Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Personal Reflection - Mathematics  (Read 3910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BitTorrent

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • Respect: +57
    • View Profile
Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« on: April 08, 2013, 02:59:11 pm »
+2

Rather than computing probabilities and drafting hypothesis this article is mainly about my personal experience after playing with numerous players across the globe.

Recently the discussion about Math is hot. In fact it is always one of the hottest topics around innovation from time to time. Is Mathematics that good which draws so much attention, or just being overrated?

And for me, here is my general idea about Mathematics:

1. Extremely versatile card. Mathematics is useful in a large variety of situations, varies in any age and can work with both a bulb lead or not;

2. Not the silver bullet to all the situations. Yes it maybe applied in a lot of scenario but it doesn't means that it is the best choice. In fact, often there are better options, but we just in fear that the chance of using Math to keep an age lead will be ruined so a lot of players tend to avoid those options;

3. Doesn't give you any score nor achievement nor hand. All it does is a universal age-up platform;

4. Hand consumption required actually makes it become such a infamous card, because it makes sharing it on your first action becomes a very viable play;

Right. I am not a fan of it. I would rather spam Almanac to age 10+ (which is way more viable if you are allowed to stay uninterrupted) rather than using Math. Actually as my games mainly around those in the level ~30s and ~40s, most experts are not addicted to it, too. Say ksasaki is a echo heavy player who would search and stack echo effects but you don't see him go Math often(somewhat related to his echo heavy play style, though), yaron and yuki are achievement oriented players who would prioritize scoring and achievements on their first place. You just don't see a Math spamming often.

Yet another thing is that, the chance of math-ing all the way to age 10 is not that easy. Say you skipped the age2 -> age3 step as I suggested, the chance of you age up from age3 to age10 without Math being covered is about 20.0%. So yes if you can reach there you do have a good chance to win, but the chance is only about 1 out of 5. It makes the whole thing like a gamble, too.

You may argue that we can stop at elsewhere where you can take full command of the game. Yes, you can, but even if you include those your chance is still nothing extraordinary, say you may win 5 or 6 out of 10 games with Math. A chance around 50% is nothing unusual, just like yet another card. The reason behind this, is that a scorer with a low entry requirement is rare throughout the game. Yes you can use Perspective to score 100+ points and you may use Lighting or Canning to catch a scoring lead in a sudden, but all these plays would require resources from you in other aspect (board, hand, etc). One of the major weakness of Math tech-ing is that you don't build a lot of resources for yourself, which you might find yourself in a tough situation even you got such a good scorer. This is also one of the reason that why some players tends to rely on age10 cards which are bounded with effects of 'draw and score a 10'.

Actually some of my technique with Math is that: I hide it in my hand. Since the dogma can be as effective in age 6/7 just like it is in age 2/3, you save it until there is no more tech-up possibilities. It takes a really high skill level to foresee such a trick though, since an unused age2 hand is really nothing special, it maybe a Canal Building or Mapmaking or whatsoever which you just won't meld it at all in some cases.

Don't wanna write too much in it, since I am just not a big fan of tech-up maniac.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4992
  • Respect: +2518
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2013, 03:15:13 pm »
+1

Math is so much weaker in echoes though, most of the heated discussion is about base. 
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

teasel

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2013, 04:30:01 pm »
0

Math is so much weaker in echoes though, most of the heated discussion is about base. 

eh i don't agree,human genome wins you the game if you have no score (which is what happens if you tech all the way to 10 with math without scoring),puzzle cube wins you the game if you have a small or no pile splayed (which is what happens if you tech all the way to 10 with math without splaying) there is also social network but depending on the situation,you might end up having more factories than your opponent... then there is elevator which is the best score stealer ever printed,if you tech up from age 8 to age 9 feeding it an echoes card and you overmeld math,there is a chance that card will be laser which will immediately shot down any scoring opponent by simply negating him the achievements,and also you need to get to 7 achievement as opposed to 6 to win the game

and of course all of the good high tech card in base are good in echoes too,some even better (*coff coff* industrialization *coff* *coff*)
if there is a reason why math is weaker is simply because there are more "analogic" teching up option,there is lever,magnifying glass and slide rule which is freaking amazing

Quote
Yet another thing is that, the chance of math-ing all the way to age 10 is not that easy. Say you skipped the age2 -> age3 step as I suggested, the chance of you age up from age3 to age10 without Math being covered is about 20.0%. So yes if you can reach there you do have a good chance to win, but the chance is only about 1 out of 5. It makes the whole thing like a gamble, too.

personaly i'm happy as long as i hit at least age 6,atomic theory is a great draw and meld card and if you use it,there is a chance you overmeld publication,and if you overmeld publication then you can pull math out of your pile again,even if you don't get atomic theory there is still a chance to remove the math obstruction with canning or better yet,use electricity,if you remove the obstruction with electricity not only you have access to math again but you also now have a 8 to feed to math so you can jump immediately from 7 to 9

if you get to 8 then you have quantum theory which let you cheat directly to 10,and at age 9 you have computer which is actualy better than math as long as you don't get unlucky and execute software -> robotics -> A.I

if math overmeld itself early on age 3 or 4... well time to find another plan then,but the potential is huge

anyway i think rather than discussing math in specific we should talk about teching up in general... it's true that earlier scoring wins the game but the planets don't always align perfectly for you,and when that happens the way for a runaway victory is teching up... not to mention you need to tech up to score the achievement anyway beside as far as i'm concerned i am as happy when i draw math as i am when i draw alchemy,use alchemy to meld experimentation,meld physics with experimentation and find atomic theory with physics
 

« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 06:08:30 pm by teasel »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4992
  • Respect: +2518
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2013, 05:59:14 pm »
0

You're assuming your opponent can't share a dogma effect or activate a bum Optics to force cards into your score pile.  Which he'll happily do before he even sees the genome since it gives him a bonus draw and you aren't going to use the score to achieve.

There's lots of other assumptions happening there too.. Math spam is pretty bad in echoes.  Echoes is fast, with more games ending in an earlier age.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

teasel

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2013, 07:15:44 pm »
0

You're assuming your opponent can't share a dogma effect or activate a bum Optics to force cards into your score pile.  Which he'll happily do before he even sees the genome since it gives him a bonus draw and you aren't going to use the score to achieve.

There's lots of other assumptions happening there too.. Math spam is pretty bad in echoes.  Echoes is fast, with more games ending in an earlier age.

well it's not like i would purposely left my score pile empty and hoping to draw human genome,that was just a possibility that comes with teching up to age 10...
besides if you have a few cards in your score pile,human genome is still good,as long as your score pile is not ravaged by random cluster of 1 and 2
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 09:45:45 pm by teasel »
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 694
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +219
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2013, 08:42:40 pm »
0

I think the bottom line is just to say, math is a card that I'd like to see it in my own hand rather than in my opponent's hand. How and when to use it or even whether one should use it is another question.

This is already a lot that can be said for a specific card; I don't mind nearly as much if my opponent has sailing or domestication or the wheel.
Logged

BitTorrent

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • Respect: +57
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2013, 02:20:15 am »
0

personaly i'm happy as long as i hit at least age 6,atomic theory is a great draw and meld card and if you use it,there is a chance you overmeld publication,and if you overmeld publication then you can pull math out of your pile again,even if you don't get atomic theory there is still a chance to remove the math obstruction with canning or better yet,use electricity,if you remove the obstruction with electricity not only you have access to math again but you also now have a 8 to feed to math so you can jump immediately from 7 to 9

if you get to 8 then you have quantum theory which let you cheat directly to 10,and at age 9 you have computer which is actualy better than math as long as you don't get unlucky and execute software -> robotics -> A.I

if math overmeld itself early on age 3 or 4... well time to find another plan then,but the potential is huge

anyway i think rather than discussing math in specific we should talk about teching up in general... it's true that earlier scoring wins the game but the planets don't always align perfectly for you,and when that happens the way for a runaway victory is teching up... not to mention you need to tech up to score the achievement anyway beside as far as i'm concerned i am as happy when i draw math as i am when i draw alchemy,use alchemy to meld experimentation,meld physics with experimentation and find atomic theory with physics

This is the type of game i don't really like to play (though I never say I don't know it --- in fact I know it really well), which I call 'gambling innovation'.

It is like a game of 'drawing the cards which you will win from a pile of pokers', without much about manipulating those cards or interaction to your opponent. If you draw this or that, then you win, else you lose. This is the type of meta bounded to that type of game.

A simpler case is that say you math a 8 and you got computer, while you have zero leaves. Are you going to dogma computer while your opponent have 4 leaves, 5 factories and you are losing in score? Say if you melded Bioengineering or Globalization you immediately lose, if you melded robotics or Software and followed these cards you immediately lose too, but if it is something else you are very close to win the game. There is a computable chance that you can win the game or lose the game, just by what you would draw from that age 10 deck.

These plays involve little interaction to your opponent, as you have already said it is all about how far can you tech up yourself and find a card which gives you the victory. It do not involve demanding your opponent or controlling your opponent, just all about yourself. Say 30% skills and 70% luck, just like Texas Poker.

I do not say the chance of winning by such kind of meta is significantly lower as I suggested you can still get some 5-6 out of 10 games by it. It is just too much on the luck side instead of the skill side.
Logged

teasel

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2013, 07:10:26 am »
0

personaly i'm happy as long as i hit at least age 6,atomic theory is a great draw and meld card and if you use it,there is a chance you overmeld publication,and if you overmeld publication then you can pull math out of your pile again,even if you don't get atomic theory there is still a chance to remove the math obstruction with canning or better yet,use electricity,if you remove the obstruction with electricity not only you have access to math again but you also now have a 8 to feed to math so you can jump immediately from 7 to 9

if you get to 8 then you have quantum theory which let you cheat directly to 10,and at age 9 you have computer which is actualy better than math as long as you don't get unlucky and execute software -> robotics -> A.I

if math overmeld itself early on age 3 or 4... well time to find another plan then,but the potential is huge

anyway i think rather than discussing math in specific we should talk about teching up in general... it's true that earlier scoring wins the game but the planets don't always align perfectly for you,and when that happens the way for a runaway victory is teching up... not to mention you need to tech up to score the achievement anyway beside as far as i'm concerned i am as happy when i draw math as i am when i draw alchemy,use alchemy to meld experimentation,meld physics with experimentation and find atomic theory with physics

This is the type of game i don't really like to play (though I never say I don't know it --- in fact I know it really well), which I call 'gambling innovation'.

It is like a game of 'drawing the cards which you will win from a pile of pokers', without much about manipulating those cards or interaction to your opponent. If you draw this or that, then you win, else you lose. This is the type of meta bounded to that type of game.

A simpler case is that say you math a 8 and you got computer, while you have zero leaves. Are you going to dogma computer while your opponent have 4 leaves, 5 factories and you are losing in score? Say if you melded Bioengineering or Globalization you immediately lose, if you melded robotics or Software and followed these cards you immediately lose too, but if it is something else you are very close to win the game. There is a computable chance that you can win the game or lose the game, just by what you would draw from that age 10 deck.

These plays involve little interaction to your opponent, as you have already said it is all about how far can you tech up yourself and find a card which gives you the victory. It do not involve demanding your opponent or controlling your opponent, just all about yourself. Say 30% skills and 70% luck, just like Texas Poker.

I do not say the chance of winning by such kind of meta is significantly lower as I suggested you can still get some 5-6 out of 10 games by it. It is just too much on the luck side instead of the skill side.

well then you'd have to catch up in score or leaves before using computer and you have many option to do so with stuff like mass media and mobility... or you could search for genetics,that's bound to both give you the last tech up without triggering anything troubling and fix your score problem

and if you are in a spot where you are going to lose anyway,handling the game to luck is a much better alternative to just losing... i mean isn't that the point of fission anyway?

Logged

randomdragoon

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2013, 11:42:55 am »
0

personaly i'm happy as long as i hit at least age 6,atomic theory is a great draw and meld card and if you use it,there is a chance you overmeld publication,and if you overmeld publication then you can pull math out of your pile again,even if you don't get atomic theory there is still a chance to remove the math obstruction with canning or better yet,use electricity,if you remove the obstruction with electricity not only you have access to math again but you also now have a 8 to feed to math so you can jump immediately from 7 to 9

if you get to 8 then you have quantum theory which let you cheat directly to 10,and at age 9 you have computer which is actualy better than math as long as you don't get unlucky and execute software -> robotics -> A.I

if math overmeld itself early on age 3 or 4... well time to find another plan then,but the potential is huge

anyway i think rather than discussing math in specific we should talk about teching up in general... it's true that earlier scoring wins the game but the planets don't always align perfectly for you,and when that happens the way for a runaway victory is teching up... not to mention you need to tech up to score the achievement anyway beside as far as i'm concerned i am as happy when i draw math as i am when i draw alchemy,use alchemy to meld experimentation,meld physics with experimentation and find atomic theory with physics

This is the type of game i don't really like to play (though I never say I don't know it --- in fact I know it really well), which I call 'gambling innovation'.

It is like a game of 'drawing the cards which you will win from a pile of pokers', without much about manipulating those cards or interaction to your opponent. If you draw this or that, then you win, else you lose. This is the type of meta bounded to that type of game.

A simpler case is that say you math a 8 and you got computer, while you have zero leaves. Are you going to dogma computer while your opponent have 4 leaves, 5 factories and you are losing in score? Say if you melded Bioengineering or Globalization you immediately lose, if you melded robotics or Software and followed these cards you immediately lose too, but if it is something else you are very close to win the game. There is a computable chance that you can win the game or lose the game, just by what you would draw from that age 10 deck.

These plays involve little interaction to your opponent, as you have already said it is all about how far can you tech up yourself and find a card which gives you the victory. It do not involve demanding your opponent or controlling your opponent, just all about yourself. Say 30% skills and 70% luck, just like Texas Poker.

I do not say the chance of winning by such kind of meta is significantly lower as I suggested you can still get some 5-6 out of 10 games by it. It is just too much on the luck side instead of the skill side.

well then you'd have to catch up in score or leaves before using computer and you have many option to do so with stuff like mass media and mobility... or you could search for genetics,that's bound to both give you the last tech up without triggering anything troubling and fix your score problem

and if you are in a spot where you are going to lose anyway,handling the game to luck is a much better alternative to just losing... i mean isn't that the point of fission anyway?
The demand part of fission is compensation for the second dogma effect. In return for you returning anything on your opponent's board, either your opponent gets to draw a 10 (maybe blowing up the world) or he gets to do the same to you, depending on the clock balance. I don't think Fission should be primarily seen as a desperate reset button card.

I've used Fission to get rid of a key card to pave the way for a Bioengineering win (he had two leaves as the second from the top card in a splayed pile, and only 4 total leaves; the top and third cards did not have a leaf)
In that situation, I had a 1/9 chance of losing outright by using Fission (2/9 chance of blowing up the board [bioengineering was already on my board], then probably 50-50 afterwards) and the remaining outcome was an outright win; although I was not in a desperate situation I estimated my chances of winning without fission slightly lower than 8/9 (opponent could always pull out skyscrapers and wreck me) so I used fission.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3487
  • Respect: +5468
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2013, 03:59:33 pm »
0

Just finished a series with BrokenTree.  Three times I teched ahead with Math.  Three times I landed on Miniaturization when I got to 10.  Three times I lost.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6797
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8736
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2013, 04:01:07 pm »
+1

Just finished a series with BrokenTree.  Three times I teched ahead with Math.  Three times I landed on Miniaturization when I got to 10.  Three times I lost.

Remind me never to borrow Theory's dice.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

WinterSpartan

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Reflection - Mathematics
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2013, 05:23:44 pm »
0

Just finished a series with BrokenTree.  Three times I teched ahead with Math.  Three times I landed on Miniaturization when I got to 10.  Three times I lost.

Remind me never to borrow Theory's dice.

Why not? He's 0/3 on hitting Translation or Alchemy.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.127 seconds with 21 queries.