Print

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

[KingZog3]

In dominion you should either give the other players a chance to play their hands and buy whatever VPs are available, or have a rule where they must either have 6 VP minimum or be 3 VP ahead minimum, something along those lines.

But then you are disallowing many strategies. Many times it is not possible to buy a Province, yet you can win off Silk Roads or Gardens. Would I then have to wait around until my opponent buys a Province just so that I can buy the last Garden? That seems silly. Plus I'd just be buying Copper and gaining all kinds of cards to boost my Gardens to more points.

Look, maybe there is a reason that no one is agreeing with you. Have you considered that?

[Kirian]

Well I'm new here but you're my favorite poster so far. Blueblimp also seems like a most judicious man of discerning tastes and that I would welcome into my cigar room for a game of dominion any day of the week.

The other posters don't dislike you. They just don't agree with you.

Speak for yourself.

[blueblimp]

I'd say a technicality is something which is within the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The three-pile rule is certainly within the spirit of Dominion, but deliberate fouling in Basketball, is that something professional players actually do? I hope fouling doesn't necessarily mean hurting a player on the other team, it would be extremely perverse if there were a strategic advantage in doing that.

See that's just it the three-pile rule was made for the purpose of preventing slogs from going on forever, to put an end to games where players would take forever to get to province buying capacity

The three pile rule was made in this spirit not in the spirit of pile-draining to win. This is a deck-building game, not a pile draining game

Actually the three-pile-rule was made for the purpose of preventing boring Duchy rush games - the original rule was the 1-pile-rule.

The most important change was the end condition. In the original game, if two other people went for Duchies, you had to go for Duchies too; I knew this but it didn't seem like an issue, because all you could do was make the game boring, it didn't just win for you. It turns out that being able to make the game boring is not great. I had already changed the end condition from "any empty pile" to "any empty victory pile," to save on cards. Instead of 12 cards per pile there were 10, except for victory piles; but it played the same as it previously had, because to stop the game from ending you used to have to leave two cards in a pile (if you just left one then whoever was ahead would buy it to lock in the win). Anyway I further modified this to "Provinces empty or 3 piles empty," to make sure that rushing Duchies didn't just end the game without help from something. It was fine if sometimes it was a thing, as long as normally you got to build up your deck. I also raised Province from 5 VP to 6 VP.

EDIT: 1337 posts and 1111 respect! Yay! 

You're looking at it backward. The 3-pile rule does not prevent boring Duchy rush games. Obviously, if the rule were only "Provinces empty", that would be just as effective at nerfing Duchy rushes.

Thus, there must be some problem with "Provinces empty" that caused Donald X to add on the additional "3 piles empty" condition.

[Count Grishnakh]

Let me offer an analogy.

Let's say you play poker with some friends for money. In the FIRST or second game you made some good decisions but you also had extraordinary luck, and you just won 100$ from the other poker players. Immediately after the game you say "Alright guys, I think I'm going to call it a night, see ya later!

This is considered bad form by poker players.
exploiting your luck using the mechanics of the cards isn't as annoying as exploiting your luck and taking advantage of the fact that you can choose to end the game at a point which is self-serving and deny other players a reprisal.

Let me offer an amendment to your analogy. You're likening a single game of Dominion to an entire night of Poker. Instead, think of a single game of Dominion as a single hand of Poker. Your opponents don't have the opportunity to win their money back that game. Instead, they get to go first next game and now they have first-turn advantage.

Your amendment is valid if you are indeed playing rematches, however I play on Goko where I am not guaranteed a rematch. If all you get is a single game against opponent, then my original analogy stands.

Well, you're not going to be playing your house rules on Goko either, so why did you suggest them as solutions?

I suggested them as solutions because they are solutions when not playing on Goko. My proposed solutions may be futile for Goko but just because my solutions aren't practical in my case doesn't mean I'm not correct in diagnosing the problem.

And to each their own but we must admit that the three pile rule is a tad problematic for various reasons I've pointed out and other reasons that I will detail in a future thread

So you say there's a problem and suggest house rules to fix it. I suggest that in person, they are unnecessary. You then say you were talking about Goko. But when I ask why you suggested house rules, you say you were talking about IRL play. What?

I really dislike David Sirlin, but in this case he's right on the money. You, sir, are a scrub. You get beaten by a legitimate tactic, and instead of trying to adapt to it in future games, you cry "unfair!" and suggest everyone play by your house rules. I suggest you either learn to deal with 3-piling or play a different game that you see as more "fair".

I suggested rules modifications because I think they would fix a problem. Why are you getting so confused over that?

I can deal with the problem of three-piling but it's almost impossible to defend against when there is a third player who doesn't know how to defend against it, and he unwittingly aids the player who is going for a quick three pile.

[qdread]

The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile

Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."

In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.

[Ozle]

I suggested rules modifications because I think they would fix a problem. Why are you getting so confused over that?

Because there is no problem.
There is something about the game that you do not like, doesn't make it a problem with the game.

It is a problem with your own style of play. And you have brought in your house rules to make it fit.
Nothing wrong with that, your house, your rules, go for it.


But what you have done is lost a game and came here to complain its unfair and the game rule is bad, simply because you personally do not like it.

What people are unanimously saying here, is that is part of the actual game and that your reasoning for not liking it is flawed and doesn't hold up.

you have already shown you have a perchance for exaggeration (Your description of your lost game today for example), so your point of view is holding very little ground.

I think if you could post some actual evidence behind some of your statements people would take it a bit more seriously, but the rest of these guys (Not me of course, I'm one of the cool kids.) are hard core maths nerds. They have done all this analysis in the last few years and can probably back up thier point of view with hard evidence.

[michaeljb]

I can deal with the problem of three-piling but it's almost impossible to defend against when there is a third player who doesn't know how to defend against it, and he unwittingly aids the player who is going for a quick three pile.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1204.msg54383#msg54383

[Count Grishnakh]

The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile

Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."

In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.

Fair enough. Then how about if someone three piles the game the other players get to play their turn and buy whatever they can. That would be a great check and balance for the three pile rule, because as it stands it is highly exploitable in a lot of cases.

[LastFootnote]

The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile

Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."

In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.

Fair enough. Then how about if someone three piles the game the other players get to play their turn and buy whatever they can. That would be a great check and balance for the three pile rule, because as it stands it is highly exploitable in a lot of cases.

Look, dude. Don't think for a second that the game's designer and developers didn't even think to put in a rule about equal turns for all players. They intentionally didn't make the game work that way. It just replaces first-player advantage with last-player advantage, and instead of being incentivized to end the game, players are incentivized to draw it out until they're certain the other players can't catch up. Your suggested rule change is a bad one. Period.

[popsofctown]

If you want to design a house rule that favors certain styles of play you enjoy, you could make a thread in the variants forum.

If you want people to help you convince yourself that whenever someone takes advantage of an aspect of a game that you personally dislike and uses that aspect to outplay and defeat you, that that makes that player less awesome than you, no one should or probably will agree with that.

[Count Grishnakh]

The monument example you specified is an exception to my rule of course. As long as you have a province or its equivalent in VP, then its fair game to end the game via three pile

Well, I've been watching this thread for a little while and I'd say, to use another hackneyed sports metaphor, that this is a fairly egregious example of "moving the goalposts."



In addition, repeatedly saying that "WAY more" advantage accrues to the first player in a kingdom that favors three piles as a dogmatic statement with no evidence to support it doesn't seem like the best way to win an argument, especially on a forum where people write reams of simulation code to generate evidence that a particular strategy is best in a particular scenario.

Fair enough. Then how about if someone three piles the game the other players get to play their turn and buy whatever they can. That would be a great check and balance for the three pile rule, because as it stands it is highly exploitable in a lot of cases.

Look, dude. Don't think for a second that the game's designer and developers didn't even think to put in a rule about equal turns for all players. They intentionally didn't make the game work that way. It just replaces first-player advantage with last-player advantage, and instead of being incentivized to end the game, players are incentivized to draw it out until they're certain the other players can't catch up. Your suggested rule change is a bad one. Period.

It would give the last player an advantage, sure, but it would act as a deterrent.

Its better to remove the advantage from the player who wants to end the game. If he wants to cause the game to end the burden is on him to be significantly ahead in points that he can handle giving the last players the "advantage" of getting to have a turn also before the game ends

[popsofctown]

To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was.  It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.

[Count Grishnakh]

To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was.  It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.

Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.

[michaeljb]

To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was.  It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.

Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.

Wait, even if the player who's ending the game is last in turn order?

[Count Grishnakh]

To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was.  It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.

Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.

Wait, even if the player who's ending the game is last in turn order?

Only if you are first player, sorry

[LastFootnote]

To be fair I think the count's proposed rule change is not an equal turns for all players rule, the way he stated it, it is agnostic to who the starting player was.  It seems doubtful that that would generate last player advantage.

Thank you.
It would be a condition where if you choose to end the game on three piles you must allow the other players to have one last turn.

Ah, apologies for misunderstanding. In that case, I think the root issue here is that you prefer long games, whereas Dominion is designed to be a short game. Hence, it's unpleasant when the game gets unexpectedly cut short as you're ramping up your deck. I once again suggest you play a different game.

[sudgy]

I'm going to mention this about house rules:

If the game was badly designed, then you can use house rules.  Not too many.  There's a game I've played before where we realized something that makes the best card in the game the worst card, so we added a small house rule that barely changed the game to fix it.

If the game was pretty well designed, either play by the rules or don't play.  There's no middle ground.

[rrwoods]

Its better to

i found the problem

More seriously:  This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about.  Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting.  If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!

[DG]

Dominion is a card game. It has to be fairly straightforward so that players can quickly set up a game, play, and put it away having had some fun. So yes there are some problems with first player advantage and stack sizes but that's just part of the physical restriction of the game and, as far as anyone can tell, the alternatives are worse. The three pile ending rule eliminates many, many situations where games would never finish (or be so long as to be awful to be play). For that practical reason alone the rule is sensible.

Chess is probably the greatest game of the last 1000 years but people play despite the obvious 1st player advantage and nobody has a better solution than just to swap the start player after a game.

[Aidan Millow]

I'm going to mention this about house rules:

If the game was badly designed, then you can use house rules.  Not too many.  There's a game I've played before where we realized something that makes the best card in the game the worst card, so we added a small house rule that barely changed the game to fix it.

If the game was pretty well designed, either play by the rules or don't play.  There's no middle ground.

I disagree; if a house rule makes the game more balanced and/or enjoyable (without harming the other) then there's no real reason not too just because the game isn't broken (although the only house rule I play is always shelters if rebuild is in the kingdom).

[Count Grishnakh]

Its better to

i found the problem

More seriously:  This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about.  Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting.  If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!

That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though

I love Dominion its my favorite game

[sudgy]

Its better to

i found the problem

More seriously:  This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about.  Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting.  If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!

That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though

I love Dominion its my favorite game

I know that this is a bit blunt, but what you're wanting to play isn't Dominion.

[LastFootnote]

Its better to

i found the problem

More seriously:  This rule is *designed to do* all the things you are complaining about.  Having control of when the game is over is one of the things that makes Dominion unique and interesting.  If you don't like this rule, then as others have said... don't play Dominion!

That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though

I think you are confusing opinion with fact. You are neither right nor wrong that the rule is flawed (and I was wrong to suggest that your house rule is flat-out bad). It is simply your opinion, one that is by-and-large not shared by this community. I think if you keep playing by the actual rules, you will eventually learn to identify when the opponent can 3-pile and take appropriate precautions. Moreover, as you get better you'll learn to build fancy decks much faster, so that your opponent won't be able to end the game before your deck is "ready".

If, on the other hand, you choose to play your house rules, you will be unlikely to develop these skills, since the game will have a completely different tempo.

[Awaclus]

The ability to drain three piles to win is simply overpowered. It gives WAY too much advantage to the player who goes first. It skews the game too far in the direction of chaos. There are too few means to defend against it. And if there is a third player they can completely rob you of any hope of defending against people who fully exploit the three pile rule.

Militia gives advantage to the player who goes first. Sea Hag gives advantage to the player who goes first. A lot of things give advantage to the player who goes first. There are means to defend against first-player advantage in general and there are means to defend against a three-pile ending and they are always present in every game - the means to defend against a Province ending are much rarer. And yeah, a clueless third player has a tendency to make the game awful for everyone for multiple reasons (my least favorite is Possession), but that has nothing to do with the 3-pile-rule so you are strongly advised to play strictly 2p games in the future.

You're looking at it backward. The 3-pile rule does not prevent boring Duchy rush games. Obviously, if the rule were only "Provinces empty", that would be just as effective at nerfing Duchy rushes.

Thus, there must be some problem with "Provinces empty" that caused Donald X to add on the additional "3 piles empty" condition.

Or maybe there just never was a "Provinces empty" version of the game, because Donald X. thought that the occasional Duchy rush might be interesting if it required something more. At least that's what the quote from Donald X. seems to imply. I could be wrong though; if you happen to have a quote or a link of Donald X. saying that there was a "Provinces empty" version which didn't work, please inform me about it.

That doesn't mean I'm not right about how the rule is flawed though

True, that doesn't mean you're not right. You're wrong for whole other reasons. 

[Ozle]

I'm going to mention this about house rules:

If the game was badly designed, then you can use house rules.  Not too many.  There's a game I've played before where we realized something that makes the best card in the game the worst card, so we added a small house rule that barely changed the game to fix it.

If the game was pretty well designed, either play by the rules or don't play.  There's no middle ground.

Eh?

That's the very definitions of house rules surely.

If you want to make up your own rules for a game you can, irrespective of whether they make the game better or worse, shorter or longer and irrespective on how well the game is designed! Thats why they are called HOUSE rules. My house, my rules.

I could take bridge and make it so that one person doesn't sit out for 1/4 of the time. Sure, it would be a stupid thing to do, but I can do it...