Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Develop Dream  (Read 5469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

-Stef-

  • 2012 & 2016 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1574
  • Respect: +4419
    • View Profile
Develop Dream
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:23:39 am »
+13

I start loving Develop more and more. In most games I use it as a very simple card. The following two make it well worth the investment in many engines, and are often the only plays I do with it:
  • estate -> topdeck a Silver, or some other $3 card.
  • copper-be-gone
Especially useful in decks that care about being thin or removing ugly starting cards for other reasons (Scrying Pool, Apothecary, Highway (although tricky with the copper-be-gone), Grand Market, any other unreliable but strong engines)
However, once in a while you meet a kingdom where develop can be used in other ways too. I tend to consider that pure bonus, and almost never buy Develop with such plans. But then I met this kingdom:

Cellar, Develop, Forge, King's Court, Mine, Mining Village, Moat, Noble Brigand, Rabble, and Trader

I opened 5/2 and started Mine/Cellar, against a Develop/Trader start. I must say I like my opponents start much better, and also his plays on the first couple of turns. He gets ahead, and his lead becomes almost significant enough to start copper flooding me with KC Brigand. On his last turn he plays both KC-Brigand and KC-Forge, forging into 3 more provinces for a 5-1 lead. So I was 24 points behind, with two provinces to go. In a kingdom without +buy that's quite a mission. One of my golds was just stolen (but got 2 coppers back) and I had only 1 develop. Fortunately I had a good hand (KC KC rabble) and two more KC in my deck. They ultimately enable me to play 9 develops that turn for the win :)
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2013, 01:50:31 pm »
0

I'm attempting to put together a Develop article, and your general Develop strategy (prioritizing the trashing of Estates and Coppers) is pretty much exactly the opposite of how I think you'd usually want to play it. Especially using it to trash Copper. On the face of it, that just seems monstrously inefficient.

You're obviously the superior player, so I'd very much appreciate it if you have time to go a bit more into depth about your general Develop strategy and how it works out for you.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2013, 01:58:04 pm »
0

I'm attempting to put together a Develop article, and your general Develop strategy (prioritizing the trashing of Estates and Coppers) is pretty much exactly the opposite of how I think you'd usually want to play it. Especially using it to trash Copper. On the face of it, that just seems monstrously inefficient.

You're obviously the superior player, so I'd very much appreciate it if you have time to go a bit more into depth about your general Develop strategy and how it works out for you.

With single card trashers, you can still use them to thin your deck if you have sufficient card draw. Yeah, you'd prefer a faster trasher, but single card is still better than none. You have to sacrifice a card slot for the trasher and one for the trashed card, which hurts a lot without good handsize increases. So in an engine, it's often worth picking up develop (or trade route, etc) just to thin coppers. But develop also does a little more. It turns estates into silvers, like jack, but it puts them right on top of your deck which is really nice. The tempo you lose from playing develop is often made up for really quick by the topdecking. Of course, it still costs you a card slot, so if you open develop, you probably can't count on hitting $5 without a bit of luck. Still, with cheap engine parts, it can be worth it.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2013, 02:00:54 pm »
0

I'm attempting to put together a Develop article, and your general Develop strategy (prioritizing the trashing of Estates and Coppers) is pretty much exactly the opposite of how I think you'd usually want to play it. Especially using it to trash Copper. On the face of it, that just seems monstrously inefficient.

You're obviously the superior player, so I'd very much appreciate it if you have time to go a bit more into depth about your general Develop strategy and how it works out for you.

With single card trashers, you can still use them to thin your deck if you have sufficient card draw. Yeah, you'd prefer a faster trasher, but single card is still better than none. You have to sacrifice a card slot for the trasher and one for the trashed card, which hurts a lot without good handsize increases. So in an engine, it's often worth picking up develop (or trade route, etc) just to thin coppers. But develop also does a little more. It turns estates into silvers, like jack, but it puts them right on top of your deck which is really nice. The tempo you lose from playing develop is often made up for really quick by the topdecking. Of course, it still costs you a card slot, so if you open develop, you probably can't count on hitting $5 without a bit of luck. Still, with cheap engine parts, it can be worth it.

Well, let me put it this way. If your hand was [Develop, Caravan, Estate, Copper, Copper], what would be your first instinct?

EDIT: For those who are curious, here's the log of Stef's game.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 02:03:13 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2013, 02:03:51 pm »
0

Play Caravan, Develop Estate?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2013, 02:10:14 pm »
0

Play Caravan, Develop Estate?

Right. But after playing a lot of Develop games, I postulate that on most boards you're better off Developing the Caravan.

It depends on the board, obviously. If you're not in a hurry to play power $5 cards, you're more likely to want to play the Caravan. If there are $2 cards you want (Lighthouse, etc.), you're almost certainly better off trashing the Caravan for a nice payload on top of your deck.

EDIT: A simpler scenario is, what would you do with this hand: [Develop, Caravan, Silver, Copper, Copper]. Too many players would just play the Caravan and trash a Copper if they didn't draw a better target. I'm fairly certain that's nearly always the wrong play.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 02:11:56 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2013, 02:25:16 pm »
0

Basically, Stef is using this as a top-decking half-a-remake. And that isn't SO bad, but needs the right deck, UNLESS you have some nice mid- to late-game use for it as well, in which case it can be really nice.

Not that the card is something I understand all that well.

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2013, 02:39:19 pm »
+3

Right. But after playing a lot of Develop games, I postulate that on most boards you're better off Developing the Caravan.

And your Effect With for Develop is negative, so that indicates... something?

It depends on the board, obviously. If you're not in a hurry to play power $5 cards, you're more likely to want to play the Caravan. If there are $2 cards you want (Lighthouse, etc.), you're almost certainly better off trashing the Caravan for a nice payload on top of your deck.

When you are building your deck, getting rid of an Estate and replacing it with a good card is a much more substantial improvement than simply adding 2 good cards to your deck. In your specific Caravan example, the Caravan itself is a desirable card to have in your deck because it improves engine consistency (if you're not building an engine, Develop is pretty bad). So you want to keep that Caravan in your deck. Unless you somehow still have an Estate in your deck near the endgame, the best move is almost always to play the Caravan, hope you draw a Copper (if there are decent $3s on the board like Village, Menagerie, Oasis, etc.), Develop Estate -> Silver or other $3, and buy a $3.

EDIT: A simpler scenario is, what would you do with this hand: [Develop, Caravan, Silver, Copper, Copper]. Too many players would just play the Caravan and trash a Copper if they didn't draw a better target. I'm fairly certain that's nearly always the wrong play.

Play Caravan. If you draw a Silver or some other non-terminal way that can get you to $5 even with Develop on Copper, then Develop Copper. If you draw a Copper and need a $5, then don't play Develop at all.

Here's the fallacy with Develop: if you trash a good card, then you don't get to play it. That hurts your current turn. You maybe could have just bought the card that you would have gained anyway if you played your good card and used Develop on something else. You don't gain the card at -$1 if you eschew Develop on the good card, but in general, removing a bad card yields a greater improvement than adding a good card (and if you can do both, that's really good!). You don't get to topdeck a pair of cards, but consider that unless you already have a combo going in your deck anyway, what's topdecking a pair of cards going to do for you? Say you topdeck a Village and a Torturer but you have no other Torturers in your deck. That's not very useful. Say you topdeck a Market and a Silver, then draw $7 next turn when you really just wanted $5. Furthermore, the topdecking slows down the rate at which you cycle through your deck, so while you get to see your topdecked cards immediately, the other cards that you gained during the shuffle appear later.

What I mean is that Develop has its niche where its cuteness can be powerful. But you have to draw parallels to it and other TfBs: for example, cards like Salvager, Remodel, Apprentice, etc. that do like to trash expensive things. Most of the time, the reason you get them early on is to get rid of those Estates, and maybe clear out a couple of Coppers when you have the chance. Then as the mid- and end-game roll around, you can take advantage or their more powerful abilities.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 02:43:02 pm by dondon151 »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2013, 03:00:59 pm »
0

And your Effect With for Develop is negative, so that indicates... something?

I think it indicates that I haven't played a game on isotropic since June 16, 2012. The hundred-some Develop games I've played in order to get a feel for the card have all been on Goko.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have a bit more time. On a related note, how good is a deck that gets to 7 Provinces by turn 16? I'm not up on my benchmarks.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 08:35:23 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2013, 08:32:14 pm »
0

Okay, I'm back.

So, dondon, you made a whole bunch of claims in your last post. On the face of things they all seem perfectly plausible. Why is it, then, that they don't jive with my experience? I'll try to reconcile them.

When you are building your deck, getting rid of an Estate and replacing it with a good card is a much more substantial improvement than simply adding 2 good cards to your deck.

That seems plausible. However, when the proposition is specifically either getting rid of an Estate and gaining a $3 card or gaining a $3 card and a $5 card, it starts to look a little hazier to me. Granted, you have to trash a $4 card to do it. But once you get to the actual scenario of either trashing an Estate for a $3 on your deck or trashing a $4 card to get both a $3 and a $5 card on your deck, I'm firmly in the latter camp at least 50% of the time, and that's a conservative estimate.

Quote
In your specific Caravan example, the Caravan itself is a desirable card to have in your deck because it improves engine consistency (if you're not building an engine, Develop is pretty bad).

Is it? Fascinating.

Quote
So you want to keep that Caravan in your deck. Unless you somehow still have an Estate in your deck near the endgame, the best move is almost always to play the Caravan, hope you draw a Copper (if there are decent $3s on the board like Village, Menagerie, Oasis, etc.), Develop Estate -> Silver or other $3, and buy a $3.

I'd say that which is the better choice is a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be. It can depend on what's on the board, what's likely to be at the top of your deck, and many other factors. Let's move down to the next example, where you're just plain wrong.

Quote
EDIT: A simpler scenario is, what would you do with this hand: [Develop, Caravan, Silver, Copper, Copper]. Too many players would just play the Caravan and trash a Copper if they didn't draw a better target. I'm fairly certain that's nearly always the wrong play.

Play Caravan. If you draw a Silver or some other non-terminal way that can get you to $5 even with Develop on Copper, then Develop Copper. If you draw a Copper and need a $5, then don't play Develop at all.

Let's run through this twice, using both scenarios you present. I'll use the term Power5 to designate some decently strong $5 card (Wharf, Mountebank, whatever).

Option 1: There's a Copper on top of your deck.

You play your Caravan, drawing the Copper. You don't play your Develop. You play your Silver and 3 Coppers and buy Power5.
I play Develop, trashing Caravan and gaining Silver and Power5, putting them both on my deck. I play Silver and 2 Coppers, buying a Caravan.

Let's take stock of our deck status. Neither of us lost a Caravan, and we both gained a Power5. The only difference is that I have an extra Silver (or other nice $3 card).

Now let's look at our next hands.

Your hand is six random cards from your deck: [?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?]
My hand is [Power5, Silver, Copper, ? ?]

Man, looks like I edged you out there, too, and probably by a significant margin. Huh. Well, let's take a look at the other scenario. Maybe you make out better there.

Option 2: There's a Silver on top of your deck.

You play your Caravan, drawing the Silver. You play your Develop and trash a Copper. You play 2 Silvers and a Copper and buy Power5.
I play Develop, trashing Caravan and gaining Silver and Power5, putting them both on my deck. I play Silver and 2 Coppers, buying a Caravan.

Our decks look a little different here. I still have a Silver on you, buy you've trashed a Copper this time. I'll be generous and say that's a wash.

Here are our next hands:

Your hand is six random cards from your deck: [?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?]
My hand is [Power5, Silver, Silver, ?, ?]

Wow, my hand is even better than before! Nice.

Quote
Here's the fallacy with Develop: if you trash a good card, then you don't get to play it. That hurts your current turn. You maybe could have just bought the card that you would have gained anyway if you played your good card and used Develop on something else. You don't gain the card at -$1 if you eschew Develop on the good card, but in general, removing a bad card yields a greater improvement than adding a good card (and if you can do both, that's really good!). You don't get to topdeck a pair of cards, but consider that unless you already have a combo going in your deck anyway, what's topdecking a pair of cards going to do for you? Say you topdeck a Village and a Torturer but you have no other Torturers in your deck. That's not very useful. Say you topdeck a Market and a Silver, then draw $7 next turn when you really just wanted $5.

That all sounds really plausible, but have you actually tried it? You claim that it's more powerful to remove the Estate from your deck ASAP than it is to topdeck two good cards, but what evidence do you have that that's actually true? I'm not asking you for a proof or anything, but maybe you should try it my way before you convince yourself that you're right.

Quote
Furthermore, the topdecking slows down the rate at which you cycle through your deck, so while you get to see your topdecked cards immediately, the other cards that you gained during the shuffle appear later.

Well, that's just misleading. Those cards you're topdecking should be at least as good as the cards you're buying. Also, once you've reached the endgame, you should be topdecking good Actions and Treasures and buying Victory cards, making the negative cycling incredibly valuable.

Quote
What I mean is that Develop has its niche where its cuteness can be powerful. But you have to draw parallels to it and other TfBs: for example, cards like Salvager, Remodel, Apprentice, etc. that do like to trash expensive things. Most of the time, the reason you get them early on is to get rid of those Estates, and maybe clear out a couple of Coppers when you have the chance. Then as the mid- and end-game roll around, you can take advantage or their more powerful abilities.

So what you're telling me is that because other trash for benefit cards prioritize trashing Estates over good cards in the early game, Develop must work the same way. Why? That's a big logical leap.

EDIT: Sorry if my tone isn't cordial, but after your quip about my Effect With, I can't say I feel too badly.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 08:38:17 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2013, 09:23:06 pm »
0

Geez, take it easy there on the snark.

So, dondon, you made a whole bunch of claims in your last post. On the face of things they all seem perfectly plausible. Why is it, then, that they don't jive with my experience? I'll try to reconcile them.

Okay, let me introduce you to the problem with your post, and I say problem here because you've presented a position that I really can't argue against.

My assertions jive pretty well with my experience. Now, I am not stating that it is a rigid fact. But when you get to "my experiences are better than your experiences," then you're no longer in the realm of fact. Can I argue that your experiences mean little? Clearly I can't. Experiences are experiences, but they're not generally proof of anything.

Is it? Fascinating.

Wow, see, one rosy experience does not make a rule. It's not every BM game where your Develop hits Estate the first 2 times, hits 1 of your 2 $5 cards the third time around, and hits your lone $4 card the next time.

I'd say that which is the better choice is a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be. It can depend on what's on the board, what's likely to be at the top of your deck, and many other factors. Let's move down to the next example, where you're just plain wrong.

And I don't disagree with this, but the far more applicable and less situational use is as -Stef- described, not cute tricks with gaining cards.

Now let's look at our next hands.

Your hand is six random cards from your deck: [?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?]
My hand is [Power5, Silver, Copper, ? ?]

Man, looks like I edged you out there, too, and probably by a significant margin. Huh. Well, let's take a look at the other scenario. Maybe you make out better there.

I think you really missed my point. First, it's not bad to have 6 "random" cards from your deck if you're fairly likely to draw what you need anyway ($5 or $6). Second, this early in the game, the player who played the Caravan will have progressed far enough through the deck that he'll be seeing his buys soon anyway. Third, if the board has a power $5 like Wharf or Mountebank, you might just skip Develop altogether, so this scenario wouldn't even apply.

That all sounds really plausible, but have you actually tried it? You claim that it's more powerful to remove the Estate from your deck ASAP than it is to topdeck two good cards, but what evidence do you have that that's actually true? I'm not asking you for a proof or anything, but maybe you should try it my way before you convince yourself that you're right.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20130105-163323-1b5b25f9.html
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20121215-063756-603cc688.html

(cbaka is my alt, and I do love Menagerie)

Also there's probably a handful of Goons games out there where -Stef- wins because he opens Develop; can't be bothered to look for those logs, though.

So what you're telling me is that because other trash for benefit cards prioritize trashing Estates over good cards in the early game, Develop must work the same way. Why? That's a big logical leap.

I think you have lost sight of the argument. -Stef- says that he buys Develop for the purpose of trashing Estates and Coppers for engines. You say that trashing a good card is typically a better play than trashing an Estate or a Copper. See what's going on here?

When you open Develop/$4, your goal is not to get a Develop + $4 collision and topdeck a $5/$3; your goal is to collide Develop with Estate a couple of times and get Silvers, Menageries, Oases, etc. out of it. Later on you might see an opportunity to do a trick that gives you an advantage, but that trick might not be worthwhile in the first place because you could be drawing through most of your deck every turn and the momentum that you lose by not playing the card that you trashed is not compensated by topdecking 2 cards.

EDIT: Sorry if my tone isn't cordial, but after your quip about my Effect With, I can't say I feel too badly.

Excuse me for thinking that "playing a bunch of Develop games" is not a special qualification. You're a respected poster here and I'd expect everyone to have played a bunch of Develop games. (In summary, I apologize.)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 09:27:46 pm by dondon151 »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2013, 11:06:10 am »
+1

Well, I've played some more games and am now willing to accede that in the early game, if you have the option of playing a non-terminal $4 like Caravan and Developing an Estate, you should usually take it. So this conversation has been helpful to me (yes I know the Estate-trashing should have been obvious, but I've been purposefully questioning my assumptions while testing Develop).

That all sounds really plausible, but have you actually tried it? You claim that it's more powerful to remove the Estate from your deck ASAP than it is to topdeck two good cards, but what evidence do you have that that's actually true? I'm not asking you for a proof or anything, but maybe you should try it my way before you convince yourself that you're right.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20130105-163323-1b5b25f9.html
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20121215-063756-603cc688.html

(cbaka is my alt, and I do love Menagerie)

Also there's probably a handful of Goons games out there where -Stef- wins because he opens Develop; can't be bothered to look for those logs, though.

So what you're telling me is that because other trash for benefit cards prioritize trashing Estates over good cards in the early game, Develop must work the same way. Why? That's a big logical leap.

I think you have lost sight of the argument. -Stef- says that he buys Develop for the purpose of trashing Estates and Coppers for engines. You say that trashing a good card is typically a better play than trashing an Estate or a Copper. See what's going on here?

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let's back up. Apparently I've come off as saying that it's bad to trash Estates with Develop. I never believed that to be true, and I apologize for accidentally implying it. Estates are a great Develop target. I did claim that it's usually more useful to trash a more expensive non-terminal card than an Estate, given the option. After more testing, I'm backing down from that assertion. What I was trying to say in my first post is that if you draw Develop without Estates, that I think it's better to use Develop of expensive cards than it is to use it on Copper. I explicitly said it's a terrible Copper trasher and I stand by that. Yes, there are games where it's your only option and you really need to trash that Copper (Colony, Scrying Pool, etc.). I wasn't trying to dispute that those cases exist. But overall, Developing Copper seems like a very bad idea.

So if 'your way' is trashing Coppers with Develop and 'my way' is trashing $4 and $5 cards with Develop, and I ask you if you've actually tried it my way, posting some logs of how well your way has worked doesn't make any sense. The answer seems to be no, you haven't tried it my way. Not seriously. I've gone through your logs and you've Developed a few expensive cards, like curse-givers after Curses have run out, etc. But if you've really tried Developing them in earnest, these logs weren't the right ones to post.

Quote
When you open Develop/$4, your goal is not to get a Develop + $4 collision and topdeck a $5/$3; your goal is to collide Develop with Estate a couple of times and get Silvers, Menageries, Oases, etc. out of it. Later on you might see an opportunity to do a trick that gives you an advantage, but that trick might not be worthwhile in the first place because you could be drawing through most of your deck every turn and the momentum that you lose by not playing the card that you trashed is not compensated by topdecking 2 cards.

It's interesting to me that any time someone Develops a card other than an Estate, Copper, or Curse, that's a "cute trick". If that's all it is, why does Develop even gain a card costing $1 less than the one you trash? It seems pretty obvious that Develop was intended, at least partially, to trash more expensive cards. Whether that's often worthwhile remains to be seen, but you haven't done a very good job of arguing that it's not.

Quote
Excuse me for thinking that "playing a bunch of Develop games" is not a special qualification. You're a respected poster here and I'd expect everyone to have played a bunch of Develop games. (In summary, I apologize.)

Apology accepted. However, when I say I've played a "bunch of Develop games", I mean that I've played dozens of Develop games, back to back, always going for Develop regardless of the board in order to try to determine exactly what makes the card tick. I wouldn't expect that most posters here have done that. That being said, I think I still have a long way to go before I really understand the card (or give up on it as being as niche as popular opinion indicates).
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 11:07:48 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Jerk of All trades

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: Develop Dream
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2013, 02:50:00 pm »
0

Develop can be a very board dependent card.  It has some amazing synergy with cards like border village.  (develop BV wharf is incredible).  I also love opening double terminals with develop as one of them.  Cutpurse and monument are great targets, especially if there is a good 5/3 combo on the board. (wharf-FV, rabble-village, festival-watchtower, etc)  If your terminals collide, you get that nice 5/3 combo on top of your deck.  If they dont, you get a silver top-decked and a nice terminal play.

I like it better than trader most of the time.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.104 seconds with 20 queries.