Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 31  All

Author Topic: WW's Power Rankings  (Read 234692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #100 on: July 02, 2013, 08:04:17 am »
+2

My only real disagreement so far is that Advisor is either slightly or way too high. The card is terrible.
Advisor can be really good; you need a lot of them.

I challenge you (or anyone reading this) to post one log where Advisor was "really good" :)

Here are some games where I think Advisor was "really good". People can quibble over whether it's true for these games, but I'd say Advisor was at least important.

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130629/log.514e50c3e4b0b79c883b9afe.1372557367381.txt - Urchin/Mercenary game where a favorable Advisor split for me lets me attack consistently, and recover from the discard attack more effectively. Also features a bunch of cantrips which helps.

http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130623/log.50f5dcbde4b03946044c889a.1372025544566.txt - This one is a Goons game with Advisor as the only source of draw. You need those Advisors to fight Goons and play multiple Goons in a turn.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #101 on: July 02, 2013, 10:20:08 am »
0

I'm not sure I can even squeeze KC into the top 10.

I agree here. No way KC is in the top 5. I don't buy KC every game I see it, it's as simple as that. Neither do I buy chapel all the time, and I just love playing around Sea Hag.

I'm curious about the playing around Sea Hag part.  Can you expand on that?

Sea Hag hurts the opponent, but doesn't provide any resources for me either. I consider playing around it when...

* Trashing cost $5, like Upgrade, Junk Dealer, Trading Post
* Power $5 cards provide better cursing, like Mountebank, Witch
* Trashing is really good, like Remake, Masquerade, Chapel, sometimes Forge
* This great game against Marin. I lost it by opening Sea Hag.
* A rush/slog with Ironworks & Silk Road/Gardens

This list is in no particular order and by no means complete. Just trying to illustrate Sea Hag is not an auto-buy.

That's interesting, thanks.  Do you run the risk of falling behind  if you can't open with the $5 trashing?  Sometimes I feel that Upgrade and Junk Dealer should defend me well against a cursing attack, but I either don't draw them together or I find that I'm not building an economy while fending off curses.  And if you're second player and your opponent discards a Silver, you might not get that $5 for a while, right?  (Of course you're still probably in a better situation than had you opened Sea Hag and had your Sea Hag discarded.)
Logged

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #102 on: July 02, 2013, 11:53:41 am »
0

Yeah, that Talisman + Advisor game was sweet, well done.
Logged

SCSN

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7140
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #103 on: July 02, 2013, 12:04:57 pm »
+3

Okay, it certainly looks like Advisor can be more useful than I've experienced it to be so far!
Logged

GeronimoRex

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #104 on: July 02, 2013, 01:14:12 pm »
+1

The tough thing about ranking Expand is dealing with the price. $7 is a really rough price-point in Province games, so that hurts a lot. I remember when the "win rate given turn purchased" graphs existed on councilroom.com, the value was below 0.8 regardless of turn number for Expand, since usually just the fact that you hit $7 is bad. But I think there are definitely a reasonable number of situations in which Expand is really, really good. In Colony games, where the competition from Province isn't so strong at the $8 price-point, it's good more often than it's bad, I'd say.

I'd agree with this. For me, the $7 cost of Expand isn't really a drawback because it's seldom got any competition at the $7 spot. Most of the time it's real competition seems to be Gold... when I've got $7 to spend and I have an engine with extra actions, the Expand is an easy buy. It accelerates the end game by upgrading any junk left in my deck into useful cards with the option to trash extra $5 actions into Provinces for a big finish... and with a heavy draw engine, TR/KC-Expand can make it possible to pile-drive provinces and pick up 3-4 in a single turn to close the game.

In a scenario without a strong engine, it still can shine, allowing your $5 actions to turn into Provinces even after greening clogs your deck.

I'm not saying Expand is always good, or always the best choice for the money, but with one buy and $7, I'll often pick up one expand vs. a gold, as long as there are extra actions on the board. For me, it's greatest power is turning the $5 cards that often drive an engine into end-game provinces. As for it's price, I think it could cost $6 or $7 and it wouldn't affect when it is purchased.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #105 on: July 02, 2013, 01:37:49 pm »
+4

The Next Bit of Cards (which is not meant to be construed as a tier!)

184.   Tribute
Tribute is weird. It has the potential to be the best card for its price. Well, generally cards is the best bonus to get - 4 cards is really good, 2 cards 2 actions is really good, 2 cards 2 coins is really good, yeah. 4 coins is reasonably good, but see harvest - not all that great actually. Actions/coins is worse than festival, and actions/actions is generally really bad. But one big issue is that you really can't rely on it. Another subtle point is what it skips from your opponent - the better the cards of theirs you skip, the worse the benefit for you. But the unreliability is a big point against it, and the no-extra-benefit-from-a-duplicate is even bigger. It also gets nothing from curses or hovels. But it is really nice against dual-types. Flipping over a nobles and harem every time make this insanely broken, but the problem is, the biggest effect of this is usually to make you less likely to buy those cards.

183.   Chancellor
Yes, we finally see it. Why is it so high, you ask? Well, it's obviously great with stash, but one combo doesn't make a card very good. The bigger thing is that it cycles you through to your cards faster. Well, this is no game-breaker, and often there's an opportunity cost of 'I can't play other terminals'. But it's a pretty good inclusion when that's not an issue, particularly with a lot of the potion-costers. Okay, well, it's still bad of course, but it provides a little plus pretty often.

182.   Contraband
Yeah. This card isn't SO bad when building an engine where you want lots of different things - the ability to block you from one thing isn't so bad. But the problem is that there is either one key card you need fairly often, or more important, it is eventually dead as you want to buy provinces. Well, and gold-with-a-buy isn't actually *that* good, as it turns out. It can be quite nice with Trash for Benefit Later on, so watch out for that.

181.   Haven
You will be up in arms about this one, and maybe it is a bias, but I don't really find this card doing much for me. It can smooth out terminal collision or money sometimes, but often I find it shipping bad cards from hand to hand, which isn't useless but is hardly better than pearl diver. Yeah, sometimes it can set up a big mega-turn, but I don't find this happening very often. And saving things because you have too much money now - well, probably this is a win-more thing, and either I should have gotten more stuff, or some plus buy, or something I'd prefer to use now. Well, it can help you here and there, but it almost never has a big impact, I find. And getting lots of these is the worst - do I haven my haven, or something else and then see what the new one draws?

180.   Poor House
Yes, there are decks where this guy shines, as a very cheap terminal gold or $4. But with the support needed to get there, it's generally no longer that much of a benefit to cost 1. This also has the problem of messing up some upgrade-type effects, and yeah, it usually is, I thin, because it's terminal and even though they will produce 4 soon enough, I will have too many. Actually, this thing often produces money for me no better than Secret Chamber would, though obviously it potentially stacks better. And well, just producing a good chunk of money turns out to be an ability that I don't think is all that great.

179.   Moneylender
A slight trasher which doesn't hurt your economy early on is not bad for an engine. But it tends to be a 'my engine is a little bit better' card rather than a 'I can engine now card', and it can annoyingly end up dead. By no means is it terrible, but it's basically never great.

178.   Feodum
Tremendous combos with masterpiece and trader can make this a powerhouse. But if I can reliably trash it, the silvers might not be the greatest thing ever. And but for the two cards above, the VP it gives is pretty hard to even stretch to the duchy level, let alone surpass it.

177.   Bureaucrat
The attack is nice, but it doesn't hit often. Silver gaining on top of the deck just isn't spectacular most of the time, though. It helps most big money strategies only very marginally (and many not at all, due to competition). But it's quite a good card for a slog, particularly in a mirror.

176.   Nomad Camp
Why is this worse than Woodcutter? Well, it costs more, that's the biggest reason. And the top-decking is... maybe even a liability more often than an asset. It's helpful if you are stalling out in BM, hit exactly 4, and know that you aren't getting a terminal next turn (pretty rare). And it can do some starts for you, but you usually need to have something good at 5 AND 2 to make it a good turn 1 buy. And in engines, the time you usually want Woodcutter, it tends to be a liability. I want draw engine stuff in my hand now, not payload.

175.   Duchess
It's a terminal silver that comes free with duchies. Well, terminal silver for 2 isn't really the worst thing ever. The free with duchies thing doesn't make all that much difference usually - you aren't buying duchies at a point where gaining this is a tremendous option. But at no opportunity cost, well, it can often be a boon, if a quite small one. It's also pretty good for slogs, where it can be free and terminal silver is pretty good.

174.   Black Market
A really hard card to rank. It is very unreliable, and hugely dependent on the board being relatively weak whilst the BM deck is strong. Has natural combos with Tactician and Draw-to-X.

173.   Explorer
A terminal-silver silver-flooder is not terrible, but you usually want to do something better for $5. Gaining gold is really hard to do reliably, especially in a deck where it's particularly valuable.




jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #106 on: July 02, 2013, 01:49:51 pm »
+19

The Next Bit of Cards (which is not meant to be construed as a tier!)

That's an odd name for a tier, but it's yours to name however you want, I guess.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #107 on: July 02, 2013, 01:52:15 pm »
+1

Cellar is cheaper than Warehouse, and warehouse is pretty good.

I'm just saying that just because [card] does something better than Expand in some way does not mean that Expand is automatically bad.

Expand is more expensive than all these cards, and most of them are pretty bad, apart from its effect largely being worse.

What an interesting argument. You listed Mine, Taxman, Graverobber, Rebuild, and Altar. If we want to get pedantic, then yes, if 3/5 of them are pretty bad, then "most" are pretty bad. Actually, Expand isn't any of these. You're pretending as if every deck with Expand will only use it as a worse version of an already limited variant of itself. That's quite unfair, don't you think? Its ability to act as "worse versions" of various different variants is a feature, not a bug.

For god's sake, man, you put it underneath Royal Seal, Stash, Navigator, Tribute, Chancellor, Contraband, and Explorer (among others). These cards thoroughly lack any sort of power in almost any kingdom.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 01:53:18 pm by dondon151 »
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #108 on: July 02, 2013, 02:06:50 pm »
+7

Haven and Moneylender worse than Bureaucrat? I don't think so, friend. I just don't think so.

What's nice about Moneylender is that it trashes Coppers without killing your purchasing power in early hands (like, Apprentice and Salvager don't get any cash from Copper trashing). Of course it is a dead card later and sure, I think a lot of other trashers are better. Spice Merchant is similar, and definitely better, mostly because it's a much more efficient cycler. But this seems too soon for Moneylender to appear.

Haven. Haven, huh? Wow.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #109 on: July 02, 2013, 02:10:11 pm »
+1

Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #110 on: July 02, 2013, 02:12:29 pm »
0

If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.

If that were true, Expand would be higher.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #111 on: July 02, 2013, 02:54:11 pm »
+3

If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.

If that were true, Expand would be higher.

That's not how logic works.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

philosophyguy

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
  • Respect: +299
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #112 on: July 02, 2013, 03:09:37 pm »
0

Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.

I've watched almost every video WW has posted on YouTube over the years, and the thing that jumps out at me—to an almost comical degree—is how much of an engine player he's become over the last year. Like, he now finds engines in places that previously only folks like Marin or Stef could pull it off. It's not that he's less skilled at money or alt-VP games. It's that his engine building has gotten that much better.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #113 on: July 02, 2013, 03:42:21 pm »
0

Haven and Moneylender worse than Bureaucrat? I don't think so, friend. I just don't think so.

What's nice about Moneylender is that it trashes Coppers without killing your purchasing power in early hands (like, Apprentice and Salvager don't get any cash from Copper trashing). Of course it is a dead card later and sure, I think a lot of other trashers are better. Spice Merchant is similar, and definitely better, mostly because it's a much more efficient cycler. But this seems too soon for Moneylender to appear.

Haven. Haven, huh? Wow.
I expected people to find the haven weird, and like I said, it's probably a personal bias. Moneylender, man isn't that what I said? If not, it's what I meant to say. I dunno, maybe that makes it better than I have here, I just don't really feel so - like it's not a card that I get very much or have any memories of being happy at having gotten.

Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.
There are a couple of things here. One, big money is just not that good nowadays, in general. Two, and related, I actually think I am more of a Big Money player still, compared to average, and still less BMy than I was before, it's just things are so enginey now. Three, and most important, I don't think the statement is actually true - none of the cards I've gone through so far are really any good for Big Money - in fact they are generally more useful for engines, when they are useful.... actually, a huge chunk of them don't even beat BMU.

Just a Rube

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #114 on: July 02, 2013, 04:16:36 pm »
+3

Three, and most important, I don't think the statement is actually true - none of the cards I've gone through so far are really any good for Big Money - in fact they are generally more useful for engines, when they are useful.... actually, a huge chunk of them don't even beat BMU.
You're just trying to hide the power of Poor House-Big Money.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #115 on: July 02, 2013, 06:08:01 pm »
+2

Moneylender at 179?  And we haven't seen Counting House (among others) yet?  I'll take Moneylender, you take Counting House :)
Logged
A man on a mission.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #116 on: July 02, 2013, 06:13:51 pm »
0

I am definitely planning on putting out a revised list as soon as these ones are up at this point. But it will just be an all-at-once, and not a slow reveal.

Just a Rube

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #117 on: July 02, 2013, 06:22:43 pm »
0

Moneylender at 179?  And we haven't seen Counting House (among others) yet?  I'll take Moneylender, you take Counting House :)
I'm curious when we will see Spice Merchant, and how much difference there will be between it and Moneylender. It certainly seems somewhat better, but many of the objections to Moneylender apply almost equally to Spice Merchant.
Logged

brokoli

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
  • Respect: +786
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #118 on: July 02, 2013, 06:39:17 pm »
0

Feodum at 178... OMFG. Otherwise, I like that part of the list.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #119 on: July 02, 2013, 06:45:57 pm »
0

Feodum at 178... OMFG. Otherwise, I like that part of the list.

Yeah.  Feodum really isn't that much worse than Gardens or Silk Road.  Like it's worse, but not that much worse.
Logged
A man on a mission.

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #120 on: July 02, 2013, 07:03:40 pm »
0

Feodum does require you to go quite far out of your way to make it score a decent amount of points though. You don't typically want a deck of boatloads of silver. It's much harder to use it as a support card than Silk Road or Gardens, it really requires you to dedicate your strategy to it for it to be worth much.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #121 on: July 02, 2013, 07:14:43 pm »
+1

Hey, WanderingWinder. Is it just me, or do I remember a time when you were sort of the star non-engine player of the site? If there's one thing these rankings are telling me, it's that if a card isn't good for an engine, it's pretty much garbage in your eyes.

What I see are that the cards at the bottom are cards that belong in engines, yet do nothing for the engine except generate cash while actively getting in the way of the engine. We haven't seen the power BM cards yet.

As to how much of a bias WW has for engine cards? Well, Moat's placement will be a good indicator of that.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #122 on: July 02, 2013, 07:44:49 pm »
+2

Feodum does require you to go quite far out of your way to make it score a decent amount of points though. You don't typically want a deck of boatloads of silver. It's much harder to use it as a support card than Silk Road or Gardens, it really requires you to dedicate your strategy to it for it to be worth much.

On the other hand, if you have a deck that's good for Feodums, you can probably also get Provinces pretty easily; probably not all your points are coming from the Feodums.
Logged

brokoli

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
  • Respect: +786
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #123 on: July 02, 2013, 07:54:45 pm »
+1

Feodum does require you to go quite far out of your way to make it score a decent amount of points though. You don't typically want a deck of boatloads of silver. It's much harder to use it as a support card than Silk Road or Gardens, it really requires you to dedicate your strategy to it for it to be worth much.

On the other hand, if you have a deck that's good for Feodums, you can probably also get Provinces pretty easily; probably not all your points are coming from the Feodums.
This. I think many people are missing the point on feodum : it's rarely a rush-alt-VP card like Gardens and Silk road, more often it's completely different (and also can be used ONLY for the on-trash effect)
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #124 on: July 03, 2013, 12:20:30 am »
+3

I don't see how the strength of Advisor can be in doubt. In a thinned deck, it's a lab. A $4 lab is nothing to sneeze at. Yes it's bad without trashing, so don't buy it without trashing.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 31  All
 

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 21 queries.