Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jonts26]

I thought it might be fun to share these with each other.

My pet peeve, and this is more related to the isotropic implementation of the game, is when my opponent continues to reveal tournaments after I've revealed a province. I realize you've bought 8 of them because they are fun to spam early, but I don't need to know that you drew a hand of 4 dead tournaments. Let's just move on.

Note: If there is a reason to keep revealing them (i.e. conspirator or peddler) then by all means go ahead.

[The Adventurer]

- KC KC ESTATE COPPER COPPER for one.

- Having 4-3 against a 5-2 with Mountebank available.

- Playing someone that won't finish on piles when they can, when they're leading by a large margin. Just put me out of my misery once and for all x_x

- Ppl who select auto-match and do cherry picking, because I don't (isotropic).

- Treasure maps missing eachother for several turns

- Ambassador. And Ambassador/Ambassador openings. It's such a game staller... on that note :

- Games that last 40 turns or more. Unless there's a special twist about it, it's just too long.

... i'll come up with more, though it's plenty for now lol

[Thisisnotasmile]

- Ppl who select auto-match and do cherry picking, because I don't (isotropic).

- Ambassador. And Ambassador/Ambassador openings. It's such a game staller... on that note :

These two always seem to happen together for me. My opponents refuse games because they have Possession, or whatever reason that I don't know for ages and then when someone finally accepts a game it always seems to be an Ambassador game. So bored of Ambassador.

[Tydude]

One of mine is when the other player pointlessly reveals the same moat over and over and over and over and over again. In a game where the only reaction is moat, why have this?

[Reyk]

One of mine is when the other player pointlessly reveals the same moat over and over and over and over and over again. In a game where the only reaction is moat, why have this?

I guess most of us did this wrong the first time. The implementation is ok like it is, but anyway not intuitive. So you can simply explain to your opponent how it works.

[pst]

I guess most of us did this wrong the first time. The implementation is ok like it is, but anyway not intuitive. So you can simply explain to your opponent how it works.

I like that isotropic supports multi-revealing like it should, but it would lead to less confusion if the texts changed after you've already revealed a card, so the option was called something like "reveal a moat again" the next time. Then people wouldn't believe that they somehow didn't succeed in revealing it the first time.

"Reveal a secret chamber. Reveal a moat. Reveal a secret chamber again. Done."

[Deadlock39]

I think the Moat issue would be better if it just confirmed that you blocked the attack after you revealed it the first time. 

On a similar note, I hate it when people reveal Secret Chamber more than once (when there aren't other reactions like the classic SC, Moat, SC example).  It is the same 7 cards every time.  I had a guy reveal it 5 or 6 times in a row one time.  I think he finally returned the SC which stopped the chain of nonsense.

My biggest pet peeve is definitely Pirate Ship though.  I really just dislike the card, so I always try to beat it without using it, which is a losing proposition on some boards.  Unfortunately, I think I hate Ship mirror matches more than failing when I try to not use it.  I feel like I always end up on the wrong side of the luck when my opponent and I are both filling our deck with as many non-terminals as we can get + Ships.  They also like to hit my Silver on the first swing far too often.

[jsh357]

I think the Moat issue would be better if it just confirmed that you blocked the attack after you revealed it the first time. 

On a similar note, I hate it when people reveal Secret Chamber more than once (when there aren't other reactions like the classic SC, Moat, SC example).  It is the same 7 cards every time.  I had a guy reveal it 5 or 6 times in a row one time.  I think he finally returned the SC which stopped the chain of nonsense.

My biggest pet peeve is definitely Pirate Ship though.  I really just dislike the card, so I always try to beat it without using it, which is a losing proposition on some boards.  Unfortunately, I think I hate Ship mirror matches more than failing when I try to not use it.  I feel like I always end up on the wrong side of the luck when my opponent and I are both filling our deck with as many non-terminals as we can get + Ships.  They also like to hit my Silver on the first swing far too often.

Secret Chamber for me too.  I almost always play with it banned just because of the time sink.  I will auto reject any Secret Chamber + Torturer games with no second thought.  Had one that ran almost 2 hours once.

[biopower]

For me, it's people who say "gg" in every single game, regardless of how good the game actually was; then it loses its meaning.

[philosophyguy]

My pet peeve is when one player (usually me) falls behind because of a bad shuffle or attack timing early in the game but has no way to recover. It's no fun playing out turns 7-15 if the conclusion is preordained.

[krawhitham]

My pet peeve is when one player (usually me) falls behind because of a bad shuffle or attack timing early in the game but has no way to recover. It's no fun playing out turns 7-15 if the conclusion is preordained.

For 2 player games: If you genuinely feel that you have nothing to learn from playing on (even when you are going to lose it is an opportunity to experiment) then simply congratulate your opponent on playing better and resign. Even if it's clearly because of shuffle luck, you can still retire gracefully and acknowledge the defeat.

For 3/4 player games it's a different story because it dramatically changes the game dynamic.

Of course, the next reply will be "my pet peeve is people who resign".

[The Adventurer]

Don't think I am writing this to be an antagonist with no other purpose in life than to contradict people, but I actually have the opposite pet peeve :
- People who get irritated with me when I'm resigning as gracefully as possible (i.e. mentioning in a text a brief reason for it, gg/wp, done)

It just happens that real life catches up with you sometimes or that you just feel like the game is doomed... Resigning is not all that bad!

It actually gives the victory to the well deserving player and cuts to the chase for everyone! But I guess that it kills the pleasure of crushing people for a sadistic person...

[Mean Mr Mustard]

My peeves are few.  But the one thing that is mildly annoying is when my opponent can obviously stop what they are doing and end the game in a win, but instead choose to plod on building more coin or buying out a bunch of inconsequential VP.

[The Adventurer]

I just got totally irritated by a player who stopped acting for a long while because he didn't like the turn of events. I had very long turns indeed (scrying pool possession), so I'd understand if someone resigned. But to not be responsive on purpose when asked to discard, wait for me to click "Make xyz resign", to then disappear immediately in the lobby... Wasn't unintentional let me tell you this!

[Tydude]

I just got totally irritated by a player who stopped acting for a long while because he didn't like the turn of events. I had very long turns indeed (scrying pool possession), so I'd understand if someone resigned. But to not be responsive on purpose when asked to discard, wait for me to click "Make xyz resign", to then disappear immediately in the lobby... Wasn't unintentional let me tell you this!

Yeah, the people who do that are the worst. One game, I was beating my opponent pretty badly (which is quite rare for me). It got to his turn, and nothing happened. I sat there for about two minutes and then typed, "U know, i can auto resign u if u take 2 long." Almost immediately, he started playing again. Ah, good times.

[rinkworks]

I've played a lot of online chess at Yahoo, and this is the standard temper tantrum tactic there, too.  You drop your Queen for no compensation because you made a bad move, suddenly my previously speedy opponent becomes unresponsive.  Usually they'll leave the room, leaving me hanging (to protect against flaky connections, a user whose connection drops gets time to reconnect and resume), but sometimes they'll stick around.  The trouble with Chess is that the timeout is 10 minutes, much higher than for most other games, since sometimes Chess moves take that long.  At 10 minutes, I auto-resign them, but by that point I'm usually playing another game in another window.

The worst kind are the ones that continue to play, only they take 9 minutes for each turn.  For those types, the game clock gets them (I usually play with 30-35 minutes per player) before too many turns.  I just don't understand why you play a game at all if you enjoy it so little that dragging out a game you've lost is more fun than playing the next one.

[Arya Stark]

when someone drops out of a 3 player game in the beginning and then you're stuck with 12 prov

[Graystripe77]

when someone drops out of a 3 player game in the beginning and then you're stuck with 12 prov

Absolute mess when that happens.

[rrenaud]

Secret Chamber in Minion games ;(

[guided]

Scrying Pool decks. My other pet peeve is that sometimes I look at the board and realize... I'm going to have to play a Scrying Pool deck.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Man, I love Scrying Pool.  I think it is bar none my favorite engine card.

[guided]

-When every single Cutpurse is a "hit", and it never gets played on those other turns where it wouldn't have mattered.
-When you build a vastly superior double-Tac/Goons deck, but you lose because Tactician was the last card in your deck on the 3rd to last turn, while the other guy's much more bloated deck full of cards that don't draw ("MOAR HERBALISTS!") never once fails to find his 2nd Tactician, so he ends the game one turn before you can put it away with a zillion VPs.

...two painful losses to the same opponent just now

The Cutpurse one was especially bad. His last two attacks, if either one had been offset by a turn I'd certainly have won, and I had the winning hand in front of me if he'd failed to buy the last Province on his own final turn.

[Jimmmmm]

Continual complaining about bad luck. Sure, horrible luck happens, and it's okay to mention it, but when people go on and on about it, especially when they've clearly made some terrible decisions.

[Davio]

I love getting the "Piledriver" achievement as much as possible, since it's such a great way to catch opponents off guard who themselves might have gone for the automatic double Province. At the end of this City-Lab-Uni-GM-Trade Route game I have exactly $16 and 8 Buys due to a Chancellor I managed to pick up with Uni and draw immediately. At this point, Cities + Labs were obviously gone.

Here's an example:

Code: [Select]

— Your turn 14 —
You play a Laboratory.
... You draw a Copper and a Laboratory and get +1 action.
You play a Laboratory.
... You draw a Trade Route and a Laboratory and get +1 action.
You play a Laboratory.
... You draw a Copper and a Laboratory and get +1 action.
You play a Laboratory.
... You draw a City and a Copper and get +1 action.
You play a City.
... You draw a City and a Laboratory and get +2 actions, +1 buy, and +$1.
You play a City.
... You draw a City and a Copper and get +2 actions, +1 buy, and +$1.
You play a City.
... You draw a Silver and a Trade Route and get +2 actions, +1 buy, and +$1.
You play a City.
... You draw a Gold and a Trade Route and get +2 actions, +1 buy, and +$1.
You play a Laboratory.
... You draw a Grand Market and a Copper and get +1 action.
You play a Grand Market.
... You draw a Laboratory and get +1 action, +1 buy, and +$2.
You play a University.
... You get +2 actions.
... You gain a Chancellor.
You play a Laboratory.
... (You reshuffle.)
... You draw a City and a Chancellor and get +1 action.
You play a City.
... You draw nothing and get +2 actions, +1 buy, and +$1.
You play a Chancellor.
... You get +$2.
... You put your deck into your discard pile.
You play a Trade Route.
... You trash a Trade Route.
... You get +1 buy.
You play a Gold and 2 Silvers.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
You buy an Estate.
(You reshuffle.)


[HLennartz]

- KC KC ESTATE COPPER COPPER for one.

I just played a game where I had 3 King's Courts in my hand, and no other actions:

Code: [Select]

HLennartz plays a King's Court.
... and plays a King's Court.
... ... and plays a King's Court.
... ... ... but plays no action with it.
... ... and plays the King's Court again.
... ... ... but plays no action with it.
... ... and plays the King's Court a third time.
... ... ... but plays no action with it.
... and plays the King's Court again.
... ... but plays no action with it.
... and plays the King's Court a third time.
... ... but plays no action with it.

...now that's power.

[Zaphod]

I just got totally irritated by a player who stopped acting for a long while because he didn't like the turn of events. I had very long turns indeed (scrying pool possession), so I'd understand if someone resigned. But to not be responsive on purpose when asked to discard, wait for me to click "Make xyz resign", to then disappear immediately in the lobby... Wasn't unintentional let me tell you this!

If you had "very long turns indeed", why would you expect your opponent to wait patiently in case they need to respond to your attacks?  If you are taking a long time every turn, the person is unlikely to sit there studying your every move.  Most likely he was away from his computer, doing something else.  Long turns are part of the game, but playing against someone who's taking very long turns every turn is boring as hell.  And if you're making the other player wait every turn, you should show a little more patience yourself.

[guided]

If you had "very long turns indeed", why would you expect your opponent to wait patiently in case they need to respond to your attacks?

Yes, absolutely. If you're not willing to do this, resign. To continue without resigning but choose to be inattentive is extremely rude.

Making the other player wait while you continuously act is categorically different from making the other player wait while you do nothing.

[rinkworks]

Strongly agree here.  If you're not playing the game attentively, you shouldn't be playing at all.  Imagine playing a game in person and making someone wait because you're busy checking your email or watching YouTube videos.  I see no reason why the etiquette should be any different online.  Of course if you can check your email AND pay attention, so what?  But if you're making someone wait on you because you got bored, resign and find a way to waste your time without also wasting someone else's.

[The Adventurer]

Thanks for backing me up here! Because, yes, since I sometimes am the "other player waiting" , I still give my 100% attention. I had long turns not because of inactivity or latency on my part, but just because the cards themselves make the turns longer. If you play the game, you should expect for it to take as long as it does and yes, some chained cards make it longer. If you have no patience for it or if you get bored, just do something else than play this game in the first place. I shall not adjust my purchases to not bore you, it just doesn't make strategic sense... Though I'd find it perfectly acceptable for someone to resign and go on a more fast-paced game if they wished, don't make it lag out of spite and boredom.

[Zaphod]

...which brings me to my pet peeve...games where the opponent is only happy if he takes several minutes every turn, but gets upset if it takes me more than five seconds to respond to something.  It's possible to play ten actions in a minute if you have a decent connection and half a brain; you don't need to study every possible move for twenty seconds before playing, and it really doesn't take me twenty seconds to contemplate the action..."ooh, he played a Coppersmith, let me meditate on this."  If you wait a long time before playing each action, you should accept the fact that this isn't fun for the other player and he's probably going to get something from the fridge or go to the bathroom once in awhile, so he may not be sitting in rapt attention at your brilliance.  If you insist on taking "very long turns indeed" but get pissy if you don't get very fast responses, you're a hypocrite.

[guided]

If you insist on taking "very long turns indeed" but get pissy if you don't get very fast responses, you're a hypocrite.

Resign or pay attention. Period.

Several people have already pointed out the difference between being afk vs. taking a long time to click through a bunch of actions. There is no hypocrisy. If people are really verbally abusing you for taking literally 5 seconds, then they shouldn't do that, but I sincerely doubt that's the sort of behavior (on your part or theirs) that you're actually talking about.

[rod-]

It could be improved such that isotropic makes the "bloop" noise that it makes when it becomes your turn EVERY time you get priority.  It wouldn't fix EVERY case of someone failing to respond to your attacks, but it would help some.

[KristianBahle]

Losing to Bishop AINEC

[guided]

Mono-Bishop is one of those strategies like single-Envoy or single-Smithy that is beautiful in its simplicity and works on a disturbingly large percentage of boards. When I stopped trying to force ways to beat Bishop on boards that don't support massive engines and just started playing the Bishop deck, I started losing less to Bishop

If there's no strong engine on a Bishop board, and you try to go for Provinces, the Bishop player can often extend the game plenty long enough just trashing Golds and Silvers every turn without helping you empty the Province pile, while your deck stalls out because it's full of green cards. Even if you get 7-8 Provinces, oops, the Bishop player has 60 VP chips.

[ehunt]

I'm always a little insulted when my opponent vetoes treasure map on a board where clearly any halfway decent player is not going to buy treasure map.

[Nihnoz]

I'm always a little insulted when my opponent vetoes treasure map on a board where clearly any halfway decent player is not going to buy treasure map.

It's like playing an 11 card board. Think of it that way.

[Jimmmmm]

I'm always a little insulted when my opponent vetoes treasure map on a board where clearly any halfway decent player is not going to buy treasure map.

I tend to veto cards that I don't think either player will buy. I figure, why not make the game more interesting by having more cards that might be bought? Also, Treasure Map is probably my most-vetoed card. Not really because of the variance. More because if it does anything for you, it puts a bunch of treasure in your deck, and in my opinion, (basic) treasure is boring.

[Cave-o-sapien]

Players who, having built a superior engine and gained a substantial lead, proceed to decksturbate rather than end the game as quickly as possible.

[matt979]

...which brings me to my pet peeve...games where the opponent is only happy if he takes several minutes every turn, but gets upset if it takes me more than five seconds to respond to something.

This.

Sort of related but not really: In the past few days I've had an infuriating amount of lag (probably my Comcastic connection).  Not sure what else do to when this comes up aside from apologizing (once I get reconnected), resigning (if it's persistent and I'm not going to win any time soon), and staying away from Isotropic for awhile.

[Jimmmmm]

In the past few days I've had an infuriating amount of lag (probably my Comcastic connection).  Not sure what else do to when this comes up aside from apologizing (once I get reconnected), resigning (if it's persistent and I'm not going to win any time soon), and staying away from Isotropic for awhile.

I've had some as well, and I've had more than one opponent apologise to me for it.

[PSUmvp]

What about dinky little Vineyard/gardens games.  There is no art to them... nothing worse than a deck full of pawns and estates.

[Tombolo]

-Pirate Ship.  Just Pirate Ship.
-Getting declined in Auto-match.  Why are you there?
-Getting dropped.  Seems both my connection and isotropic have improved, but I used to time out of matches quite a bit.
-Opponents who leave without a word.  I am not the chattiest by any means unless my opponent starts talking, but I make it a point to at least throw out a "gg" or something.
-Ragequitters and people who blame me for my luck.  I am kinda okay with whining about luck, but I had somebody the other day make a snide comment and quit just as my engine was rolling.  Ain't my fault, dude.
-When it doesn't beep at me.  I perhaps am a horrible person for occasionally switching tabs for a couple seconds during long turns or idling, but every once in a while I don't notice it's waiting on me.

[glasser]

I'm always a little insulted when my opponent vetoes treasure map on a board where clearly any halfway decent player is not going to buy treasure map.

For what it's worth: I play in "veto mode: don't care" mode because I literally don't care: if you want to veto cards, that's great for you, but except for this week when I've been trying to make sure not to veto the one Hinterlands card there, I always click the "veto random card" link myself. So don't read too much into others' veto choices

[Elyv]

I'm always a little insulted when my opponent vetoes treasure map on a board where clearly any halfway decent player is not going to buy treasure map.

For what it's worth: I play in "veto mode: don't care" mode because I literally don't care: if you want to veto cards, that's great for you, but except for this week when I've been trying to make sure not to veto the one Hinterlands card there, I always click the "veto random card" link myself. So don't read too much into others' veto choices

Treasure Map gets vetoed a lot, actually. It's definitely not just random in my experience.

It's unfortunate, I actually like treasure map and think it's a good card in certain circumstances.

[biopower]

Well, Treasure Map vetoes are often just in case the opponent gets obscenely lucky and not as an implication that the opponent would be bad enough to go for them. With Chancellor, it's quite possible for maps to be activated by Turn 4, depending on shuffle luck.

[meshuggah42]

My pet peeve: getting slammed by Familiar. Both of us open 4/3, both of us buy Potion, both of us buy 1 Familiar and then comes a hand with 2+P while my opponent has 3+P. After that I'm almost certain that I'll lose. And this happened several times to me...

[guided]

My pet peeve: getting slammed by Familiar. Both of us open 4/3, both of us buy Potion, both of us buys 1 Familiar and then comes a hand with 2+P while my opponent has 3+P. After that I'm almost certain that I'll lose. And this happened several times to me...

This is why I veto Familiar with really high priority I'll leave it in if Sea Hag or Witch is available though, since I can't veto both cards....

[ana]

What I hate the most is a game with Saboteur and Golem...when the opponent started to buy these after turn 10, after I had a nice hand, and it sabotaged in every single hand..buying around 2-3 of them, and I couldn't possibly keep up with that...it's a bit like cheating...you build a lousy deck and then attack the other. He also had a lucky draw, buying golem immediately(next turn) after buying the potion. I usually never veto saboteur because from all the games that I played, in 99% of the cases no one used it.

[Jimmmmm]

I hate when people resign when the game's about to finish. I guess it's fair enough if you've clearly lost but there's still ages to go. But if I just got a 2 or 3-Province lead with 1 Province left, would it really kill you to let me have 1 or 2 more turns to finish the game properly?

[play2draw]

I really don't mind resignation facing inevitable defeat. I come from a (moderate) Chess background. Resigning is the honorable way to go.

[guided]

I have no problem with resignation, but I have run into an absolute rash of players lately who sullenly drop from the game when they get behind rather than officially resigning. I have had to wait for the force-resign timeout to bank 10-20% of my wins over the last few weeks. Infuriating.

[elrabin]

Every now and then I have a game where enemy attacks seem to always hit at the perfect time, and my attacks seem to hit at the worst times.

[Biderman]

Every now and then I have a game where enemy attacks seem to always hit at the perfect time, and my attacks seem to hit at the worst times.

I had the opposite happen yesterday... I hit literally every gold he bought all game with Pirate Ship.

[snappy]

I have no problem with resignation, but I have run into an absolute rash of players lately who sullenly drop from the game when they get behind rather than officially resigning. I have had to wait for the force-resign timeout to bank 10-20% of my wins over the last few weeks. Infuriating.

imho, there should be an option to resign during the other player's turn. who wants to wait through a long turn when the game is all but lost already.

that brings me to my pet peeve ... when an opponent decides to buy more provinces/colonies rather than 3-piling for the win.

[greatexpectations]

that brings me to my pet peeve ... when an opponent decides to buy more provinces/colonies rather than 3-piling for the win.

agreed.  if you have a clear lead and the ability to end the game on your turn you should.  i totally understand that we sometimes lose track of points, but in most games you have a pretty clear idea of who is ahead. 

i played a game with city/goons/trashing game the other day where the player built a nice lead on me and then continued buying cards for his engine even though he could have ended it on piles.  i pointed it right away and he replied that he wanted to see how many points he could get, and that he was shooting for 100+.  i replied that i didn't think it was very cool to do and he just replied that i could resign if i had a problem.  probably the first time i've ever gotten angry playing this game. 

[ftl]

Hah. In retrospect, I can totally see myself doing that. Playing for achievements - aiming for a 100-point turn to get the achievement even if it's not necessary for the victory. I've never even come close to that.

[PigFiend]

I basically don't like cards/boards that determine the winner in turns 3-5. Chapel and Remake are a couple of those. An Alchemist/Familiar race where one person draws Potion and less than $3 (and worse, in the fifth hand) is another example.

Of course, Witch can make a game lost in turns 1-2. If my opponent gets 5/2 with a Witch and I'm 4/3, I just cross my fingers that the Witch is gonna be 11th or 12th after reshuffle.

And Ambassador. Very very hard card to beat if you don't buy it also.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I basically don't like cards/boards that determine the winner in turns 3-5. Chapel and Remake are a couple of those. An Alchemist/Familiar race where one person draws Potion and less than $3 (and worse, in the fifth hand) is another example.

Of course, Witch can make a game lost in turns 1-2. If my opponent gets 5/2 with a Witch and I'm 4/3, I just cross my fingers that the Witch is gonna be 11th or 12th after reshuffle.

And Ambassador. Very very hard card to beat if you don't buy it also.

I've got some bad news for you, friend. Dominion is a game which relies heavily on the shuffling of cards, and therefore there is a lot of luck involved especially around those times when you need to shuffle your cards. Shuffle luck can "determine the winner in turns 3-5" on pretty much every board if you consider a game where you whiff your potion over, or if you think you've lost because your opponent got a 5/2 split and you didn't. Of course, it isn't actually true in those situations that there is no hope left for you, but if you're one of those people who think that is the case, then just resign and start a new game. Don't expect the new game to have any less luck though

[PigFiend]

opponent got a 5/2 split and you didn't. Of course, it isn't actually true in those situations that there is no hope left for you, but if you're one of those people who think that is the case, then just resign and start a new game. Don't expect the new game to have any less luck though

Thanks for characterizing me as a wuss. I actually like luck as part of the game. One reason is the element of hope that even if it started badly for you or you even made a mistake, an opportunity might present itself if you can recognize it. My preference is for a game that is more apt to offer these windows, so the cards that are my pet peeves are the ones that carry much stronger momentum from the luck of their first draw.

[ftl]

Familiar race where one person draws Potion and less than $3 (and worse, in the fifth hand) is another example.

Yeah, opening something/potion, and then drawing 2p and having the potion miss the reshuffle... means the opponent may get to have bought 2 familiars and played one before you even get your first - yeah, that might be gg, on a board with no trashing. That really sucks. I hate that.

On a board with trashing, you can get behind in the curse race but still be okay if you're ahead in the race for whatever else needs to be done though. I think I've made a comeback like that before. 

[Davio]

Concerning late game Sea Hags (after Curses have gone): Do you keep playing them and why?

I always think: Once my opponent has started buying Provinces, it's better to increase his shuffling rate so he draws his green more often and gets to $8 less often. On the other hand, I'm cycling the cards he used to buy that Province into his draw deck faster. Sure, it's only 1 card, but does anyone have any strategy with late game Sea Hags?

Let's assume we can't trash them, they'll remain in our hands until game end.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I never play Sea Hags after the Curses are gone. No real reason, I just don't.

[Nihnoz]

I never play Sea Hags after the Curses are gone. No real reason, I just don't.

It's a refreshing change to not play an action in hand for once.

[Anon79]

If he's still buying treasures, I don't play the hags.

If he's greening, I play the hags.

[guided]

If he's still buying treasures, I don't play the hags.

If he's greening, I play the hags.

Yep. This seems pretty straightforwardly correct.

However, whenever I play against somebody who keeps playing their Hags every time, even during the midgame when I'm still buying good cards, they always hit one of my good cards

[Fangz]

Watch the cards he uses. If he's been having a rotten streak of draws since the last reshuffle, play the hags to cycle past the good cards he has remaining in his deck. If he's been playing golds and stuff, don't play the hags so that he has to deal with the less good cards in his deck. You don't need to card count (but it helps if you do keep track of how many golds he has, for example) but you should be able to figure out the relative strength of his remaining cards if you pay attention.