Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types  (Read 3037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« Reply #75 on: September 19, 2017, 03:09:28 pm »
0

(well, rushes and slogs are super rare anyway)

I'd been thinking about this lately and wondering whether this was true, since I almost never play these anymore and didn't know if I should be doing them more. The last time I thought a straight workshop/gardens rush was going to be competitive I tried it and lost to some candlestick maker/pathfinding engine I hadn't noticed.

Well, it's pretty much true. The engine is usually just better. There are still things like the Beggar/Gardens slog, Lurker/Hunting Grounds rush and Rebuild rushes that are fairly strong but those aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all strategies on their respective boards either.
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 new 2017 album for free

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« Reply #76 on: September 19, 2017, 03:44:21 pm »
0

without as many criticisms of "combo." Maybe you need to keep it in the "beyond the five types" part, but does it need to be in the intro, too?

Well, it wasn't in the intro originally, but I put it there due to feedback from trivialknot. So I would say that it doesn't need to be in the intro, but I don't know which way is better.
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 new 2017 album for free

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« Reply #77 on: September 19, 2017, 03:57:55 pm »
0

-Consider obstacle #6 ("You don’t always draw cards in the order you would like") in a kingdom with village and smithy.  Like with most card synergies, village/smithy synergize only when drawn in the right order.
-Big Money's solution is to avoid too many villages/smithies, so cards are good in any order.
-Engine's solution is to get lots of villages/smithies so they can be paired easily, especially since pairing them draws you more cards.
-Here, the "hybrid" strategy is to get some villages/smithies, but not enough to pair them easily.  And this just fails to address obstacle #6.

I just outright copied a lot of that into the article, I hope you don't mind.
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 new 2017 album for free

trivialknot

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 444
  • Respect: +619
    • View Profile
Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2017, 04:06:06 pm »
0

-Consider obstacle #6 ("You don’t always draw cards in the order you would like") in a kingdom with village and smithy.  Like with most card synergies, village/smithy synergize only when drawn in the right order.
-Big Money's solution is to avoid too many villages/smithies, so cards are good in any order.
-Engine's solution is to get lots of villages/smithies so they can be paired easily, especially since pairing them draws you more cards.
-Here, the "hybrid" strategy is to get some villages/smithies, but not enough to pair them easily.  And this just fails to address obstacle #6.

I just outright copied a lot of that into the article, I hope you don't mind.
That's fine.

without as many criticisms of "combo." Maybe you need to keep it in the "beyond the five types" part, but does it need to be in the intro, too?
Well, it wasn't in the intro originally, but I put it there due to feedback from trivialknot. So I would say that it doesn't need to be in the intro, but I don't know which way is better.
Yeah who knows.  I'm just trying to make helpful suggestions because I like the article, but obviously some of my advice may be bad or focusing on the wrong things.

FWIW I don't recall ever arguing with Awaclus when I was a newbie.
Logged

FemurLemur

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
  • Shuffle iT Username: FemurLemur
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types
« Reply #79 on: September 19, 2017, 05:40:13 pm »
+3

If you're getting mad about arguments on the internet, just stop arguing. Sure the other guy might get the last word, but it's better for your mental health.
I could've swore that's what I tried. Twice. And a lot of good it's doing, given how Faust is mocking me now as well.

If you don't want to engage in pedantic debate, don't do it.
With all due respect, I did want to have a pedantic debate, and I said as much when replying to Trivialknot. That never changed. What I did not want was to be condescended to by somebody with absolutely zero social skills. My responses- up until Awaclus posted Replies #32 and #33- were far more polite than anything he has said to me this entire time. After those two replies, I'd had enough of him returning my genuine interest, genuine compliments, and genuine attempts to find common ground with insults and stubborn dismissiveness. Even then, I still tried to focus more on de-escalating far more than I thought he deserved, on the off chance that I'm not as right about my assessment of him as I think I am (see Reply #58). Out of curiosity, how many times have you ever seen Awaclus:
  • apologize for anything?
  • admit to an error?
  • display the self-awareness to say that it's conceivable that he has misjudged something?
  • try to find common ground with another user?
  • disagree with/debate a user for a prolonged period of time without calling their ideas "useless" or some other such dismissive or disrespectful term?
Not just in this thread, but in all of his years on here. Has he ever been polite or courteous in any way?

You couldn't be more right when you say that the meta-debate was pointless. But I really don't see how you could read the entire thread and walk away from it reducing the source of my frustration to Awaclus being pedantic.

PS incidentally there is a blacklist feature on the site.  http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore
Thank you. I happened to look at the "help" page before asking about the Blacklist, and found a description of the Ignore feature. At the time, it sounded to me like it only prevents people from emailing or direct messaging. Is that what it is, or did I misunderstand and it actually does block? If it's the latter then that's all I need.

When I read this topic, as an independent observer, I see a person who is known for getting into pedantic debates...
I see a user who is acting extremely divisively, a group of users who have complained that they feel he is almost always this divisive, and a moderator who understandably would prefer not to moderate in response to that complaint (but who I feel should). It's your site, I don't have any right to tell you how to run it. I just feel that if you try to sweep those complaints under the rug to avoid the discomfort that addressing it would bring, then that's an honest shame, because you're probably driving away more new users than you realize just to avoid an awkward conversation with one existing user.

Don't some of the comments here about Awaclus bother you as the moderator? Not just because they're off-topic and have caused a frustrating amount of drama (both of which I admit are true), but because they speak to an underlying sense of tension and source of dissatisfaction among f.ds users? People are basically telling me that the best way to enjoy the site is to more or less pretend Awaclus doesn't exist. I don't think one even has to agree with those comments to find that concerning. Whether your interpretation is that Awaclus is impossible to get along with, or you think that Awaclus is unfairly judged by others, it's a red flag regardless.

What exactly is an offense worth confronting here? Is it just being off-topic? If, from here on, I am always on-topic 100%, do I get to be a dick without repercussion and ruin others' experience too? I don't think anybody is asking for you to bring down the ban hammer. Don't you think there could be some benefit in asking an unlikable user to please try to be more likable?
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Respect: +1686
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #80 on: September 19, 2017, 05:40:44 pm »
+1

I like the direction the re-write is taking and the new title of the thread.

I like the idea of a stratgey being a particular solution to obstacles.

  • Your starting deck consists of crappy cards
  • The main source of VP comes from putting crappy cards into your deck
  • You only get 5 cards and 1 buy every turn
  • You can only play one Action card every turn
  • When you buy a card, it takes a while before you even get to use it at all
  • You don’t always draw cards in the order you would like
  • In order to win, you need to be able to end the game by emptying the Provinces, Colonies or any three piles while you’re ahead

The obstacles are a combination of explicit rules (#3 and #4), immediate consequences of the rules (#5, #6, and #7), and immediate implications about the cards once you understand the goal and rules of the game (#1 and #2).

When I teach Dominion to someone, I go through an example hand. Once the realization that "There is no way to afford a Province unless I do something about it" clicks, then we are golden and ready for a real game. So basically, I like this list of obstacles because if a person doesn't understand them, they basically can't play a game of Dominion.

Regarding Attacks: I am not sure that Attacks add entirely new obstacles so much as modify the existing ones. For example, junking attacks modify #1 to "Your deck consists of crappy cards". Sure, every game you start with crappy cards, but some games that's not the extent of the crap; it just keeps coming. Discard attacks modify #3. Militia, for example, "You only get 3 cards and 1 buy a turn". And so on.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #81 on: September 19, 2017, 05:57:29 pm »
0

Regarding Attacks: I am not sure that Attacks add entirely new obstacles so much as modify the existing ones. For example, junking attacks modify #1 to "Your deck consists of crappy cards". Sure, every game you start with crappy cards, but some games that's not the extent of the crap; it just keeps coming. Discard attacks modify #3. Militia, for example, "You only get 3 cards and 1 buy a turn". And so on.

That's true for those attacks, but Enchantress, for instance, does something unique. I didn't want to write a novel about attacks, so I thought that this covers all the cases sufficiently.
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 new 2017 album for free

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Respect: +1686
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #82 on: September 19, 2017, 06:14:48 pm »
0

Regarding Attacks: I am not sure that Attacks add entirely new obstacles so much as modify the existing ones. For example, junking attacks modify #1 to "Your deck consists of crappy cards". Sure, every game you start with crappy cards, but some games that's not the extent of the crap; it just keeps coming. Discard attacks modify #3. Militia, for example, "You only get 3 cards and 1 buy a turn". And so on.

That's true for those attacks, but Enchantress, for instance, does something unique. I didn't want to write a novel about attacks, so I thought that this covers all the cases sufficiently.

Sort of? But not really. I just don't agree that Attacks should be thought of as completely orthogonal to the existing 7 obstacles. 

Enchantress makes the first Action you play a temporarily crappy card, "adding" a crappy card to your deck. Again, a modification of 1, "Your deck consists of crappy cards". But this time it's only temporary. The tougher example for me to think about is attacking trashers like Knights and Noble Brigand. They simply remove good cards (theoretically) from your deck. But that leaves crappier cards for you to deal with, so again, "Your deck consists of crappy cards" could still apply as an obstacle.

Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #83 on: September 19, 2017, 07:54:58 pm »
+1

Way back in 2011 there was an article (written by Donald) titled "Your Guide To Beating Attacks". Maybe it's time for an update, and it could be written also as a follow-up to this one by showing how the types of attack relate to the obstacles (and occasionally don't).
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Respect: +1686
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #84 on: September 20, 2017, 08:11:53 am »
+2

The main point of your article seems to be this: a strategy should be defined by its answers to overcoming the seven obstacles, not the composition of the deck, and all deck compositions that answer the questions in the same way are in fact the same strategy. But 1) to make this reversal in the “conclusion” that is halfway through the article, you have to assume the common compositional definition of a deck type and everyone has to be on the same page, and 2) you fail to follow through on your new definition in the second half of the article. I will try to make these criticisms clear below.

Your Hermit/Market Square example is a really good example because everyone is clear about what you are talking about. It's a very explicitly defined deck and build order and you link to an article that describes it, so anyone who does not know what you are talking about can get on the same page before reading about its solutions to the obstacles. Great, we know how to build a Hermit/Market Square deck, and now we know that we can think of its definition as not the build order laid out in the linked article, but instead as the solution to overcoming the seven obstacles.

The "Big money (also known as good stuff)" example is actually a pretty terrible example even after the edits. It seems like you are talking about something a lot more ill-defined than the Hermit/Market Square example. The example fails to provide the same cathartic reversal as the Hermit/Market Square example because you do not get us on the same page for the position from which you want to reverse. Then you try to generalize other deck compositions as “big money” based on the answers to the seven obstacles and the disconnect increases because we weren’t on the same page to start.

How exactly do I play a "Big money (also known as good stuff)" strategy mechanically? What’s the composition of the deck? What’s the build order? Not based on your definition, but based on the definition you are trying to refute: the before-the-reversal, composition-based definition.

If it's so simple, why am I (and many others) so confused every time you talk about "Big money (also known as good stuff)" or really any other “strategy”?

Much better would be if you first used Big Money Ultimate (only basic treasure and basic victory cards) as the example. To be really specific, maybe pick a bot in this thread. Then, after the conclusion, in part 2, generalize. Make the point that how BMU overcomes the seven obstacles applies to other deck compositions, as well, for example, a deck that buys only Mystics. Because they have the same answers, they are the same strategy.

But even this is not obvious. If my answer to #4 for BMU would have been “The high-quality cards you add to your deck are all Basic Treasures”, rather than what you wrote, then the Mystic deck would not be the same strategy as BMU. So you have to impose some kind of generalization in the answers to group deck compositions into strategies. How general can you go while still being useful? It's not obvious.

In Part 2, you NEED to define big money, engine, slog, and rush in the context of the seven obstacles. What exactly are you thinking? I have no clue based on your article and responses to comments in the thread. (Well, maybe more for engine because you endorse faust’s post.) Because answering the seven obstacles at the right level of generalization is not trivial, you cannot leave it to the reader as an exercise. You need to do the work to lay them all out yourself because clearly people do not agree with you.

Even more confusingly, in part 2, you define a new deck type (stockpile) by deck composition rather than in your new way: the answers to the seven articles. In fact, you never outline its solutions to the seven obstacles at all. Further, in the comments you go back and forth between deck composition definitions and seven obstacles definitions as it suits you which is very confusing.

I think it’s important that you are very explicit about laying out all of these definitions for big money, rush, slog, combo, and engine in the article because I really do not understand your distinctions and I do not agree with your characterization of WW’s articles on the deck types. I think if you are more clear, there would be less confusion.

For example, you say:

the concept of there being a continuum between big money and engine with all sorts of strategies with different numbers of moving parts in between was invented by you and I never heard of it before today.

But Wandering Winder says:

Basically, [big money] gets the bulk of its income from treasures bigger than copper, so silver, gold, platinum, fool’s gold, venture, etc. It also doesn’t cycle particularly quickly.

and
 
Quote
there are a number of different types of Big Money deck… Terminal Draw… Terminal Non-Draw… Engine Hybrid… Treasure Flood

Under Engine Hybrid:

Quote
Also, you will sometimes add a little nonterminal draw to the terminal non-draw money deck, and this can maintain a money feel. Do both, and you are creeping into engine territory. A weak dividing line is how often you will pass up gold for a cheaper component, though this isn’t foolproof.

and

Of course, every deck is different, and every particular kingdom is different. And there aren’t necessarily big bright dividing lines between all five deck types – indeed, I think every type fits fairly nicely ‘between’ two others, and at some point, the two can bleed into each other.

So it is incorrect of you to say you have never heard of the concept of a continuum between big money and engine. It’s right in the WW articles you supposedly agree with and are expanding upon.

---

In short, I agree very much with
I think this is a useful article, but I think the title puts the focus in the wrong place. In my opinion, the valuable insight here is thinking about the "obstacles" and the need to determine a strategy that can address each one.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7835
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8873
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #85 on: September 20, 2017, 08:25:53 am »
+1

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but Awaclus continually saying "address the 7 obstacles" sounds like he's starting a cult
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/

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7835
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8873
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #86 on: September 20, 2017, 08:31:57 am »
+1

Okay, now I'm actually reading the OP. From my personal understanding, adding a bunch of cantrips to a deck is definitely not a Big Money deck. The "7 obstacles" (seriously, is there a less "8-fold path" way to say this?) are valuable to think about, but the terms for the deck archetypes are so firmly entrenched in Dominion strategy now that you're not going to be able to easily redefine them. A Big Money deck uses 1-3 terminal Actions and Treasures and buys at best 1 Province per turn. That's it, end of story. You can't put ninety bajillion Actions into a deck and call it "Big Money". For a pedant, this should bother you a lot more than it currently seems to be.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 08:33:22 am by werothegreat »
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/

aku_chi

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
  • Shuffle iT Username: aku chi
  • Respect: +793
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #87 on: September 20, 2017, 09:01:05 am »
+2

Okay, now I'm actually reading the OP. From my personal understanding, adding a bunch of cantrips to a deck is definitely not a Big Money deck. The "7 obstacles" (seriously, is there a less "8-fold path" way to say this?) are valuable to think about, but the terms for the deck archetypes are so firmly entrenched in Dominion strategy now that you're not going to be able to easily redefine them. A Big Money deck uses 1-3 terminal Actions and Treasures and buys at best 1 Province per turn. That's it, end of story. You can't put ninety bajillion Actions into a deck and call it "Big Money". For a pedant, this should bother you a lot more than it currently seems to be.

If you're playing a moneyish strategy, and your terminal actions are non-drawing (or Gear), you should absolutely consider adding non-terminal actions to the deck.  Magpie, Baker, Ironmonger, Junk Dealer, Haven, and Secret Passage are clear examples of non-terminal actions that can improve a moneyish strategy.  This is not an exhaustive list.  Terminal draw is rarely the best form of money strategies nowadays.  See this great post by funkdoc on the matter.  I believe you and Awaclus agree that "Big Money" decks generally aim to buy 1 Province per turn and care about average card quality over total deck quality.  I think there's something to be gained from Awaclus's focus on classifying strategies on how they overcome obstacles as opposed to superficial characteristics like the number of actions played/gained.  I think we can all agree that the name "Big Money" is misleading under Awaclus's framework, though I understand why Awaclus would be reluctant to create a new name.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7835
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8873
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #88 on: September 20, 2017, 09:09:00 am »
+2

I think we can all agree that the name "Big Money" is misleading under Awaclus's framework, though I understand why Awaclus would be reluctant to create a new name.

Well he has the name there already: "good stuff".  Re funkdoc's post: while I can see Navigator-BM as a BM deck (and it comes as a surprise to me that it would beat Smithy-BM, will have to try that), surely Baker-"BM" (with some trashing) is a good stuff deck.  I'm not saying there aren't decks that run cantrips and only try to buy 1 Province per turn - what I'm saying is that it's misleading to call them "Big Money", even if they may have similar ways to overcome the obstacle mantra.  It's especially misleading for a newer player who may not have quite grasped fully the true difference between terminals and non-terminals, and just keeps shoving more Mines and Workshops into their deck.
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/

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #89 on: September 20, 2017, 09:58:25 am »
0

How general can you go while still being useful? It's not obvious.

Because answering the seven obstacles at the right level of generalization is not trivial, you cannot leave it to the reader as an exercise. You need to do the work to lay them all out yourself because clearly people do not agree with you.

You can answer them at any level of generalization. Whether you end up with a bunch of different kinds of decks or the same type of deck doesn't really matter. What matters is that you understand why it works.

Even more confusingly, in part 2, you define a new deck type (stockpile) by deck composition rather than in your new way: the answers to the seven articles. In fact, you never outline its solutions to the seven obstacles at all. Further, in the comments you go back and forth between deck composition definitions and seven obstacles definitions as it suits you which is very confusing.

Do you think the article should be just a database of solutions? That's not what I wanted to create. You're not supposed to memorize this, you're supposed to learn how to implement this approach in your own thinking.

I do not agree with your characterization of WW’s articles on the deck types.

You're obviously correct. I forgot that WW had the part about hybrid strategies in there. However, I don't think it invalidates anything I said in the article (after all, I wasn't really trying to address WW in it, I was trying to address the current player base), just some of the stuff I said afterwards.
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 new 2017 album for free

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #90 on: September 20, 2017, 10:04:58 am »
+2

For a pedant, this should bother you a lot more than it currently seems to be.

That's because I'm not a pedant. I just like puns, that's all.

If it hurts your soul to use "big money" to describe a deck that doesn't buy a lot of Treasure cards, you can call it good stuff. The thing you should realize is that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.
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 new 2017 album for free

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7835
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8873
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #91 on: September 20, 2017, 10:11:37 am »
+1

If it hurts your soul to use "big money" to describe a deck that doesn't buy a lot of Treasure cards, you can call it good stuff. The thing you should realize is that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is.  Treasures are stop cards.  Cantrips are not.  You have shuffle control with cantrips.  You're a lot more dependent on shuffle luck with Treasures.  There are actual distinctions between these decks other than "well they both use similar means to overcome this idea I invented".
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/

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #92 on: September 20, 2017, 10:13:52 am »
0

If it hurts your soul to use "big money" to describe a deck that doesn't buy a lot of Treasure cards, you can call it good stuff. The thing you should realize is that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is.  Treasures are stop cards.  Cantrips are not.  You have shuffle control with cantrips.  You're a lot more dependent on shuffle luck with Treasures.  There are actual distinctions between these decks other than "well they both use similar means to overcome this idea I invented".

But they are not the reason why the strategy works or doesn't work.
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 new 2017 album for free

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7835
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8873
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #93 on: September 20, 2017, 10:20:27 am »
+1

Because answering the seven obstacles at the right level of generalization is not trivial, you cannot leave it to the reader as an exercise. You need to do the work to lay them all out yourself because clearly people do not agree with you.

You can answer them at any level of generalization. Whether you end up with a bunch of different kinds of decks or the same type of deck doesn't really matter. What matters is that you understand why it works.

Let's make an analogy.  I'm a physicist.  When solving a physics problem, there are a number of fundamental techniques you can use - free body diagrams, vector analysis, conservation of energy and momentum, and so on - but there are also a lot of applied versions of those techniques that make it easier to solve certain problems.  One problem might be best solved by Lagrangian mechanics, another will require an analysis of the forces involved, another will require statistics or perturbation theory or whatever.  What's important is recognizing when you can skip all the fundamental stuff and jump right to an applied solution.

So yeah, I agree with you that your "7 obstacles" are pretty fundamental from a theoretical standpoint.  But when playing a game, I'm not going to sit there and think through all 7 of those.  I'm going to glance at the Kingdom, realize I can make an engine (or should go Big Money, or good stuff, or a combo, or a slog) and do that.  So it's important to know how specifically to make those particular deckstyles work.  More important, I would say, than being able to individually answer each obstacle each game.  And part of that is recognizing the distinctions between them.  Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics might both rely on the principle of energy conservation, but they operate differently and are used to solve different problems.  Big Money and good stuff might rely on similar "overcome the 7 obstacles" principles, but they operate differently and are used to win in different Kingdoms.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 10:21:29 am by werothegreat »
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/

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #94 on: September 20, 2017, 10:37:53 am »
0

So yeah, I agree with you that your "7 obstacles" are pretty fundamental from a theoretical standpoint.  But when playing a game, I'm not going to sit there and think through all 7 of those.  I'm going to glance at the Kingdom, realize I can make an engine (or should go Big Money, or good stuff, or a combo, or a slog) and do that.  So it's important to know how specifically to make those particular deckstyles work.  More important, I would say, than being able to individually answer each obstacle each game.  And part of that is recognizing the distinctions between them.  Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics might both rely on the principle of energy conservation, but they operate differently and are used to solve different problems.  Big Money and good stuff might rely on similar "overcome the 7 obstacles" principles, but they operate differently and are used to win in different Kingdoms.

If you know how to build and play an engine, you don't have to think about the obstacles when actually playing. At that point, it also doesn't matter if you know how to build and play it because you've considered the obstacles or because you've just tried a lot of things out and seen what works and what doesn't.

But there are times when you don't know how to build or play the strategy that you're going for. For instance, sometimes you don't know if you should be buying a Province or more engine components. At that point, you can do something arbitrary and see how it works out, or you can try to think of reasons why you should be doing one thing or the other. The obstacles are one thing to consider. Beatdown vs. control is another. There are other things to consider, too. Even if you do choose to do something arbitrary, you can consider the obstacles after you've lost to see why buying the early Province wasn't such a great idea: it didn't fit in with the rest of what your strategy was trying to do.

The obstacles won't necessarily make you more likely to win any particular game, but they will make you a better player in the long run.
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 new 2017 album for free

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3273
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +1878
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #95 on: September 20, 2017, 11:04:53 am »
0

If it hurts your soul to use "big money" to describe a deck that doesn't buy a lot of Treasure cards, you can call it good stuff. The thing you should realize is that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is.  Treasures are stop cards.  Cantrips are not.  You have shuffle control with cantrips.  You're a lot more dependent on shuffle luck with Treasures.  There are actual distinctions between these decks other than "well they both use similar means to overcome this idea I invented".

Yes, but at the same time, Big Money decks and Good Stuff both are affected by greening in a similar way. Both decks experience a reduction in expected buying power for each green card bought by a similar amount. The Good Stuff deck will still have a bunch of stop cards in the form of at least some of its starting Coppers and Estates, assuming the presence of light trashing. It's just that the Big Money deck introduces plenty of additional stop cards, whether it is money or terminal actions. I'll also note that a lot of Good Stuff decks often need to fall back on gaining a Gold or two to get a spike in economy in order to make good use of +buy sooner.

If we're taking about a deck that trashes most of its starting cards within a reasonable timeframe and consists of mostly cantrips to draw most of the deck each turn, well then that sounds much more like an engine than good stuff. Then again, such a deck also chokes on green if it doesn't increase handsize beyond five cards.
Logged

FemurLemur

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
  • Shuffle iT Username: FemurLemur
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #96 on: September 20, 2017, 11:08:04 am »
0

So yeah, I agree with you that your "7 obstacles" are pretty fundamental from a theoretical standpoint.  But when playing a game, I'm not going to sit there and think through all 7 of those.  I'm going to glance at the Kingdom, realize I can make an engine (or should go Big Money, or good stuff, or a combo, or a slog) and do that.
In all fairness to Awaclus though, I think you probably have a pretty strong intuition which comes from years of experience and many games played. A new player won't have that, and I think they're more likely to build up their judgement than intuition from reading an article. Whether or not they'll actually go through the trouble of answering the 7 obstacles, I can't say.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I'm not gonna open that whole can of worms again, as it's not fair to Awaclus to talk about his ideas and not expect a reply
Logged

Bowi

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +55
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #97 on: September 20, 2017, 12:05:51 pm »
+3

Well he has the name there already: "good stuff".
To be fair "good stuff" is like a really bad name. It's totally non-descriptive and actually confusing. Are other decks "bad stuff?" Ironically, "good stuff" is something you go for on a board that lacks other strategies, because it's quite weak.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Respect: +1686
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #98 on: September 20, 2017, 12:33:24 pm »
+3

Even more confusingly, in part 2, you define a new deck type (stockpile) by deck composition rather than in your new way: the answers to the seven articles. In fact, you never outline its solutions to the seven obstacles at all. Further, in the comments you go back and forth between deck composition definitions and seven obstacles definitions as it suits you which is very confusing.

Do you think the article should be just a database of solutions? That's not what I wanted to create. You're not supposed to memorize this, you're supposed to learn how to implement this approach in your own thinking.

Well, since you asked... ;)

If your ultimate goal is for readers to learn how to implement this approach in their own thinking, then I would work to eliminate much of part 2 because part 2 just gets me thinking "how on earth is Awaculus thinking about all of these different terms for which I seem to have different definitions?" and totally distracts me from your intended purpose.

Here's my concrete suggestions:

Keep a distinction between describing decks by their contents and by their strategy and be clear when you are referring to one but not the other.

Have three examples.

1. Keep Hermit/Market Square, move it first. Except, eliminate the final paragraph of the example (we'll save it for later).
2. Add Native Village/Bridge as a specific example; lay out its solutions to the seven obstacles.
3. Rework the big money/good stuff example; it is too general. Replace it with an easy to describe money based deck like BMU or Smithy-Big Money that you can link to; lay out its solutions to the seven obstacles.

Now you have the "Conclusion" paragraph, only I would actually eliminate the word "conclusion" and make the bolded first sentence the new paragraph header.

Ok, now you've laid out the big reveal. Now you can review what this means for the three examples and thinking about grouping and and naming strategies.

1. Insert that cut paragraph explaining why Hermit-Market Square is a specific strategy all to itself (modified to fit its new location in the article).
2. When describing example 2, say something like "In contrast, Native Village/Bridge is NOT unique. The same answers to the seven obstacles apply to other deck constructions like Royal Carriage/Bridge and Duplicate Bridge, that accumulate large quantities of Reserve cards, cards on the Native Village mat, coin tokens, or other resources and then it suddenly uses them for a megaturn. I like to call this useful category stockpile."
3. Have another paragraph that explains that other money-ish decks (even ones with a lot of non-terminal actions) also answer the seven obstacles in the same way as example 3 and be lumped together strategically with Smithy-Big Money. They are all playing the same strategy but with different cards. Maybe even say you like to call these decks "good stuff" or "money" decks. Don't use the term Big Money (capitalized) with regards to this general strategy category. Like wero points out, many other people have a very specific and different idea about what Big Money (capitalized) means.

Eliminate everything from "Figuring out the answers that rushes, slogs, and engines have..." all the way to the last paragraph.

Rewrite last paragraph to something like this "When you are thinking about a strategy, it is a good idea to figure out how your strategy would address the obstacles. As the number and the complexity of card-shaped things keeps going up, we are going to see more and more of completely new types of strategies. There certainly needs to be some kind of framework that allows us to understand what makes a strategy work, and this has been an early attempt at that task."

This keeps the focus on what you most intend and makes it clear about with what you disagree in regards to the term "combo decks" and the five deck types in a more specific way. I think this will be less confusing to people. 
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9918
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9961
    • View Profile
Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
« Reply #99 on: September 20, 2017, 01:40:45 pm »
0

I would actually eliminate the word "conclusion" and make the bolded first sentence the new paragraph header.

That's a good idea. Other than that, you're suggesting pretty big changes that don't really match with my vision for how I think the article should be.
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 new 2017 album for free
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
 

Page created in 0.131 seconds with 21 queries.