Print

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

[Qvist]

It's about 1 year ago since the first Dominion card ranking list was compiled. It was a lot of fun and I received a lot of positive feedback. The second edition, half a year later, was even a way bigger success with double as much participants. Now it's basically time for the 2013 Edition, the first with Dark Ages, but ... as you all know Dark Ages cards aren't well known so far as isotropic hasn't the cards available, and Androminion and Goko released the full set only a few weeks ago. And not many of us have the physical copy at home. (I got mine yesterday, now I can play without fake cards, hurray).

So, the question is:
1.) Should we do it anyway?
2.) Should we do it anyway but without Dark Ages?
3.) Should we defer this a few months?

Comments are appreciated. This poll will run one week.

[Ozle]

I would wait, unless a high proportion of people have bought Dark Ages...

[SirPeebles]

When exactly would we be waiting until?  The cards aren't going to show up in iso.  I say we just do it with them.  Besides, it's fun to see how the rankings change over time as the community gains experience with them.

[Tdog]

I say wait, I know that I wouldn't be able to participate because there is no way I can accurately rank the dark ages cards.

[jsh357]

one problem with waiting is that guilds is just around the corner, so it will be even tougher on iso purists at that point.  perhaps sooner is better given that.    I personally think I'm semi ready to rank the da cards, but I'm a patient man too.  maybe waiting a month or so is best.

[brokoli]

Besides, it's fun to see how the rankings change over time as the community gains experience with them.

This. We have seen with Hinterlands how rankings changed (Oracle, Silk road...), that's why it is interesting. And honestly, I'm not willing to do it without DA, my rankings have not changed much since the last time.

[Schneau]

I agree with the above that it's fun to see how opinions change over time. I'm in favor of doing a card list with DA now, and one with Guilds half way through 2013!

[HiveMindEmulator]

Definitely have to have Dark Ages. We already have 2 lists of cards without them, and most of the fun is in seeing how much your opinions differ from everyone else's so maybe you can see what cards you might be mis-evaluating.

I don't care if it's now or later, since I feel like it hasn't been that long since the last list (maybe just because I've been busy in real life, or maybe because it took a while for the last of the lists to show up). Probably want to do one at least before Guilds so you don't have too many new cards that it overwhelms general re-ordering of the older cards.

[Lekkit]

It has to be before Guilds, and I'm not sure a lot of people will warm up enough to Goko to play there before it's out. And I guess most of the IRL players allready got their copies. I don't see why a DA-list should have to wait.

[^_^_^_^]

Where's the "whichever" or "I don't care" or even a "What's Dark Ages?" option(s)?

[ftl]

That option is called not voting.

[thirtyseven]

Please wait until at least a month after iso goes down, because until I can't use iso anymore, I'm not signing up for goko.

[michaeljb]

Is there any sort of ranking algorithm or something that would let someone rank just one set and still have their ranking considered?

In other words, suppose I only play IRL and only with the Base set, but someone shows me this site and the wiki, and I think the card rankings are really cool and I would like to participate in making the next list, but I only know the Base cards. Would it be possible for me to rank only the Base cards but still have my ordering influence the overall ordering?

I was just thinking this might encourage more participation; ranking cards is easier if you know all the cards that are being ranked, and not having played with all the sets might hold some people back.

Of course if there's no sensible algorithm for combining partial results this wouldn't really work; does anyone know of such an algorithm, or where to look for one? Anyone else think this is a good idea?

[Beyond Awesome]

Well, I have been playing on Goko, so, of course, I want to rank DA cards. I still am not sure about many of them, but there are some that I think I likely have a solid opinion about at this point. It would be interesting to see how many opinions compare and contrast with the overall community.

[Robz888]

I plan to brazenly rank the Dark Ages cards, despite having only played about 15 games with them.

[michaeljb]

I remember this being discussed a while ago, but don't know the specific thread and don't remember all the result so I'll just bring it up here.

-Are there going to be separate rankings for things like Prizes, Ruins, and Shelters?
I think it'd be fun to rank each of these Types in their own lists.

-Will the $2 category change to $2- to include Poor House?
I believe the consensus on this one was yes, and it seems like the most reasonable way to get poor House in the rankings.

-How will Knights be ranked?
I like the idea of having Knights be ranked as a $5 card with the other $5's, plus a separate list where we rank the Knights against themselves (like the Prizes/etc above)

I think some other stuff was brought up in that thread, like whether to include the basic treasure and victory cards, and there might have been some talk of some way to include Spoils in a list?

Another idea I had that might be fun would be just a straight top-10 list, ignoring cost. How would the community collectively rank Chapel, Masquerade, Ambassador, King's Court, Sea Hag, etc. against each other? A fun side effect would be that this produces a community-chosen most power-filled kingdom that may or may not be interesting to play.

[Beyond Awesome]

I remember this being discussed a while ago, but don't know the specific thread and don't remember all the result so I'll just bring it up here.

-Are there going to be separate rankings for things like Prizes, Ruins, and Shelters?
I think it'd be fun to rank each of these Types in their own lists.

-Will the $2 category change to $2- to include Poor House?
I believe the consensus on this one was yes, and it seems like the most reasonable way to get poor House in the rankings.

-How will Knights be ranked?
I like the idea of having Knights be ranked as a $5 card with the other $5's, plus a separate list where we rank the Knights against themselves (like the Prizes/etc above)

I think some other stuff was brought up in that thread, like whether to include the basic treasure and victory cards, and there might have been some talk of some way to include Spoils in a list?

Another idea I had that might be fun would be just a straight top-10 list, ignoring cost. How would the community collectively rank Chapel, Masquerade, Ambassador, King's Court, Sea Hag, etc. against each other? A fun side effect would be that this produces a community-chosen most power-filled kingdom that may or may not be interesting to play.

I'm all for a top 10 list. That sounds cool. Also, I don't think basic treasures and basic VP cards belong on the list (not the top 10, the other list) since they are a fundamental part of the game that exists in every game of Dominion that one plays. The value of these cards changes based on these kingdoms.

[Qvist]

I remember this being discussed a while ago, but don't know the specific thread and don't remember all the result so I'll just bring it up here.

-Are there going to be separate rankings for things like Prizes, Ruins, and Shelters?
I think it'd be fun to rank each of these Types in their own lists.

-Will the $2 category change to $2- to include Poor House?
I believe the consensus on this one was yes, and it seems like the most reasonable way to get poor House in the rankings.

-How will Knights be ranked?
I like the idea of having Knights be ranked as a $5 card with the other $5's, plus a separate list where we rank the Knights against themselves (like the Prizes/etc above)

I think some other stuff was brought up in that thread, like whether to include the basic treasure and victory cards, and there might have been some talk of some way to include Spoils in a list?

Another idea I had that might be fun would be just a straight top-10 list, ignoring cost. How would the community collectively rank Chapel, Masquerade, Ambassador, King's Court, Sea Hag, etc. against each other? A fun side effect would be that this produces a community-chosen most power-filled kingdom that may or may not be interesting to play.

Mostly how you assumed:
There are 3 optional new ratings for Prizes, Knights and Ruins. Shelters do make no real sense because you cannot buy them.
Poor House belongs to the $2 cards.
Knights will be ranked as $5 card as the randomizer has $5 on it too.
More when it'll officially start.

[Qvist]

Is there any sort of ranking algorithm or something that would let someone rank just one set and still have their ranking considered?

In other words, suppose I only play IRL and only with the Base set, but someone shows me this site and the wiki, and I think the card rankings are really cool and I would like to participate in making the next list, but I only know the Base cards. Would it be possible for me to rank only the Base cards but still have my ordering influence the overall ordering?

I was just thinking this might encourage more participation; ranking cards is easier if you know all the cards that are being ranked, and not having played with all the sets might hold some people back.

Of course if there's no sensible algorithm for combining partial results this wouldn't really work; does anyone know of such an algorithm, or where to look for one? Anyone else think this is a good idea?

Interesting. It think this can be done. I haven't thought about this.

[Powerman]

I think we should include Silver in the 3's, just because of the dreaded "silver test"

[SirPeebles]

I think we should include Silver in the 3's, just because of the dreaded "silver test"

Maybe we ought to include Silver in the 4's as well then.

[Powerman]

I think we should include Silver in the 3's, just because of the dreaded "silver test"

Maybe we ought to include Silver in the 4's as well then.

Maybe we ought to.  Just maybe.

[michaeljb]

I think we should include Silver in the 3's, just because of the dreaded "silver test"

Maybe we ought to include Silver in the 4's as well then.

Maybe we ought to.  Just maybe.

Made a poll.

[michaeljb]

Is there any sort of ranking algorithm or something that would let someone rank just one set and still have their ranking considered?

In other words, suppose I only play IRL and only with the Base set, but someone shows me this site and the wiki, and I think the card rankings are really cool and I would like to participate in making the next list, but I only know the Base cards. Would it be possible for me to rank only the Base cards but still have my ordering influence the overall ordering?

I was just thinking this might encourage more participation; ranking cards is easier if you know all the cards that are being ranked, and not having played with all the sets might hold some people back.

Of course if there's no sensible algorithm for combining partial results this wouldn't really work; does anyone know of such an algorithm, or where to look for one? Anyone else think this is a good idea?

Interesting. It think this can be done. I haven't thought about this.

I've been thinking about a couple different ways to do this, the best idea I've had so far is to basically use the ELO system. The ranking list will be translated into a set of card vs card "games," where in each game the "winner" is whichever card the user ranked higher.

So using the last $6+ Cards list as an example, Adventurer would have 13 losses, Grand Market would have 11 wins and 2 losses, and so on, and each card's ranking would be adjusted with each "game", and at the end sorting by their new ELO ranking should give the same ordered list. Unfortunately this would take O(n^2) time, since each list of n cards makes (n choose 2) = n*(n-1)/2 "games" that need to be played between the cards.

This would mean lists submitted by users evaluating all the sets would have more weight (more cards in the list, so each card gets more "games"), but there is no obligation for the user to evaluate every set. (though of course for the fun of it we should strongly encourage ranking every set the user has played with, particularly so we can see the Dark Ages rating change over time)

[dondon151]

I plan to brazenly rank the Dark Ages cards, despite having only played about 15 games with them.

Let's all theory-rank the Dark Ages cards! That'll be a lark.