Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 31  All

Author Topic: WW's Power Rankings  (Read 234660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #650 on: August 21, 2013, 03:38:42 pm »
+1

I would say Junk Dealer and Forager are clearly Trash for Benefit cards though, even if the trashing aspect is stronger.

Uh, usually when we say "trash-for-benefit", we're referring to trashers that give some benefit commensurate with the cost of the trashed card(s). Examples include Salvager, Remodel, and Apprentice. Chapel is not a trash-for-benefit card, even though the trashing benefits your deck. Junk Dealer and Forager fall into the same category of deck thinner; they don't care what's being trashed. They are not trash-for-benefit cards.

Surely Altar is a Trash for Benefit card? I can't imagine why the term "Trash for Benefit" doesn't include Forager, Trade Route, Junk Dealer and Altar.  I always thought people said "scaling TfB" whenever they talked about the cards that cared specifically about cost (Apprentice, Salvager). Although I suppose the Remodel variants care a lot about cost but don't "scale" necessarily. In the end I guess it's just down to community usage. I didn't get a sense that the cards I mentioned wouldn't be TfB, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't say Altar is a trash-for-benefit card. For one thing, you can gain a card with it even if you don't trash one!

The only card that doesn't clearly fall inside or outside the trash-for-benefit category is Transmute. It cares about card data, just not cost.

EDIT: Also, I have never once heard the term "Scaling Trash For Benefit". By your definition, which trashers aren't TfB cards?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 03:39:57 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #651 on: August 21, 2013, 03:41:48 pm »
0

I would call Death Cart a TfB - trashing a card gives you the benefit of keeping your Death Cart.

I would also consider Altar a TfB, as Bishop is also a TfB with the edge case of getting points without trashing anything.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #652 on: August 21, 2013, 03:44:20 pm »
0

I would call Death Cart a TfB - trashing a card gives you the benefit of keeping your Death Cart.

I would call Death Cart a conditional one-shot.

I would also consider Altar a TfB, as Bishop is also a TfB with the edge case of getting points without trashing anything.

That's some strange logic. Bishop is TfB because it gives more VP Chips when you trash a more expensive card. The fact that it also gives +$1 and +1 VP Chip is irrelevant. Altar's benefit does not vary depending on the card you trash, or even if you don't trash a card at all.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #653 on: August 21, 2013, 03:47:57 pm »
0

I would say Junk Dealer and Forager are clearly Trash for Benefit cards though, even if the trashing aspect is stronger.

Uh, usually when we say "trash-for-benefit", we're referring to trashers that give some benefit commensurate with the cost of the trashed card(s). Examples include Salvager, Remodel, and Apprentice. Chapel is not a trash-for-benefit card, even though the trashing benefits your deck. Junk Dealer and Forager fall into the same category of deck thinner; they don't care what's being trashed. They are not trash-for-benefit cards.

Surely Altar is a Trash for Benefit card? I can't imagine why the term "Trash for Benefit" doesn't include Forager, Trade Route, Junk Dealer and Altar.  I always thought people said "scaling TfB" whenever they talked about the cards that cared specifically about cost (Apprentice, Salvager). Although I suppose the Remodel variants care a lot about cost but don't "scale" necessarily. In the end I guess it's just down to community usage. I didn't get a sense that the cards I mentioned wouldn't be TfB, but I could be wrong.

Oh man it's the "City Level" discussion all over again! I thought people generally meant cards that care about the cost when they talk about TFB. Because they say things like how good Peddler is for TFB, for example. And Border Village, and Rats, and IGG, etc... that is, cards that cost more than their in-deck worth, because you get more out of them with TFB.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #654 on: August 21, 2013, 03:48:55 pm »
+1


EDIT: Also, I have never once heard the term "Scaling Trash For Benefit". By your definition, which trashers aren't TfB cards?

Chapel is TFB, you get the benefit of a thinner deck.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #655 on: August 21, 2013, 03:50:44 pm »
+1


EDIT: Also, I have never once heard the term "Scaling Trash For Benefit". By your definition, which trashers aren't TfB cards?

I've heard 'scaling trash for benefit' around here.

Chapel, Steward, etc. would be 'trashers' that aren't TfB.

I guess one way to think about it - 

scaling TfB - gives a benefit proportional to the cost of the card. (Bishop, Remodel variants maybe,  Salvager, etc. )
non-scaling TfB - gives a benefit, you might want to play it even when you don't have any bad cards left (Forager, Junk dealer, etc.)
non-TFB trashers - don't give any benefit for playing them (besides trashing something, obviously), so you'll probably have no reason to play them after your dead cards are all trashed. (Chapel, Steward, etc.)

That said, some people just use "TfB" to mean what others specify as "scaling TfB", so you usually have to pick up what is meant from context.

Back to Rats -

It's great with scaling trash-for-benefit. To the point where it can be a strategy in and of itself  - Bishop/Rats, Upgrade/Rats are things you might be able to build a deck around.

It's okay with non-scaling TfB. If you're going to be playing a bunch of foragers or junk dealers, it might make sense to pick up a Rats to make those foragers or junk dealers a bit better, but you can't really make a whole strategy out of it usually.

Trashers like Chapel and Steward don't really have any interaction with rats, it basically always won't be worth the time to pick up a rats if you're going to just chapel it away, you might as well just chapel your dead cards directly.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 03:55:29 pm by ftl »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #656 on: August 21, 2013, 03:53:58 pm »
0

I don't know why the term TFB even exists in the first place, but I've been told that Moneylender is the most important TFB card in the base set.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2577
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4340
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #657 on: August 21, 2013, 04:05:07 pm »
0

I don't know why the term TFB even exists in the first place, but I've been told that Moneylender is the most important TFB card in the base set.

That would be Remodel
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #658 on: August 21, 2013, 04:06:15 pm »
0

I'm with the group that thought TfB was always specific to the "scaling" cards, including the Remodel family.
Logged

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #659 on: August 21, 2013, 04:32:38 pm »
0

Oh man it's the "City Level" discussion all over again!

I'm pretty sure that one was actually more heated. It generated its own 6 pages of discussion and a poll which ended 69 - 63 in favour of 1/2/3
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 #660 on: August 21, 2013, 04:38:17 pm »
0

Doctor went from being the surprise newcomer on the #9 spot to dropping below Lookout. IMO, that's where it belongs.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #661 on: August 21, 2013, 05:26:06 pm »
0

Rats needs to be so far down because it a nine-card kingdom with no TFBs

This isn't quite true. Rats creates its own benefit when trashed. I wouldn't call Lookout, Forager, or Junk Dealer trash-for-benefit cards, but they still combo with Rats.
The +1 card when trashing a Rats is just compensation for the -1 card from trashing when you gained it (unless it's a Rats that you bought). To be fair, that +1 card may be more useful than the -1 card, because your deck should be stronger at that point. I'd still need some convincing that there's a worthwhile combo there, because buying the first Rats takes a valuable early $4 buy, and if the Rats start eating Coppers then they're less useful than the cards they're replacing.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #662 on: August 23, 2013, 11:56:35 am »
+2

Using one of the programs in my Dominion Card Sorter, I sorted the expansions based on the average WW Power Ranking of the cards in each expansion. This gives some idea of how "Powerful" the expansions are, with lower numbers being better:

Code: [Select]
Cornucopia  75.3
Hinterlands 88.8
Dark Ages   99.2
Guilds      99.2
Prosperity  103.1
Intrigue    104.0
Seaside     107.5
Alchemy     117.7
Base        121.1
Promo       131.2
Logged

Zappie

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #663 on: August 23, 2013, 01:09:20 pm »
+2

Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.

Base            33     
Intrigue        15
Seaside         21
Alchemy        59
Prosperity     16
Cornucopia    26
Hinterlands    37
Dark Ages     12
Guilds           53

This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #664 on: August 23, 2013, 01:28:03 pm »
0

Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.

Base            33     
Intrigue        15
Seaside         21
Alchemy        59
Prosperity     16
Cornucopia    26
Hinterlands    37
Dark Ages     12
Guilds           53

This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.

Alchemy cards would score higher in these rankings if it was the norm to play with more than one of them at a time. With just one, that Potion is always going to be a lower value proposition, and by extension the cards you buy with it.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #665 on: August 23, 2013, 01:48:41 pm »
+2

Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.

Base            33     
Intrigue        15
Seaside         21
Alchemy        59
Prosperity     16
Cornucopia    26
Hinterlands    37
Dark Ages     12
Guilds           53

This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.

Best top 5 is a bit silly, since it's obviously likely to favour bigger expansions over smaller ones, because well what do you expect to be better, the best 5 out of a choice of 35, or the best 5 out of a choice of 12? Comparing the average of the best 20% would probably be a more sensible comparison - that'd be the top 3 out of Cornucopia/Guilds/Alchemy, top 7 for Dark Ages and top 5 for the rest.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

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 #666 on: August 23, 2013, 04:54:51 pm »
0

Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.

Base            33     
Intrigue        15
Seaside         21
Alchemy        59
Prosperity     16
Cornucopia    26
Hinterlands    37
Dark Ages     12
Guilds           53

This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.

Best top 5 is a bit silly, since it's obviously likely to favour bigger expansions over smaller ones, because well what do you expect to be better, the best 5 out of a choice of 35, or the best 5 out of a choice of 12? Comparing the average of the best 20% would probably be a more sensible comparison - that'd be the top 3 out of Cornucopia/Guilds/Alchemy, top 7 for Dark Ages and top 5 for the rest.
I was going to say something along these lines. Then I noticed that Cornucopia *still* beat out Base  :o

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #667 on: August 23, 2013, 06:22:26 pm »
+6

Best top 5 - Using WW ranking I calculated the average position of the best 5 cards of a expansion. Useful if you want to find out and maybe buy a expansion that just contains the cards that have the most influence on the game.

Base            33     
Intrigue        15
Seaside         21
Alchemy        59
Prosperity     16
Cornucopia    26
Hinterlands    37
Dark Ages     12
Guilds           53

This list is sorted from old to new, so you can see that cards did not simply became stronger over time, the same can be concluded when looking at the average position of all the cards in a set, altough base and alchemy score both score quite weak - that might be a reason why people also don't tend to like them.

Best top 5 is a bit silly, since it's obviously likely to favour bigger expansions over smaller ones, because well what do you expect to be better, the best 5 out of a choice of 35, or the best 5 out of a choice of 12? Comparing the average of the best 20% would probably be a more sensible comparison - that'd be the top 3 out of Cornucopia/Guilds/Alchemy, top 7 for Dark Ages and top 5 for the rest.
I was going to say something along these lines. Then I noticed that Cornucopia *still* beat out Base  :o

Cornucopia's themes are variety, harvest and power creep.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #668 on: August 23, 2013, 07:31:26 pm »
+9

Also, for what it's worth, if you do average the top 20% this is what you get:

Intrigue: 15.4
Dark Ages: 15.6
Cornucopia: 20
Seaside: 21.2
Hinterlands: 22.6
Prosperity: 23
Base: 36.8
Alchemy: 40
Guilds: 42

Kind of surprised to see Guilds and Alchemy still so low, and Intrigue so high. Intrigue isn't really an expansion I think of when I think of powerful cards. I think some of the Intrigue cards are overrated, mind (like, Steward, is a good card, but I wouldn't say it's top-10 good, much less top-3), but that's just my opinion and WW's played the game a lot more than I have.

In fact since I've made the list, let's also do the bottom 20%. I guess you could call this a vague measure of which expansions have the fewest weak cards... ish?

Base: 198
Intrigue: 192.6
Alchemy: 192
Seaside: 191.8
Prosperity: 178.8
Dark Ages: 173.1
Hinterlands: 169.8
Cornucopia: 164.7
Guilds: 161.7

So while Guilds has the fewest power cards, it also has the fewest weak cards - even it's weak cards are pretty competitive. This could be ascribed at least partially to Guilds newness, mind - it's hard to put cards into the outlier areas until you're pretty experienced. Base, Intrigue, Seaside and Alchemy all have a decent number of low ranked cards, and so have notably lower positions than other expansions.

And since I still have the data, how about a simple measure: the mean position of cards.

Cornucopia: 75.31
Hinterlands: 88.81
Dark Ages: 99.20
Guilds: 99.23
Prosperity: 103.08
Intrigue: 103.96
Seaside: 107.46
Alchemy: 117.67
Base: 121.08

Surprised to see Hinterlands so high up, and Seaside so low. I guess because while Hinterlands doesn't have many power cards, it doesn't have all that many duds, either - it's lowest card is Nomad Camp, a full 28 positions above the lowest position. Seaside on the other hand has lots of meh cards.

And since I still have the data, how about some bar charts?

I removed promos, then counted (well, my spreadsheet counted) the number of cards in each quarter of the list - so top 50, then 51-100, then 101-150, then 151-200. This chart shows the distribution across expansions. The first chart is unweighted, so Dark Ages is massive on each section (but more massive in Q1 and Q3), while the second weights expansions inversely with size, so that each expansion is in total taking up the same area (hence also each bar having a different height, since e.g. one Alchemy card counts almost three times as much as a Dark Ages card)



Well that was fun!
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #669 on: August 23, 2013, 07:58:57 pm »
+2

Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way.  I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #670 on: August 23, 2013, 08:23:04 pm »
+3

The middle-of-the-road-ishness of guilds may be because it's so new still. There's a tendency to play it safe with unfamiliar cards so I expect some of them will drift more towards the higher or lower end as time goes on.
Logged

ednever

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 650
  • Respect: +722
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #671 on: August 23, 2013, 08:42:32 pm »
+2

The middle-of-the-road-ishness of guilds may be because it's so new still. There's a tendency to play it safe with unfamiliar cards so I expect some of them will drift more towards the higher or lower end as time goes on.

Or it could be that Donald has got better at creating cards so that there are less really weak or really overpowering ones?

Ed
(The again it wasn't that long ago we got Rebuild...)
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #672 on: August 23, 2013, 08:47:42 pm »
0

Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way.  I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...

And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #673 on: August 23, 2013, 09:12:24 pm »
+7

Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way.  I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...

And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.

It would probably be easier to have a site where you just compare two cards at a time (and then another 2 and another 2, etc.). With a large enough sample size, you'd get meaningful results. Making an entire 200+ card list can be daunting.
Logged

Young Nick

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
  • Respect: +274
    • View Profile
Re: WW's Power Rankings
« Reply #674 on: August 23, 2013, 11:22:25 pm »
+3

Seeing this list (and all the people disagreeing with parts) makes me wonder what it would be like if we did a Qvist-type ranking this way.  I would volunteer to run it, but I don't know much about statistics so I would only be able to order them all and that would be it...

And by Qvist-type, I mean everybody sends in their list and then they all get sorted.

It would probably be easier to have a site where you just compare two cards at a time (and then another 2 and another 2, etc.). With a large enough sample size, you'd get meaningful results. Making an entire 200+ card list can be daunting.

Wait I feel this would be so easy to set up and would be an awesome little game to have on this site. Have AI use it as something to do while waiting for automatch using the Salvager and BOOM results are in.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 31  All
 

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 22 queries.