Back to Dominion:
A silly question- is playing random game boards in random positions something players are interested in on a competitive level? Specifically, in the long run, the number of bad shuffles and openings will be even for all players, so the fact that some players may get luckier in some circumstances than others is acceptable, and in part expected. Are people okay with that?
I ask because the whole premise of duplicate Dominion was purposed on the basis that luck should be reduced in part in order to separate the top players from one another.
In any case, as it stands, I really like the simplistic idea guided as suggested:
1. All tables play the same board for each game.
2. The initial deck order is randomized for each seat, but duplicated per-seat between tables.
3. Players are awarded points based on placement in each game, based on the placing record for that seat and that board across all tables.
4. ... The shuffle order immediately after the opening (and only this one shuffle) for each seat is duplicated between tables.
I guess the simplistic question is: Does this appear more fair than normal random games? (I think so)
While here, let me elaborate other potential consequences (or implementations) of Duplicate Dominion:
Since all players are playing the same board in the same positions, players will be able to be more intimate upon the discussing that particular board. Players are more likely to engage the community on a topic (in this case a particular board) if they have experience with it. More engagement, means more Dominion.
Since there are many games with the same board, it is easier to gather data about the effect specific card combinations. Right now, the best data we have is on individual cards and opening pairs. However, in this data, the context is removed. Being able to show players the circumstances when a more powerful card is actually less powerful than an alternative would be an excellent tool for getting intermediate players more excited about Dominion strategy.
Players can propose boards, and in some thematic way, that could be a contest in and of itself. (Say, for example, challenge players to design boards that will have the lowest winning scores). For a small proportion of players, the most enjoyable aspect of the game is coming up with interesting and/or twisted boards. However, that aspect is nearly absent (or not reinforced) online.
Continuing from the previous point, the Boards may not be typical and that is when the most interesting things occur. To a large degree one of my biggest concerns is that many of the Dominion games played online use random boards. To many, that might seem perfect- random means anything can happen, anything goes. However, oxymoronically, randomness is also very predictable. On a random Dominion board "with high probability" you will have a Kingdom cards with cost $5, and one with cost $3. And also, "with high probability" a money strategy is reasonable. And further, in a 2-player game, "with high probability" Thief, Workshop, and Counting House are bad buys, and Montebank and Witch are excellent buys, and so on and so forth. It would be interesting to challenge players with boards where the roles above are reversed: Thief, Workshop, and Counting House are good buys and/or the Montebank and Witch are poor buys.