Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All

Author Topic: very short strategy article  (Read 4818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4029
  • Respect: +2562
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #50 on: February 24, 2018, 10:20:55 pm »
0

Words and phrases used for discussion are created out of convenience. Its pretty intuitive what "strictly better" means. Clearly no one in Dominion will use strictly better to include cost. I also find it hard to believe the term came from Magic.

What's wrong with "strictly better" having a different definition in Magic and Dominion? Words are meaningless without context anyway.

I can tell you that if I say "Workers Village is strictly better than Village", nobody is going to argue with me that " but Workers Village costs more".

Worker's village costs more so so you can't upgrade or remake estates into worker's villages, so they're not strictly better, whatever strictly better means.
Logged

teamlyle

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • Shuffle iT Username: La-Ya
  • Ah... German Hello?
  • Respect: +287
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #51 on: February 24, 2018, 10:39:49 pm »
+2

I think nothing is strictly better than anything else, even disregarding costs. Since each card has a different name, you might want one over the other in order to activate Menageries or gain better stuff with Horns of Plenty.
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
"Im 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 dont 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!

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7378
  • Respect: +8199
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #52 on: February 24, 2018, 11:11:49 pm »
0

I think nothing is strictly better than anything else, even disregarding costs. Since each card has a different name, you might want one over the other in order to activate Menageries or gain better stuff with Horns of Plenty.

But that is true in Magic as well. So when Magic players talk about strictly better; they're ignoring the card name (and card set, rarity, etc).
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5138
  • Respect: +21067
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2018, 12:03:03 am »
+1

It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10891
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11515
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2018, 03:44:35 am »
0

It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.

When you play a card from your hand in Dominion, the only resources you spend are a card and sometimes an action.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #55 on: February 25, 2018, 04:01:17 am »
0

Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10891
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11515
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #56 on: February 25, 2018, 04:03:09 am »
0

Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.

Both of those statements are false.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #57 on: February 25, 2018, 04:04:54 am »
0

Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.

Both of those statements are false.
Nope. You seem to suffer from "all Kingdoms enable engines" delusion.
You also cannot ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening. Well, of course you can just like you can buy 5 villages and no terminals.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10891
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11515
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #58 on: February 25, 2018, 04:49:00 am »
0

Nomad Camp is, barring weird edge cases in which you want a Woodcutter not next turn but a few turns later, strictly better than Woodcutter which is why it has to cost $4. Seems simple enough to me.
Well, that's not really true. 90-93% of the time
Given that Kingdoms in which gainers are present and an engine is good play occur less frequently, and given that even in such Kingdoms you might want to open with Nomad Camp to spike your economy next turn, no.

Both of those statements are false.
Nope. You seem to suffer from "all Kingdoms enable engines" delusion.
You also cannot ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening. Well, of course you can just like you can buy 5 villages and no terminals.

All kingdoms in which you want Nomad Camp are engines. And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening, because more than half of the time you'll just hit $4 again, in which case you're opening a $4 card plus a Woodcutter which topdecked itself, which is really bad, and sometimes you're opening a $5 card plus a Woodcutter which topdecked itself, which is also really bad.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #59 on: February 25, 2018, 07:25:20 am »
0

And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.

Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5138
  • Respect: +21067
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2018, 07:38:43 am »
+3

It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.

When you play a card from your hand in Dominion, the only resources you spend are a card and sometimes an action.
I can only imagine you felt like this post contributed something to the conversation. It didn't do anything for me.

Which I mean, if that's what I've got to say, I'm sure not getting much value from posting myself.
Logged

Shvegait

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
  • Respect: +59
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #61 on: February 25, 2018, 10:30:40 am »
+13

When talking about costs, there are two separate concepts:
1) The cost to add the card to your deck
2) The cost to play the card

In MTG, cards all cost the same to add them to your deck, i.e. nothing. (meta-game financial costs notwithstanding)
In Dominion, cards usually cost the printed coin cost and a buy. Of course, gainers can change this calculation.

In MTG, the cost to play the card is highly variable.
In Dominion, actions can be considered to cost an Action to play, most other cards can be considered free once drawn. (All cards can be considered to cost "a card" to play.)

So trying to equate the "cost" of a card between the two games doesn't make much sense.


When people say that they'd rather have a Mining Village in their deck because it's "strictly better" than having a Village in their deck, it's actually the same as the MTG concept (since in MTG, cards start in your deck). Both cards cost the same to play (the card itself and 1 Action), with Mining Village having an additional effect.

But saying that this therefore means that Mining Village is "strictly better" than Village is incorrect, because the $3 price point of Village could be an advantage over the $4 price point of Mining Village.


So it depends on your frame of reference. When talking about cards in the Supply, you have to factor in the cost for the "strictly better" comparison. But when talking about cards in your deck, you do not.

When talking about the cards in general, they are not in your deck, so cost should be factored in. And by this view, there are no two cards in Dominion with one "strictly better" than another.


But when talking about cards in your deck, I don't think just saying "better" always captures what you want to convey. For example, Mountebank might be "better" than Fortune Teller, but it's not "strictly better", even when it's in your deck.
However, a Bazaar in your deck would be "strictly better" than a Village in your deck. If anyone has a term that conveys this difference more eloquently, when a card is like, pretty much always better (but maybe not in edgecases), but we're talking specifically about when it's in your deck and not just in the Supply or another pile, and without using the word "strictly"... please share it.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7378
  • Respect: +8199
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #62 on: February 25, 2018, 11:28:10 am »
0

It may have originated in Magic, by my friends and I have been using it for all board games for quite a long time. When trying to decide between 2 moves; it's not uncommon do the math and eventually arrive at "oh, this other move gets me all the same resources the first one would, plus 1 extra gold, so it's a strictly better move."
So, you factor in the amount of resources produced, but not the amount of resources spent. For some reason.

Do you mean in my example or in Dominion? In my example; its net gains being talked about. If you mean in Dominion; the question being discussed isnt is there a strictly better option to do on my turn right now? The question is what cards have effects that are strictly better than other card effects?

Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7378
  • Respect: +8199
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #63 on: February 25, 2018, 11:36:10 am »
+2

When talking about costs, there are two separate concepts:
1) The cost to add the card to your deck
2) The cost to play the card

In MTG, cards all cost the same to add them to your deck, i.e. nothing. (meta-game financial costs notwithstanding)
In Dominion, cards usually cost the printed coin cost and a buy. Of course, gainers can change this calculation.

In MTG, the cost to play the card is highly variable.
In Dominion, actions can be considered to cost an Action to play, most other cards can be considered free once drawn. (All cards can be considered to cost "a card" to play.)

So trying to equate the "cost" of a card between the two games doesn't make much sense.


Im almost sure I said something like this before; now that I see it. But either way I strongly agree. The cost of a Dominion card is much more equivalent to the literal money cost of buying a Magic card. And, Magic players do NOT consider that when talking about strictly better. The cost to cast a spell is much more like the action you have to spend (and its the same cost for all Dominion Action cards).
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7378
  • Respect: +8199
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #64 on: February 25, 2018, 11:43:33 am »
+4

All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0

Um, unless Im misreading it, Awaclus is taking the opposite stance in that thread...
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Cave-o-sapien

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 848
  • Respect: +1555
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #65 on: February 25, 2018, 11:59:58 am »
0

Lots of apples and oranges in this thread.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10891
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11515
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #66 on: February 25, 2018, 12:11:14 pm »
+2

All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0

Um, unless Im misreading it, Awaclus is taking the opposite stance in that thread...

Yeah, I have changed my 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 albums for free

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5138
  • Respect: +21067
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2018, 03:33:16 pm »
+4

When talking about costs, there are two separate concepts:
1) The cost to add the card to your deck
2) The cost to play the card

In MTG, cards all cost the same to add them to your deck, i.e. nothing. (meta-game financial costs notwithstanding)
In Dominion, cards usually cost the printed coin cost and a buy. Of course, gainers can change this calculation.

In MTG, the cost to play the card is highly variable.
In Dominion, actions can be considered to cost an Action to play, most other cards can be considered free once drawn. (All cards can be considered to cost "a card" to play.)

So trying to equate the "cost" of a card between the two games doesn't make much sense.


Im almost sure I said something like this before; now that I see it. But either way I strongly agree. The cost of a Dominion card is much more equivalent to the literal money cost of buying a Magic card. And, Magic players do NOT consider that when talking about strictly better. The cost to cast a spell is much more like the action you have to spend (and its the same cost for all Dominion Action cards).
No, that isn't how it is at all.

Magic is a game of building up a tableau. You pay the cost of a card to put it into your tableau. In your tableau it may have abilities you can use; often this has a cost of tapping the card.

Dominion is a game of building up a deck. You pay the cost of a card to put it into your deck. When you draw it there is a cost to using it, an Action (not Action card).

The deck in Dominion is analogous to the tableau in Magic.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5138
  • Respect: +21067
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2018, 03:34:37 pm »
+1

All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0
See you all back here in 2021. If Awaclus hasn't changed his mind again I'll be disappointed.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10891
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11515
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2018, 07:34:22 pm »
+1

And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.

Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.

If you open with Nomad Camp, you have a 40% chance of opening $5/Woodcutter, and a 60% chance of opening $4/Woodcutter. The latter is super bad and the former is probably on-par with the best regular 4/3 opening you can have. It's a really bad idea to go for it. Silver/Silver is also really bad for engines so being potentially better than that is not proof of being good.

Want to play a cage match?
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1282
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +631
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2018, 04:41:35 am »
+1

The f.ds cycle

1. The thread starts.
2. Everyone eventually tries to one up each other by making jokes and earning upvotes.
3. Someone says something potentially hot takeish without any reasons or examples, and an argument starts over that. Word count goes up exponentially.
4. Passions flare as people argue past each other. Some people notice this and start talking about definitions.
5. An argument about definitions to a seemingly indefinable game begins. More passions flare. Some people recognize the futility and make more joke posts, cementing the death of the thread.
6. Some complain about the cycle of redundancy in order to earn internet points instead of correctly ignoring it. (This is me)
7. Either Theory locks the entire shit show, or eventually everyone gives up until the next thread, where the cycle is repeated.

If we did all those things but also everyone got respect for the posts, then the thread would be strictly better.

Thank you for taking us back to step 2.
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

ipofanes

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1282
  • Shuffle iT Username: ipofanes
  • Respect: +631
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2018, 04:48:56 am »
0

The cost to cast a spell is much more like the action you have to spend (and its the same cost for all Dominion Action cards).

Plus other costs like in Oasis, Horse Traders, Death Cart etc.

I am not convinced though. Getting a card on the table in M:tG is much more like getting a card into your deck in Dominion, because that's the main threshold to climb before the card works for you. Most Dominion cards can be utilised when they are in hand (at the possible expense to leave another terminal in hand) while that Force of Nature does nothing for you until you have the green Mana to spend to Summon it.

Edit: What Donald said. The tableau is the deck.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 04:54:22 am by ipofanes »
Logged
Lord Rattington denies my undo requests

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2018, 05:46:08 am »
0

And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.

Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.

All of this is already here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11280.0
See you all back here in 2021. If Awaclus hasn't changed his mind again I'll be disappointed.
I am looking forward to it.
Logged

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2292
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3221
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2018, 05:52:04 am »
0

And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.

Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
Your reasoning is truly mesmerizing.
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

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
  • Respect: +364
    • View Profile
Re: very short strategy article
« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2018, 06:00:06 am »
0

And you super can ignore Nomad Camp's impact on the opening
Nope. If you open with Nomad Camp chances to hit 5 on turn 2 are 40%. Decent enough of there is an important junker/trasher that costs $5 and which you otherwise MIGHT only get after the second shuffle instead of the first.

Chances of terminal collison are, if memory serves right, around 30% so depending on the Kingdom this could very well be better than e.g. Silver/Silver. In short, your exaggerated, unconditional claims are wrong. If they were true Nomad Camp would have to cost $2 as it is, in your opinion, ALWAYS worse than Woodcutter.
Nomad Camp is super bad and worse than Woodcutter.
Sorry dude, it ain't.
Your reasoning is truly mesmerizing.
Awaclus claimed two things, that Nomad Camp is a bad choice in the opening and that during the game he'd prefer Woodcutter. That boils down to claiming that Nomad Camp is worse than Woodcutter which implies that it'd have to cost $2 which implies that DXV made a big blunder while designing Nomad Camp.

Obviously this is wrong and I don't know why I am even responding to him or you.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All
 

Page created in 0.151 seconds with 21 queries.