Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 18  All

Author Topic: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]  (Read 164709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #225 on: July 03, 2012, 11:56:24 pm »
0

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.

Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.

How about this?  We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY.  WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward.  Problem solved.

So... today I played a game with Masquerade,  Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver.  I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.

My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game.  My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)
Logged
A man on a mission.

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #226 on: July 03, 2012, 11:59:13 pm »
0

I think that you hit on the major points. Amb will be better at removing more from your hand (2 estates or 2 coppers on occasions) and getting stuff in the way for your opponent, but if you are trying to get to a price point, the +2 cards of masq, leaving you with 6 or 5 cards in hand will get you to the 5 faster.
I think it was Ed Never who did some work along these lines. If I can find it, I will edit and link to it, as I thought it was well reasoned.

Edit: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3016.msg52133#msg52133
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 12:01:33 am by clb »
Logged

shark_bait

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
  • Shuffle iT Username: shark_bait
  • Luckyfin and Land of Hinter for iso aliases
  • Respect: +1868
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #227 on: July 04, 2012, 12:00:38 am »
0

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?

Imo, there are multiple questions to ask.  Is there an engine?  Do you need to get to $5 fast?  Do you need to get your deck trimmed fast?  Will BM reign supreme?  Is Colony available?

When choosing between those cards, those are the main questions going through my mind.

Engine => Usually ambassador
$5 Fast => Depends on the board
Trimmed => Ambassador
BM => Masquerade
Colony => Ambassador (most of the time)
Logged
Hello.  Name's Bruce.  It's all right.  I understand.  Why trust a shark, right?

Is quite curious - Who is the mystical "Celestial Chameleon"?

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #228 on: July 04, 2012, 12:01:09 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #229 on: July 04, 2012, 12:01:36 am »
0

@frisk: dunno. But do u not have to worry more about your imminent lynch in MIV?

@WW: Just a hypothetical question: what would you do if theory ruled that the unofficial point counter is allowed?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #230 on: July 04, 2012, 12:04:14 am »
+1

@frisk: dunno. But do u not have to worry more about your imminent lynch in MIV?

@WW: Just a hypothetical question: what would you do if theory ruled that the unofficial point counter is allowed?
Largely what I'm doing here. Withdraw and complain. He doesn't have the authority to do that.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #231 on: July 04, 2012, 12:06:12 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

I like Ambassador-Silver here, actually.  Unless there were cheaper cantrips that you're not mentioning, in which case amb-amb.

This is a game where Bishop's free trashing looks incredibly dangerous, so no Bishop until late if at all.  As for why not Masq, well whenever there are villages and draw out I have to think that gearing up to hand over two curses a turn is going to probably win in the long run.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #232 on: July 04, 2012, 12:07:29 am »
0

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Since the cases where you want one over the other are situational, then a straight-up CR comparison would have to take into consideration the frequency of those particular cases, the one relative to the other. To do a fair comparison, you would have to have similar effects and similar intended uses.
The over-simplification (which becomes wrong because it is too simple) seems that masq is preferred for games where quick-acquisition of $ or not-cheap cards is dominant but Amb when you are doing anything where you want to control the composition and density of cards in your deck. Perhaps?
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #233 on: July 04, 2012, 12:28:07 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

I like Ambassador-Silver here, actually.  Unless there were cheaper cantrips that you're not mentioning, in which case amb-amb.

This is a game where Bishop's free trashing looks incredibly dangerous, so no Bishop until late if at all.  As for why not Masq, well whenever there are villages and draw out I have to think that gearing up to hand over two curses a turn is going to probably win in the long run.

Unforunately - I can't provide the link.... but that is a whole seperate discussion.  The problem was that the village was bazaar - so amba + silver doesn't necessarily get to it.  My feeling was masq would let me get the Bazaar - which would enable all of the other shenanigans, and as long as I could play the masq requently enough - I could keep up with amba bloat.  I wish I could remember the other 4 cards - but they didn't stand out.  I'm just going to assume they were scout, adventurer, what else would be useless / unbuyable?  CR was the only source of +buy - which made me angry.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #234 on: July 04, 2012, 12:36:42 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Masq just gives so much more flexibility.  If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1.  If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy.  But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine.  My 2 cents.
Logged
A man on a mission.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #235 on: July 04, 2012, 12:45:59 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Masq just gives so much more flexibility.  If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1.  If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy.  But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine.  My 2 cents.

I think on this board you need to go engine whether the draws are friendly or not.  I can see the case for opening Masq on the grounds that you really do want that early Bazaar, but Masq-BM has no shot against a player who can ramp up to passing out multiple Curses a turn, then transitioning to grabbing lots of points by Bishopping Peddlers to catch up no matter the Province deficit.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #236 on: July 04, 2012, 12:49:04 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Masq just gives so much more flexibility.  If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1.  If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy.  But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine.  My 2 cents.

I think on this board you need to go engine whether the draws are friendly or not.  I can see the case for opening Masq on the grounds that you really do want that early Bazaar, but Masq-BM has no shot against a player who can ramp up to passing out multiple Curses a turn, then transitioning to grabbing lots of points by Bishopping Peddlers to catch up no matter the Province deficit.

There were peddlers?  My bad.
Logged
A man on a mission.

yudantaiteki

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Respect: +167
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #237 on: July 04, 2012, 01:00:25 am »
+1

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba -

As a low level player, I like when high ranked players do the opening I would have done. :)
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #238 on: July 04, 2012, 01:41:26 am »
0

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.

Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.

How about this?  We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY.  WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward.  Problem solved.

So... today I played a game with Masquerade,  Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver.  I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.

My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game.  My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?

In player 2 seat I ignore bishop (on the open) if my opponent opens for it. and open masq silver. If my opponent doesn't or if im player 1 I probably would go bishop silver my initial take on it anyways
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #239 on: July 04, 2012, 01:57:16 am »
+1

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.
I find it unreasonable that you think it unreasonable to hold ethical principles over some kind of desire to win. I see very little reason for me to have competed, and very significant reasons not to.
And in fact, I did not choose to make a stink here until a stink had already been raised.

And that is, I suppose, more than partially my fault; I've always been a bit of a shit-stirrer when it comes to ethical problems, sometimes to my own detriment, and I felt this problem directly violated the community's ethics and camaraderie.  I was greatly saddened to see that WW decided not to participate in the finals, especially when it was obvious what the problem was to anyone who had been watching the various threads involved, and knowing that he probably had the best shot at winning, and then doing well at Nationals and Worlds.

I fail to see how WW's reaction to Personman's unwillingness to not use a card counting mechanism is unreasonable.  It's not yet verifiable as WW hasn't posted the email logs, but it seems Personman went too far by indicating he would violate the spirit (and possibly the letter, though that's not definitive) of the rules no matter how theory ruled on the matter.  That he did violate said rules publicly, and that other players in the finals used his public document, is in my opinion a de facto invalidation of the final.  And were I Jay, I would rule it a de jure invalidation of the tournament as a whole and, yes, disqualify the winner from the national championship.

On some level I'm glad to see that this kerfuffle has prompted Donald to recommend online tournaments not be allowed as feeders for future RGG-sanctioned tournaments.  I'm saddened it had to be done, but if the only way to keep people from cheating is to make it impossible for them to cheat, then so be it.

What do I find unreasonable?  People deciding to derail the conversation just because they're uncomfortable with it.  Hell, I think theory shutting down my thread was unreasonable, for the same basic reason.  But this thread is--I'm sorry--not about Masq vs. Ambassador vs. Bishop.  This subforum isn't for strategy discussion, it is for tournament discussion, and discussion of the card counter is, well, quite important to that.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #240 on: July 04, 2012, 02:00:46 am »
+2

In player 2 seat I ignore bishop (on the open) if my opponent opens for it. and open masq silver. If my opponent doesn't or if im player 1 I probably would go bishop silver my initial take on it anyways

Fork please.


I don't see how WW was forced to resign withdraw, as he could as well play with a (slight?) disadvantage and probably win anyway, but I can very well understand that he did.  And probably we wouldn't be on page 10 here if he didn't.

Edit: On the whole debate, what WW and dghunter said.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:02:32 am by DStu »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #241 on: July 04, 2012, 02:21:13 am »
+1

Now I'm one of the biggest advocates for the use of the PCE, but if I had received a request like that, I think I would just have agreed to disabling it and discussed afterwards. I mean, it is a tournament, so you kind of have to follow the rules set out by the refs, whatever they are, or leave the tournament. I would have used the original point counter, I mean that was allowed, right?

So I'm on WW's side and respect his decision. You must follow your own beliefs and if you think playing the finals is wrong, then don't do it.

Still I think it's sad that a solution couldn't be found. The solution couldn't have satisified everybody, but the card counting aspect of the PCE offers little more than the original point counter anyway. And if Personman wanted to write everything down instead or use some offline software, we couldn't have stopped him anyway. But it would have been easy to give WW this Pyrrhic victory and let hem believe that no one was using extra software, while it would've been easy for the others to do so.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #242 on: July 04, 2012, 02:40:36 am »
+1

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.

I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."

That was a quote from Donald, which I see now is what you were reading as sarcastic. I don't think it was sarcastic at all, but we'll have to ask him. Or, well, that's not quite right. I think that both Donald and I are moral humans who happen to also believe that our morality is at heart arbitrary and self-chosen.

I don't want to open this can of worms too far, but it may be helpful to know that I am an atheist. I also believe strongly (as it seemed to me Donald was also saying) that atheism is consistent with morality, and that choosing to be moral is a good idea for atheists for a large number of reasons.
That quote was me making fun of the idea that you wanted someone to explain how your argument was nonsense without insulting you. I thought the previous paragraph in my post made that clear, but what can you do, we have no facial expressions and so on to go by here. ;_;
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #243 on: July 04, 2012, 02:40:58 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Saying that the tournament organizer does not have the authority to make the rules of eir own tournament is not a point worth responding to.

Donald: no, I got that, but were you not also making a (reductive, humorous) point that you ultimately do believe?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:42:19 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #244 on: July 04, 2012, 02:51:38 am »
+1

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."

When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #245 on: July 04, 2012, 02:57:14 am »
0

This is why you form an explicit agreement upon entry into the tournament / wedding / whatever.  You codify what is and is not allowed.  You make a binding contract of a social nature.
I wouldn't put it like that. Non-religious marriage is game theoretically advantageous. And then the government may give you incentives there too, and religious marriages have their own incentives. The game theory value comes from the work required to get out of the contract making it less likely that the other player will defect, rather than specific things in the contract.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #246 on: July 04, 2012, 02:57:22 am »
+2

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.

When atoms is not enough, do you think it's enough to look at the movement of the electrons, protons and neutrons, or should I go down to quarks to understand this?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #247 on: July 04, 2012, 03:09:06 am »
0

Perhaps this is why Jay didn't want tournaments in the first place... (if I'm remembering right, at first Jay didn't want tournaments? I think I remember Donald saying something like that, but I am not sure?)
It's not that Jay didn't want tournaments, just that he didn't see himself running them. Obv. other people would, there would be the WBC if nothing else, but he wouldn't be spending time on that. Thus, he didn't need tournament rules. This all came up back when because of the question of, should we provide a tiebreaker rule for tournaments.

I don't know why he decided to run some tournaments after all.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #248 on: July 04, 2012, 03:09:42 am »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."

When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.


It sorta sounds like you are trying to argue with me, but perhaps not, because I agree entirely with everything in this post. Well put!
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #249 on: July 04, 2012, 03:11:20 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 18  All
 

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 21 queries.