Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]  All

Author Topic: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.  (Read 37556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ThetaSigma12

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1512
  • Shuffle iT Username: ThetaSigma12
  • Respect: +1566
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #500 on: April 25, 2018, 07:22:39 pm »
+1

Banquet/Triumph
It was my opponent who found the interaction, unfortunately...
But it only works if you have +buy.

True, but at least one source of +Buy is common enough in most games.
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

crj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 673
  • Respect: +787
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #501 on: April 25, 2018, 07:28:00 pm »
+1

You also for some reason assume
1) That everyone buys and plays Jester, which is an odd assumption given your claim that Jester is not particularly strong
Not so.

"You for some reason assume √2=a/b where a/b is in its lowest terms, which is an odd assumption given your claim √2 is irrational."
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
  • Respect: +599
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #502 on: April 25, 2018, 08:43:21 pm »
0

You also for some reason assume
1) That everyone buys and plays Jester, which is an odd assumption given your claim that Jester is not particularly strong
Not so.

"You for some reason assume √2=a/b where a/b is in its lowest terms, which is an odd assumption given your claim √2 is irrational."
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.  He would need to demonstrate that jester is a bad buy before anyone else has bought it to show its a bad buy. Otherwise the card effect might be mediocre when played in that circumstance but the card itself is still strong enough to force players to play it

Your “proof by contradiction” link is completely unhelpful here because the relevant analogous proof only shows that multiple jesters when bought by everyone a 3p are not as strong as a solitary jester in 3p
Logged

crj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 673
  • Respect: +787
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #503 on: April 25, 2018, 09:49:51 pm »
0

You're confused.

Imagine this card: "Bandwagon, Victory, cost $0. When you buy this, +1 Buy and set it aside until the end of the game. Worth 1,000,000VP if you are the only person to have a Bandwagon, 0VP otherwise."

Is that a good card? No, it is not. Even though it would be an excellent card if you had it and nobody else did.

If a card is good, people will buy it.

If a card is good provided you're the only person to have one, other people will still buy it. Unless, of course, there's some alternative counter to it which is cheaper and/or more effective, in which case you're down on the deal rather than just breaking even.

Against strong players, the only circumstance in which you'll be the only person to buy the card is if you're wrong about how good it is.
Logged

teamlyle

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
  • Shuffle iT Username: La-Ya
  • Ah... German Hello?
  • Respect: +254
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #504 on: April 25, 2018, 09:56:18 pm »
+14

Imagine this card: "Bandwagon, Victory, cost $0. When you buy this, +1 Buy and set it aside until the end of the game. Worth 1,000,000VP if you are the only person to have a Bandwagon, 0VP otherwise."

Turn 1: buy all the Bandwagons.

Logged
"In your face." -Jacob
"Ooh. You just got burned." -Jack
"First place again, disciple!" -Ruikai
"Ugh... 399 cursors. Time to hack!" -Ben
"You gotta do your homework, dude!" -Yul
"Come on man, let the plat play." -The Plat
"It's nice to have a good 'in your face' every once in a while." -Jacob
"OBJECTION!!! The witness is being SUPER gross." -Phoenix Wright
"Milord, Inquisitor Fey sentences that burger to my stomach!" -Maya Fey
"Dude, I only had 4 cups of coffee this morning so I'm gonna crash." -Swi
"Okay, okay. My team name is: Team Lyle: the Advancing Armadillo." -Lyle
"I’m sorry Cedric, we just have to do what we have to do to get me to be a op." -Paul
"Well, I prefer loyal people. I don’t want anyone to be a La-Ya except for me." -La-Ya
"I don't play Monkey vs. Monkey. I'm too busy in pacifist mode, watching my buildings survive and thrive!" -Joshua
Lyle's mom: Are you guys going to play regular Dominion, or are you going to play cheat?
Lyle: Of course we're playing Cheat Dominion!

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
  • Respect: +599
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #505 on: April 25, 2018, 10:37:53 pm »
0


~~~
Against strong players, the only circumstance in which you'll be the only person to buy the card is if you're wrong about how good it is.

1) This argument has no relation to your reducto ad absurdium link, just want to point out that this is a quick shift of subject. The argument here is that the tempo loss of buying it first before your opponent is a negative, thus you shouldn't buy it. This is different than the card having a bad effect.

2) There is no effort whatsoever to describe or argue that the first player actually suffers a tempo loss

Here's an equally stupid analogy for Jester:

"First-Movers Advantage: Victory, cost $0. Main text: -5 VP Subtext When you are the first player to buy this, +5VP. Worth 1,000,000VP if your opponent does not buy this his next turn"

Using the original logic: "This card sucks for both players! Once both have bought it, player 1 and 2 have useless cards in their decks for no benefit! Therefore this card is weak and shouldn't be bought"

The reality: There is no tempo less and a concrete advantage for player 1, so its a "strong" card and player 1 will extremely frequently buy it.



The original reducto ad absurdium does not differentiate between your Bandwagon and my First-Mover's advantage.
Logged

samath

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 160
  • Shuffle iT Username: SamE
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #506 on: April 25, 2018, 10:44:18 pm »
+6

Against strong players, the only circumstance in which you'll be the only person to buy the card is if you're wrong about how good it is.
In some games I've watched recently, the feature that separates good players from the best (we're talking a distinction around level 60-62) actually seems to be the best players' willingness to use typically neglected cards to full advantage. For instance, I distinctly remember a game where Dan Brooks opened Trade Route when there was other trashing in the game (Goat) and that turned out to be the key difference in their strategies.

On top of that, I've also watched slightly lower-level games (levels 55-60) where a powerful card is just totally neglected by one or both players. Sometimes this is simply because someone decides to green too early (and then run into inevitable consistency difficulties and have to go back to building), and sometimes it's because they miss some important interaction, like Necromancer-Tragic Hero.

So no, I wouldn't say that being the only one to buy a card means that you're wrong about its power level, even when you're playing good opponents. Often it means exactly the reverse.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #507 on: April 26, 2018, 05:08:42 am »
0

The reality: There is no tempo less and a concrete advantage for player 1, so its a "strong" card and player 1 will extremely frequently buy it.
Sure. But she buys it because the card is a conditional junker, because junking is very strong and rarely can be ignored. She does not buy it because the card is a particularly good gainer. You sometimes get something good but cannot control it which is a big issue if you want to build an engine (and if you want to gain Treasures a simple Squire might be superior).
Of course the gaining is not irrelevant, it implies that the card always does something useful whereas other junkers decrease in power once the junking pool is empty (or if you take another conditional Junker, Swindler, it sometimes does nothing like when it hits a Gold and there are no other 6s in the Kingdom). But if I want to build e.g. a draw engine in a Kingdom in which terminal draw is available at $4 Workshop does the trick, not Jester.


Quote
Your “proof by contradiction” link is completely unhelpful here because the relevant analogous proof only shows that multiple jesters when bought by everyone a 3p are not as strong as a solitary jester in 3p.
Huh? If a card is good it should also be good if everybody has it in his deck. Ironically I think that Jester is better in first scenario as it will be more oftee a junk festival than if two players played the same Kingdom.
The only thing I disagree with is that Jester is a good gainer.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
  • Respect: +599
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #508 on: April 26, 2018, 05:37:43 am »
0

For the "we were talking about when it was a gainer" part, I just fundamentally think you're not even considering the possibility that multiple people trash down, create an engine, and then add jester as payload to that engine to feed off their multiple opponents engines. This is really not that unfathomable and it feels like you're only describing some Jester-BM game without trashing.

Huh? If a card is good it should also be good if everybody has it in his deck.

I keep seeing this sentiment and it's simply not  necessarily true. There are two assumptions being made which are false:

1) A card is good only if it comes into play in mirroring strategies.
2) A card is only influential in a game if it is bought.

Like Awaclus loves to say, Dominion is a reactive game, not a solitaire. I'll do a hopefully helpful proof of concept example. Nitpicks about how these strategies are suboptimal aren't going to be relevant.

Suppose there are two competing strategies in a 2-player game:

A) A Scrying Pool engine populated with cantrips, and
B) Council Room BM.

Furthermore, suppose Diplomat and Fool's Gold are on the board.
If player 1 goes for strategy B, player 2 will follow. Diplomat is useless.

For Fool's Gold, it's (hypothetically) calculated that Fool's Gold is only worth it if you can win the split 7-3. If you win the split 6-4 because your opponent delayed contesting FG's to instead buy more normal coins, he will win.  Since your opponent can always move later and contest the split 6-4, neither player decided to go fools gold and the game is a standard, boring, Council Room BM game.


If player 1 goes for strategy A, and player 2 goes for normal council room BM, player 1 will eventually create an engine that can end on its own terms and win.

BUT if player 1 goes for strategy A, player 2 can opt to

1) Buy Diplomats and use them as +actions to play two Council Rooms a turn, and
2) Go Fool's Gold, as contesting the Fool's Gold in a Scrying Pool engine would be ruinous so he can easily get the requisite 7.

And in doing so would get Double Province turns and rush to end the game too quickly for player 1.


The default equilibrium of this kingdom is both players playing Council Room BM. But Fool's Gold and Diplomat are still "Strong" cards that are relevant to the gameplay of the kingdom, despite not being bought and being bad to buy in a mirror match.

Logged

Holunder9

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #509 on: April 26, 2018, 07:22:18 am »
0

You just proved my point via pointing out that in this Kingdom Diplomat is not a good card. You cannot claim that a card is good if player A has it but becomes bad when player B also buys it because that would be a partial analysis that ignored player interaction. Then the card simply isn't good in the first place, like Diplomat in your example.
Of course this is usually more complex as there are also timing issues; Witch is better the earlier you get it but fairly useless once the Curses are out. Which leads us back to Jester, a conditional junker that you also want to get early. What I don't get is that you ignore this aspect of Jester and oscillate between claiming that everybody getting a Jester in a 3P game is bad (which I disagree with, forsaking junkers would be bad, not getting them) and then saying the opposite:

For the "we were talking about when it was a gainer" part, I just fundamentally think you're not even considering the possibility that multiple people trash down, create an engine, and then add jester as payload to that engine to feed off their multiple opponents engines. This is really not that unfathomable and it feels like you're only describing some Jester-BM game without trashing.
That happens but I think that it occurs less frequently in multiplayer than in 2P games for the above mentioned reasons and because engine feasibility decreases with increasing player count. You ever got a decent engine running in a 4P game?
And it surely doesn't make Jester a better gainer than non-random gainers like Altar or Artisan which you can actually use to build an engine. Jester has a vanilla bonus for a good reason.
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1949
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2702
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #510 on: April 26, 2018, 08:36:09 am »
0

You just proved my point via pointing out that in this Kingdom Diplomat is not a good card. You cannot claim that a card is good if player A has it but becomes bad when player B also buys it because that would be a partial analysis that ignored player interaction. Then the card simply isn't good in the first place, like Diplomat in your example.
This is a slightly silly point because the implication seems to be that a deck that consists of only Possessions and Villages is not a good deck. (since, if both players have it, you cannot do anything!)

The best actual strength test (I think) is to play a cage match of 2 equally skilled players where one player may not gain the card in question, and see how it affects winrate. Obviously if one player was not allowed to go for Diplomat in the example given, then it would be good for their opponent to build the Scrying Pool deck and win, so Diplomat would affect the winrate and thus be strong (even if given normal game rules it won't be bought).
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Holunder9

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #511 on: April 26, 2018, 12:42:38 pm »
0

A deck that contains only Possessions and Villages will never dynamically arise in practice so this example is mildly ludicrous. O made the right analysis, search for the optimal play for both players or the equilibrium in game theory lingo. Of course if one player does play badly a card that is bad under optimal play can become good again. Doesn't mean though that it is generally ex ante good (which is what we are talking about, not about whether a card is tactically good in particular situations) in Kingdom XYZ though.

If White opens 1. f4 in Chess d5 is probably the best move and not e6. But if Black responds e6 and White then blunders mate via g4 e6 doesn't retroactively become a good move for Black. Black just got lucky with his suboptimal play because White massively blundered.
Logged

traces Around

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 253
  • Shuffle iT Username: tracer
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #512 on: April 26, 2018, 12:48:31 pm »
+8

A deck that contains only Possessions and Villages will never dynamically arise in practice so this example is mildly ludicrous.

You have no idea how much I wish that this was true.

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5401
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3339
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #513 on: April 27, 2018, 12:27:25 am »
+3

Seems f.ds can't purge the ghost of Tristan no matter how hard it tries
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

Chase Adolphson

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chase Adolphson
  • I love dominion!
  • Respect: +121
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #514 on: April 27, 2018, 01:00:50 am »
0

Seems f.ds can't purge the ghost of Tristan no matter how hard it tries


That's a good thing we don't have Tristan's ghost.
Logged
I'm glad to be talking with people that like dominion as well.

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1001
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #515 on: April 27, 2018, 11:44:01 am »
0

I'm pretty sure that if you look deeply enough, 1.f4 e6 and 1.f4 d5 are both draws with best play.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3586
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2164
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #516 on: April 27, 2018, 02:07:38 pm »
+4

Against strong players, the only circumstance in which you'll be the only person to buy the card is if you're wrong about how good it is.
In some games I've watched recently, the feature that separates good players from the best (we're talking a distinction around level 60-62) actually seems to be the best players' willingness to use typically neglected cards to full advantage. For instance, I distinctly remember a game where Dan Brooks opened Trade Route when there was other trashing in the game (Goat) and that turned out to be the key difference in their strategies.


As an aside, people really need to get into the habit of getting other trashers even when Goat is around, or conversely not ignoring junkers because Goat is around. The Goat trashing helps you send your other trasher more often and you get thin sooner, while junking a player while Goat is around makes them get thin later than you do.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +539
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #517 on: April 28, 2018, 12:14:33 am »
+9

Donate + Outpost
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet. Donate tells you to discard everything and draw 5 cards, so if you play Outpost before you buy it you'll start your Outpost turn with 5 cards.
Logged

Chase Adolphson

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chase Adolphson
  • I love dominion!
  • Respect: +121
    • View Profile
Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.
« Reply #518 on: April 28, 2018, 01:37:45 am »
0

Donate + Outpost
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet. Donate tells you to discard everything and draw 5 cards, so if you play Outpost before you buy it you'll start your Outpost turn with 5 cards.


I should do that sometime.
Logged
I'm glad to be talking with people that like dominion as well.

Holunder9

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
+2

Beggar - Monastery
Gain Coppers, buy a $5, trash Coppers, be happy about a terminal Gold that only cost 2.
Logged

weesh

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
  • MOAR MAGPIES
  • Respect: +337
    • View Profile
0

Beggar - Monastery

Oh yeah, that reminds me of the Beggar - Pooka game I had a while back!

I was fueling 3 pookas with the beggar, and it was glorious.
My opponent admitted that he's seen the combo, but didn't think he could get such a terminal heavy strategy to work, so had picked a more conservative strategy and ended up getting stomped.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 06:46:30 pm by weesh »
Logged

Tombolo

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 439
  • Respect: +439
    • View Profile
0

I don't know how often it'd work out, but I'm in a terminal-heavy bot game where I ran out of Arena points right about the same time I got access to Bustling Village
Logged
We’ve had a hard day at work, we’ve been looking forward to our Dominion, how can you expect us to play anything else, you ogre.

William Howard Taft

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +80
    • View Profile
0

My opponents hate playing with Rats but I love them to the point of irrationality. I usually waste extra buys on Copper to keep them from eating my deck but on a board where my opponents went for a moneyish strategy I double-embargoed the Province pile right away. It slowed them down and provided free rat food on a board without extra buys.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +539
    • View Profile
+3

My opponents hate playing with Rats but I love them to the point of irrationality. I usually waste extra buys on Copper to keep them from eating my deck but on a board where my opponents went for a moneyish strategy I double-embargoed the Province pile right away. It slowed them down and provided free rat food on a board without extra buys.

Was this supposed to go in Dominion Confessions?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]  All
 

Page created in 0.28 seconds with 20 queries.