor a Dominion tournament, much less one every week.

My FLGS runs Friday Night Magic, like just about every other FLGS.  Assuming they get 24 people to show up, they take in $360 in entry fees, and "spend" 120 boosters on the draft itself and prizes.  They turn a small profit on the tournament itself.  You can't do that with Dominion.

The big reason to run an MTG tournament from a store's perspective is to sell product: constructed tournaments will always feature people buying singles last minute to complete sideboards or whatever (even watched someone crack packs for a solid 10 minutes trying to find an uncommon the store was out of). Stores don't even have to structure tournaments to be intrinsically profitable to be worth it (even though they will bitch and moan endlessly about how the tournament structure is killing them and refuse to acknowledge their true status as loss leaders). However, you can't endlessly sell Dominion products to tournament-goers; at best you might sell an expansion or three to someone who doesn't actually own the whole thing yet.
Logged

Watno

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Watno
  • Respect: +2982
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2016, 08:29:00 pm »
0

It's obvious why DOTA, for instance, or Starcraft, are a spectator sports: they have excitement similar to football, with accessibility similar to football.  Anyone can set up two goals and kick a football around on a nearby field, anyone can play DOTA or Starcraft.  In both cases becoming very good takes tons of practice, but only one requires running for 90 minutes.

It's less obvious why Chess, MTG, and Hearthstone are spectator sports.  Both have similar accessibility to football, but the excitement is all mental.  (Does chess actually count as a spectator sport?  There are large tournaments, there are heaps of cash on the line, but I've no idea who sponsors that cash.  We all know where the cash for MTG and HS come from.)  MTG, I think, was in this unique place in time, and picked up a huge amount of steam because it was unique.  HS, of course, has the weight of Blizzard behind it.

I don't think any of the games you mention are nearly as accessible as football. Like every 6 year old can understand the basics of football, while for all these other games, many, if not most adults would probably say they don't understand it.

(Also, football is way less exciting than any of these games, but I guess that's subjective)
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2016, 11:07:20 pm »
0

lately i've been thinking about how widely accepted variance is in eurogames, even at the most competitive levels, compared to the utter hatred for any of it it in competitive video games.  i'm sure a number of you are familiar with smash bros. tournaments banning items since they're highly random, and top players in any game get highly frustrated if a 2-out-of-3 set doesn't determine the better player.

i wonder if a major reason for this difference is the fact that IIRC there's no big competitive eurogame with serious money on the line.  i doubt i need to tell you about the prize pools for MOBAs and the like, and that adds an extra "gut punch" angle to losses that are out of your control.

it seems like in this world, luck elements are the only way designers have managed to prevent games from getting old after extensive play.  i suspect the obvious swinginess would limit people's desire to put up money for tournaments or even a first-to-10 against one opponent (a common type of "exhibition" in fighting games).  as my entire reason for learning these games is competition, it makes me wonder just how far even a game as great as Dominion can go in that regard...

I think Smash players' ire for items is more comparable to Dominion players' ire for Swindler.  Fighting games have inherent variance, because to some sort of extent there is rock paper scissors throwing and although the best players are making a lot of predictions, some of the throws go unpredicted and are caught randomly.  Items provide additional variance beyond what's already there.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2016, 12:26:28 am »
+1

it seems like in this world, luck elements are the only way designers have managed to prevent games from getting old after extensive play.

Well, there's Chess. And if you mean modern games, there are lots of abstracts in the same vein as Chess. There are non-abstracts with zero or low luck too. Kemet and Puerto Rico come to mind.

Puerto Rico has a small but significant amount of luck (plantation cards).

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

I know of that in Puerto Rico and often point it out to people who claim there's no luck at all, but people so often forget about it that I thought it wasn't especially significant.
Logged

arcee

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
  • Shuffle iT Username: rchandra
  • Respect: +56
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2016, 05:46:23 am »
+2

When you think Dominion (or any game) has too much luck to play for money, that just means you're playing for too much money.  Poker is a skill game and yet it's still completely stupid to put your entire life savings into a heads-up match even as the favourite.  Instead you wager small amounts and play a lot, against different people.  What does it matter if Donald X gets me with the lucky Black Market or whatever, I'll just keep making money on average from other people.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2016, 10:22:34 am »
0

it seems like in this world, luck elements are the only way designers have managed to prevent games from getting old after extensive play.

Well, there's Chess. And if you mean modern games, there are lots of abstracts in the same vein as Chess. There are non-abstracts with zero or low luck too. Kemet and Puerto Rico come to mind.
Puerto Rico has a small but significant amount of luck (plantation cards).

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

I know of that in Puerto Rico and often point it out to people who claim there's no luck at all, but people so often forget about it that I thought it wasn't especially significant.
Well, with a game like Puerto Rico, there is already luck in the setup. Often, being the guy with the same starting plantation as someone before you is detrimental because the market or ship spots are already taken.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2016, 10:34:12 am »
+1

it seems like in this world, luck elements are the only way designers have managed to prevent games from getting old after extensive play.

Well, there's Chess. And if you mean modern games, there are lots of abstracts in the same vein as Chess. There are non-abstracts with zero or low luck too. Kemet and Puerto Rico come to mind.
Puerto Rico has a small but significant amount of luck (plantation cards).

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

I know of that in Puerto Rico and often point it out to people who claim there's no luck at all, but people so often forget about it that I thought it wasn't especially significant.
Well, with a game like Puerto Rico, there is already luck in the setup. Often, being the guy with the same starting plantation as someone before you is detrimental because the market or ship spots are already taken.

In that case, Chess also has luck in the starting setup just by turn order. But if that's not considered low luck, I don't know what is.
Logged

pingpongsam

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1760
  • Shuffle iT Username: pingpongsam
  • Respect: +777
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2016, 10:57:19 am »
+3

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

You can say the same thing about Candyland.
Logged
You are the brashest scum player on f.ds.

ThetaSigma12

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1681
  • Shuffle iT Username: ThetaSigma12
  • Respect: +1809
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2016, 12:37:09 pm »
+1

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

You can say the same thing about Candyland.
Not true. Studies have shown that in evenly matched teams, red wins 20% more often. The player who gets red has an advantage.
Logged
My magnum opus collection of dominion fan cards is available here!

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #60 on: August 17, 2016, 12:56:23 pm »
0

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

You can say the same thing about Candyland.
Not true. Studies have shown that in evenly matched teams, red wins 20% more often. The player who gets red has an advantage.

I mean, I know sports teams win more often while wearing red, but I can't imagine that effect also happens with individual game pieces!
« Last Edit: August 17, 2016, 12:57:27 pm by Seprix »
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #61 on: August 17, 2016, 01:41:35 pm »
+4

Never mind, I just figured out the problem with my math.

An individual game of Dominion is 88% chance.

Without doing any research, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are completely and utterly wrong.

I'm pretty sure it's 90-93% chance.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

pingpongsam

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1760
  • Shuffle iT Username: pingpongsam
  • Respect: +777
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #62 on: August 18, 2016, 11:29:41 am »
0

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

You can say the same thing about Candyland.
Not true. Studies have shown that in evenly matched teams, red wins 20% more often. The player who gets red has an advantage.

You've clearly never played Candyland. There are no teams. It is a completely deterministic game that is determined simply by the order the cards appear when drawn. It's not really a game; it's just an obtuse way to discover card order relative to board spaces. The color of the meeple has zero bearing on the game as the cards nor the spaces ever reference that criteria.

After having typed all that I'm starting to believe you were responding to Kirian on Terra Mystica (which I know nothing of).
Logged
You are the brashest scum player on f.ds.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #63 on: August 18, 2016, 11:33:26 am »
+1

No, they are just referencing a scientific study that concluded Sports teams that wear red are more likely to win. It is a joke because there is no reason to think the study would apply to the color of your meeple in a board game.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/6097954/Why-teams-in-red-win-more.html

pingpongsam

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1760
  • Shuffle iT Username: pingpongsam
  • Respect: +777
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #64 on: August 18, 2016, 01:15:32 pm »
+1

Yeah, ok, that one went over my head entirely.
Logged
You are the brashest scum player on f.ds.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2016, 02:05:40 am »
0

Terra Mystica has zero luck after the initial setup, though.

You can say the same thing about Candyland.

You can say a lot of things about Candyland.  However, the endpoint of the game is not known after initial setup in TM, as it is in Candyland.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • Respect: +604
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2016, 10:24:03 am »
+3

Quote
However, the endpoint of the game is not known after initial setup in TM, as it is in Candyland.

Now there's a can of worms to open. The endpoint of Candyland may be predetermined, but it's not "known."

Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on a great many people who think that Rabble's discard effect is part of the attack, because, "Argh! You skipped my King's Court!" The same people who think Millstone is a denial card in Magic: "Look, I milled away your Jace! Millstone denied you that card!"

Nope. In both cases, shuffle luck denied those cards, not the deck-to-discard mechanism. Unless you somehow topdecked them intentionally before activating the Rabble/Millstone, then the position of KC/Jace has just as much chance to be on the top of the deck as the bottom, so the "denial" is simply moving random cards from one place to another. The card is predetermined, but random. The fact that the card is known in retrospect doesn't suddenly make it an actual denial attack, and it doesn't change the fact that what you moved was a random card, not a KC/Jace.

I'm going to have to start calling the top of the deck "Schrödinger's Card." It's almost as difficult a concept to explain.

P.S.: Rabble gets a very, very tiny asterisk: Even if all it does is skip three non-VP cards, not topdecking anything, it's still a statistically effective attack due to the fact that your remaining VP cards now have a higher percentage chance of being within your remaining deck speedbumping your next turn. But if everyone's trashed all of their Estates and is in a green-free engine-building phase of the game, at that moment Rabble's effect is actually helping opponents by cycling their decks even faster. Which is why I always cheer when anyone at the table plays Rabble and everyone else swears about the cards they're "losing."
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2016, 10:40:59 am »
0

It seemd to me you are confusing ex ante and ex post.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #68 on: August 19, 2016, 12:09:04 pm »
+1

Quote
However, the endpoint of the game is not known after initial setup in TM, as it is in Candyland.

Now there's a can of worms to open. The endpoint of Candyland may be predetermined, but it's not "known."

Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on a great many people who think that Rabble's discard effect is part of the attack, because, "Argh! You skipped my King's Court!" The same people who think Millstone is a denial card in Magic: "Look, I milled away your Jace! Millstone denied you that card!"

Nope. In both cases, shuffle luck denied those cards, not the deck-to-discard mechanism. Unless you somehow topdecked them intentionally before activating the Rabble/Millstone, then the position of KC/Jace has just as much chance to be on the top of the deck as the bottom, so the "denial" is simply moving random cards from one place to another. The card is predetermined, but random. The fact that the card is known in retrospect doesn't suddenly make it an actual denial attack, and it doesn't change the fact that what you moved was a random card, not a KC/Jace.

I'm going to have to start calling the top of the deck "Schrödinger's Card." It's almost as difficult a concept to explain.

P.S.: Rabble gets a very, very tiny asterisk: Even if all it does is skip three non-VP cards, not topdecking anything, it's still a statistically effective attack due to the fact that your remaining VP cards now have a higher percentage chance of being within your remaining deck speedbumping your next turn. But if everyone's trashed all of their Estates and is in a green-free engine-building phase of the game, at that moment Rabble's effect is actually helping opponents by cycling their decks even faster. Which is why I always cheer when anyone at the table plays Rabble and everyone else swears about the cards they're "losing."

But Rabble's attack is precisely the part where it discards the cards. If you reveal three Estates, it doesn't do literally anything. Millstone is different though because it discards all the cards so it's actually just random.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2016, 12:13:05 pm »
+1

I'm not sure you can say "the discard is the attack" or "the topdeck is the attack".

It's both.  The effect, as a whole, increases the green density of your remaining deck.  THAT'S the attack, and to do it requires both the discard part and the topdeck part.
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • Respect: +604
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #70 on: August 19, 2016, 01:49:02 pm »
0

Quote
I'm not sure you can say "the discard is the attack" or "the topdeck is the attack". It's both.  The effect, as a whole, increases the green density of your remaining deck.  THAT'S the attack, and to do it requires both the discard part and the topdeck part.
...
Rabble's attack is precisely the part where it discards the cards. If you reveal three Estates, it doesn't do literally anything.

Correct, and correct. That's exactly the point I make in my postscript.

Quote
It seemd to me you are confusing ex ante and ex post.

To be clear, that's not my mistake, that's the mistake made by people I have played with who lament the "lost" or "skipped" cards that Rabble turns up, even in a scenario in which the Estates are already gone and all players are in pure building phase. In that scenario, Rabble is similar to Millstone, except that in a vacuum, milling cards in Dominion helps players by cycling their deck more quickly.

The ex-ante analysis tells you that Rabble, in a game with no VP cards in decks, is a benefit to the "attacked" player, as stated above. If Rabble mills a desirable card, an ex-post analysis of that one play tells you that Rabble harmed the "attacked" player.

However, ex-post analysis is only useful if applied statistically across a large sample of actual events, and it would have to take into account times when it skipped cards you didn't want to draw in favor of ones you did want to draw. In the absence of VP cards, all randomized cards are equal in the eyes of Rabble, which means that an ex-post analysis with a large enough sample size would come out in favor of the attacked player, since the subsequently drawn post-attack cards would be more likely to contain shuffled-in cards purchased in the previous turn due to increased cycling.

In other words, anyone who has ever said anything like "Argh! Rabble skipped my Grand Market!" and factored that into their thought process about how good an attack Rabble is is working from a fundamental misunderstanding. Counting the hits is one of the oldest statistical fallacies in the book and leads to all kinds of unfortunate belief systems.

I sometimes ask them to imagine that Rabble took the top three cards, shuffled them without looking, and placed them at the bottom of the deck. Would that be an effective attack, or is that just changing the order of already-randomized cards? Does it change just because you looked at them first?

There have been a number of discussions about this phenomenon before. What's especially interesting is that early cycling is so beneficial that there is some argument that Rabbling early, even with three Estates in the deck, is still beneficial to the attacked player in the long run. Anyone remember where that thread is? When Rabble really starts hurting is during the greening process, and when engines can play multiples per turn so that attacked players end up with a stack of three green cards on top almost every turn.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #71 on: August 19, 2016, 02:14:28 pm »
0

I'm not sure you can say "the discard is the attack" or "the topdeck is the attack".

It's both.  The effect, as a whole, increases the green density of your remaining deck.  THAT'S the attack, and to do it requires both the discard part and the topdeck part.

But you're topdecking cards that were already on the top of your deck. That's not really an effect at all.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Morghas

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2016, 11:54:02 pm »
0

Back to the idea of money and Dominion.

I would be curious to try and implement a poker style betting in rounds to Dominion. Say its $1 to play then you can bet again after x hands, if everyone in still in keep playing and bet again after x hands. Thus players who get beaten by a 5/2 split or something can bow down and 'fold' their decks early on. You would probably want about 3 rounds of betting, one round before the game starts but after seeing the board, another not too deep into the game maybe turn 4 or 5 then another around turn 12, then play it out.

I am more than happy playing for no money but I would definitely sign up to something like this...

Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?
« Reply #73 on: August 25, 2016, 08:32:20 am »
+1

I once proposed a doubling cube: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4966.msg118599#msg118599

You can introduce bluffing by letting players check or bet before each hand, so you can pretend you're holding KC-KC-Bridge(x3) and bet a bunch of $.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All
 

Page created in 0.111 seconds with 20 queries.