Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Improving play at 3+ players  (Read 10875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

chaosofslayer

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Improving play at 3+ players
« on: December 23, 2019, 07:08:32 pm »
0

I was just wondering if people had any general tips for playing at higher player counts. I’ve put so much time into 2 player that it’s been kind of frustrating not being able to find my footing in larger games.
Logged

Wizard_Amul

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
  • Respect: +216
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2019, 11:33:45 pm »
+10

Whenever I play in-person Dominion (which is not nearly as often as online), I often play 3-4 player Dominion. Strategy depends hugely on how good are the other people you're playing with, but here are a few of my very general tips.

1. All attacks are still pretty good, but handsize attacks are less good if all the other players get them, too. So, if there are two comparable cards you're thinking of getting and one is a handsize attack that other people are likely to get (like Militia), go for the other card. Playing a junking attack as often as possible is still very good if there is no easy defense.

2. In general, if you think it would be a close call between going for a money-based strategy and a draw-your-deck strategy in a 2P game, go for the money strategy in a multiplayer game. Note: this largely depends on what your opponents go for and how good your opponents are. If your opponents don't contest the key cards needed for a draw-your-deck strategy, it may actually be worth it to go for it yourself.

3. If your strategy depends on getting enough copies of a key card, don't go for it if your strategy fails by not getting enough of the card. If there is one village and everyone goes for it, no one is going to have enough for a great village + smithy type deck.

4. Piles run surprisingly fast if multiple people go for the same thing. If the other people don't realize this is happening, green early so that you have a points lead when the piles empty earlier than they should. Again, this largely depends on how good your opponents are.

5. Last point that somewhat comes from the other points: taking a different strategy from the other people can be good so you're not contested on key cards. If your opponents try to contest you later on, they often just make their deck worse for whatever they were trying to do initially.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2019, 09:42:15 am »
0

if you're playing with any "player to your left" cards, make sure the player to your left is worse / better than you according to what card you're using (better = Possession / Masquerade; worse = Envoy).
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12847
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2019, 11:34:26 am »
0

if you're playing with any "player to your left" cards, make sure the player to your left is worse / better than you according to what card you're using (better = Possession / Masquerade; worse = Envoy).

Sitting to the left of the worst player is inherently such a huge advantage regardless of any kingdom cards that Envoy isn't enough to offset it.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

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

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2019, 08:47:22 am »
+1

Defenses can be better than attacks.
Collectively, your opponents may be able to make a wide variety of strategies work. Be prepared to go with them or against them.
It's sometimes good to have a Plan B as your opponents can collectively make your plan A fail.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2019, 08:50:42 am by DG »
Logged

Worblehat

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2019, 04:36:37 am »
+1

The blog has a good series on multiplayer: card strength, strategy, gameplay considerations.

Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4...  :P

It's also worth mentioning that one should seriously consider buying Province whenever you hit $8 (unless it's a Colony game, of course). Provinces run fast in multiplayer, so continuing to build risks not having enough VP available to catch up later. I'm not saying auto-buy Province when you hit $8, just that it's worth thinking about, and you probably shouldn't skip more than one or two opportunities to buy Province. The jump from 3 to 4 players is significant here; at least in 3-player you still have the same 4 Provinces/player in the supply as you do in 2-player, so building is a bit safer.
Logged

greybirdofprey

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 257
  • Respect: +191
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2019, 05:14:18 am »
+1

I almost always play 3/4 and barely ever play 2.

Piles run out much more quickly and attacks that can stack hit you more often (as well as interaction effects).
Logged

Eran of Arcadia

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
  • Respect: +513
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2019, 10:32:38 pm »
0

I played a 4p game last night with Swindler and it was crazy. Just absolute chaos. Which is great if that's what you're going for.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2020, 10:48:37 am »
+4

Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4...  :P

I think you're saying that Attacks are more powerful when you get hit by multiple players. But that's a different thing. The point is that for the player considering to get the Attack card, it will be less powerful. In 2 player, if you don't get the junker and your opponent does, you'll get 100% of the junk. In 3 player, if you don't and your opponents do, you'll get 50% of the junk (the others 25% each). In 4 player, you'll get 33% (the others 22% each). So it matters less the more players there are. If the others go for the attack, it's not rare that you'll win if you don't, because then you can do something more useful instead.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2020, 01:34:55 pm »
+1

Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4...  :P

I think you're saying that Attacks are more powerful when you get hit by multiple players. But that's a different thing. The point is that for the player considering to get the Attack card, it will be less powerful. In 2 player, if you don't get the junker and your opponent does, you'll get 100% of the junk. In 3 player, if you don't and your opponents do, you'll get 50% of the junk (the others 25% each). In 4 player, you'll get 33% (the others 22% each). So it matters less the more players there are. If the others go for the attack, it's not rare that you'll win if you don't, because then you can do something more useful instead.
You ignore tempo. In a symmetrical situation in a 3P game, players get on average 6.7 instead of 5 Curses and at double the speed.
That kinda matters. A lot. Gee, tempo is the entire reason why Cultist is OP.
Logged

Worblehat

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2020, 10:34:05 pm »
+1

Exactly. Tempo is a big deal.

I think the specific example I had in mind was Torturer. In 2-player, it takes a while before the "should I take the curse because there may be another Torturer incoming anyway?" dilemma comes up, but that happens almost immediately in multiplayer (as soon as two other players have a Torturer).

More generally, I think fraction of junk is a misleading metric to care about. What's important is do you get enough junk, fast enough, that it cripples your deck? That is much more likely to happen in multiplayer, getting two or three Curses before your next turn instead of the one you'd get early in a 2-player game in the same kingdom.

Same thing with some other forms of attacks - how many cards do you lose to Swindlers, Knights, etc. before your next turn?

It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.
Logged

Wizard_Amul

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
  • Respect: +216
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2020, 10:51:03 pm »
+2

Exactly. Tempo is a big deal.

I think the specific example I had in mind was Torturer. In 2-player, it takes a while before the "should I take the curse because there may be another Torturer incoming anyway?" dilemma comes up, but that happens almost immediately in multiplayer (as soon as two other players have a Torturer).

It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.

Sure, Torturer stacks, so that one is still pretty brutal in multiplayer. I still like my example of Militia for being somewhat skippable in multiplayer - I've played multiple 4-player games with Militia, and while it's not awful, it's quite a bit less good than in 2-player games. I would often only attack the player who went just before me, and while that still sounds good, one of the other 2 people will probably play a Militia anyways before it gets to the turn of the person before me. When everyone else goes for Militia, it really starts to feel a terminal silver with only a minimal effect sometimes. I would still probably open with it if there are no other good 4 cost cards, but it becomes a much closer decision if there are other good 4 cost cards.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2020, 08:59:58 am »
+1

But you're still talking about the effect of being attacked by multiple players, not the effect on the game of (you, one player) buying an attack. Sure, the tempo is faster in multiplayer, but that is true whether you buy the junker or not, if everyone else buys it.

Okay, not junking the others will probably slow them down a little less. (Obviously between 3-player and 4-player there's also a big difference, in 4 player it's pretty marginal whether the others get junked by two or three players.) And that could lead to you getting junked more than otherwise, but it also leads to the others junking each other more than otherwise, offsetting the slowing down. So I don't think you get junked much faster if you don't buy the attack. The main difference will be when the junk runs out. At that point, after that shuffle, will be the first time you're deck is really worse in terms of junk, and now the fraction of junk is exactly what matters. (But now your deck should be better in other things.) This is not accounting for trashing of course.

In any case, the initial claim was that attacks are less good in multiplayer, and that is obviously true. With Militia it's very obvious; you're literally not attacking all the players, while in 2-player you always are. With junkers, even it were true (and in some kingdoms it's more true than in others of course) that buying the attack is very good and important, it's still less so than in 2-player. I don't see how anybody can disagree with that. (This is ignoring attacks that you actually benefit from and that target players, like Pirate Ship and Thief.)

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2020, 09:01:39 am »
+2

It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.

I've seen it several times. Especially with cards that don't help your deck, like Sea Hag.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2020, 04:24:19 pm »
+3

It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.

I've seen it several times. Especially with cards that don't help your deck, like Sea Hag.
Jeebus has it right. Witches and Militias both fall in importance with more players; everyone will already be discarding to someone's Militia, and your percentage of the Curses isn't much higher than theirs.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2020, 06:00:31 pm »
+1

In any case, the initial claim was that attacks are less good in multiplayer, and that is obviously true.
Not obvious to me. 3P vs. 2P, symmetrical play: Curses are distributed at DOUBLE the speed and you end up on average with 6.66 instead of 5 Curses.
Tempo is incredibly important as anybody who ever played a Cultist game could tell.

Do people skip junkers? Perhaps they do (not in my playing group though) but if Alice forsakes the Witch while Bob and Charlie go for it she will end up with 10 Curses in 2P and 3P but in 3P she will receive them again twice as quickly.

These dynamic considerations are kinda relevant. You can play a game in which the decks are very similar at the end of the game but that static perspective will tell you little about why one player won.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 06:02:04 pm by segura »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2020, 06:14:02 pm »
0

You have to compare
1) Alice forsakes the Witch and ends up with 10 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
2) Alice buys the Witch and ends up with 6.67 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
The difference between these two is less than the difference between buying the Witch and not buying it in 2P.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2020, 06:22:40 pm »
0

You have to compare
1) Alice forsakes the Witch and ends up with 10 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
2) Alice buys the Witch and ends up with 6.67 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
The difference between these two is less than the difference between buying the Witch and not buying it in 2P.
No. The spread is indeed smaller, 5 instead of 3.33. But the tempo is higher. How many Curses you end up with is one thing, how quickly you get them another. In other words, the incentive to get a Curser is influenced by static distribution as well as tempo. You cannot simply ignore one factor.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 06:24:24 pm by segura »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2020, 06:43:55 pm »
0

No. The spread is indeed smaller, 5 instead of 3.33. But the tempo is higher. How many Curses you end up with is one thing, how quickly you get them another. In other words, the incentive to get a Curser is influenced by static distribution as well as tempo. You cannot simply ignore one factor.

You're saying the tempo is higher in (1) than in (2)? Or are you saying the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P?

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2020, 06:55:52 pm »
0

No. The spread is indeed smaller, 5 instead of 3.33. But the tempo is higher. How many Curses you end up with is one thing, how quickly you get them another. In other words, the incentive to get a Curser is influenced by static distribution as well as tempo. You cannot simply ignore one factor.

You're saying the tempo is higher in (1) than in (2)? Or are you saying the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P?
2P: spread is 5 Curses at normal tempo.
3P: spread is 3.3 Curses at double the tempo.

Spread refers to what you wanted to analyze, the difference between gaining and not gaining a Curser.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 06:58:46 pm by segura »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2020, 07:27:27 pm »
0

So the mistake you're making is still the same as from the start. The choice is between buying an attack and not buying it, and we have to compare these two scenarios. Like I said, the difference between these two in 3P is less than the difference between them in 2P. It doesn't really matter that the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 07:35:20 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2020, 07:39:16 pm »
0

I also don't find your definition of "spread" helpful. It's just the difference for YOU between buying and not buying the attack, but doesn't say anything about how much the others get in comparison. 10-0 is much more serious than 10-5-5.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2020, 07:40:23 pm »
+2

So the mistake you're making is still the same as from the start. The choice is between buying an attack and not buying it, and we have to compare these two scenarios. Like I said, the difference between these two in 3P is less than the difference between them in 2P. It doesn't really matter that the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P.
And importantly, when you don't buy the attack, you buy something else, and that card helps you.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2020, 07:52:16 pm »
0

I also don't find your definition of "spread" helpful. It's just the difference for YOU between buying and not buying the attack, but doesn't say anything about how much the others get in comparison. 10-0 is much more serious than 10-5-5.
Huh? This is not my definition, you analyzed those differences. Getting 10 Curses vs getting 5 Curses in 2P is the difference of 5 that I mentioned. But you constantly ignore tempo. That matters. A lot. I rather get 10 Curses by Witch slowly than 5 Ruins via Cultist quickly.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 08:01:31 pm by segura »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Improving play at 3+ players
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2020, 11:28:15 pm »
+1

Huh? This is not my definition, you analyzed those differences. Getting 10 Curses vs getting 5 Curses in 2P is the difference of 5 that I mentioned. But you constantly ignore tempo. That matters. A lot. I rather get 10 Curses by Witch slowly than 5 Ruins via Cultist quickly.

Again you're acting like the choice is between playing 2P and playing 3P.
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.102 seconds with 21 queries.