Print

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

[Davio]

I'd rather 3-pile and have clean deck than ruin it with all those nasty green looking non-action cards.

Nah, seriously though, what I like about Dominion is that it's a constant balancing act. On the one hand you want to keep building your deck ad infinitum, but you can't because of 3-piles and your opponent may be 7 Provinces ahead when you're willing to stop building. Finding the right moments to switch gears, throw in everything and the kitchen sink, or sneakily set up a 3-pile can be very rewarding.

Managing piles adds more strategy and if you're worried about being 3-piled yourself, just grab some quick Provinces or Duchies to dissuade your opponent. Luckily, not all games feature KC-Goons or a similar megaturn strategy, in fact, I think I play more games without megaturns than I do with.

I just don't see how 3-piling would be less honorable, it's just a rule that all players have to keep in mind.

[Warfreak2]

Thank you so much for welcoming me. In the future my posts won't be so controversial, I swear.

 It's just an annoying play style to combat sometimes because they put you in a position where if you green up to stay ahead, then they will keep building their engine and out-engine you... But if you keep up with them engine wise, they buy a few VPS and drain the remaining cards with their engine

I played a game where I basically had to choose between getting a platinum or a province.. (we both stocked up on fishing villages and catacombs, draining those two piles) I chose to buy the platinum because if I bought a province he would have a platinum and I wouldn't...(we both hit 9$ on the same turn) then the next turn he turns around and buys an island and buys 6 village squares to end the game..

If I had bought the province he would have plat and I wouldn't so he'd simply buy colonies and beat me that way

so what it boils down to is this: he wins because he had the first turn

Or, you could have played expertly and bought an island and six "village squares" to win. Don't be annoyed about losing when you admit that you arbitrarily refuse to win in a particular way.

[qmech]

The problem with the "runners" analogy is that everyone is running simultaneously.
In dominion, the person who three piles gets to act and deny everyone their turn... If it is truly a race (which implies simultaneous activity) then when the game ends each of the other players should be allowed to play their hands and buy whatever VPS are up for grabs. This introduces all kinds of other problems but this is why the running analogy fails is because actions are not simultaneous and there will always be a person with an extra turn

I don't think anyone's specifically addressed the extra turn yet in this thread.  First, there might not have been an extra turn at all: if the second player (in 2P Dominion) ends the game then each player has had the same number of turns.

But you can get around that by saying that we just finish the round, so that everyone has had the same number of turns.  The end result of this is swapping a first player advantage for a second player advantage, as the first player now never has a way to end the game on his turn.  (The closest substitute would be having more than half the total available VP in their deck.)

This has been discussed a few times, including here recently.

[Teproc]

Thank you so much for welcoming me. In the future my posts won't be so controversial, I swear.

 It's just an annoying play style to combat sometimes because they put you in a position where if you green up to stay ahead, then they will keep building their engine and out-engine you... But if you keep up with them engine wise, they buy a few VPS and drain the remaining cards with their engine

You mean... it gives you a strategic choice ? The horror ! *shudders*

[Grujah]

Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.

However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest

Well, you ARE playing to win (at least I think most people here are, who are playing competitevely), so of course you are going to "use luck to the fullest". Sure, if you are playing with friends and you'd rather than you have a longer, nicer game than you winning, than play sub-optimally, if you want to win, you need to play optimal.

As much as people here do not like the guy, Sirilin wrote a nice article called "playing to win". It's a good article about competitive mindset, might be worth a read. Your philosophy reminds me of his "scrub mentality".  http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

EDIT: Sigh, I've posted this and I totally missed 3 pages of discussion,  I though it only had 1.

[Schneau]

Three-piling can be interesting. I think when everyone sees a three-pile ending coming (at least they should see it) then one can't be faulted for pursuing a strategy in line with that inevitable outcome.

However, some people drain three piles gratuitously, this is a very different thing. For example, today my opponent and I had similar decks. We both had a lot of KCs and markets and bridges. I drew two KCs and some coppers he drew two KC's and some markets and bridges. He ended the game then and there by buying 7 wishing wells. It's one thing to benefit from luck, it's another to exploit that luck to the fullest

I'm not saying the player SHOULD have done anything differently. I'm just saying why I was frustrated. I would have played differently because I'd rather duke it out and emerge victorious than ride a tidal wave of luck. Just personal preference, I don't mean to be judgmental. If I were in a tournament I would have done as my opponent had done in this case.

We were playing the same way, more or less. He had a few more markets than I did. I had a few more KC's than he did. We played equally well and progressed at a more or less equal rate, what it came down to was he drew two KC's and some markets, which led to more markets and bridges.

Whereas, I drew two KC's and some coppers. And there was no trashing available in that game.

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but here's the game that the OP mentioned involving King's Court, Bridge, Market, and Wishing Well.

His opponent actually bought 4 Wishing Wells to end the game, not 7 as he reported. Looking at their decks, his opponent actually had more King's Courts, and way more Markets (8-2). The OP bought many Silvers and Pillages instead of Wishing Wells and Markets, which makes it no surprise that he drew some dead KCs (along with a Silver, which could have been a Wishing Well).

He also failed to mention that this happened the turn after the OP bought a Possession. Not that ending in a win is ever a bad move, but sticking around to see what your opponent does with KC-Possession when you have the better deck is plain stupid.

[SCSN]

I'd open Wishing Well/Island there. You want zero Silvers and even less Pillages. This loss had nothing whatsoever to do with luck, it was poor play from the beginning till the end.

Blaming things on luck that are entirely under your control, to the point that you complain about them on a forum, is the most effective way to stunt your growth as a player.

[pingpongsam]

My favorite version of the 3-pile ending is absorbing all the curses while I drain an alt VP and something else.

Bonus points for buying the last curse because my opponent saw it coming and skipped handing out the curse.

[WanderingWinder]

I don't see how the three piling rule is a technicality - it's a major part of the game! It enables all kinds of strategies and curbs others. It actually adds tons of strategic depth. It's why you see players skirting around how much they build their engines and buying what look like random duchies at weird points. It's a huge part of the interaction in the game.

Moreover, this:

I was playing against a guy in a pretty typical city game

he managed to get his hands on more cities than I did and we were both playing some pretty big turns

However I had two bridges in my deck and two smugglers

He was purchasing provinces more consistently than me (every turn) but with the help of bridge I was able to smuggle 6$ provinces, much to my delight and much to his chagrin

"that was bullshit" he said

seems like waaaay more of a technicality to me than one of the fundamental rules of the game.

It sounds to me like you should go play solitaire, so you don't have to worry about those pesky opponents ruining your plans (and there's no shame in that). Or just play another game, if it's luck you are concerned about.

But like, is it a technicality in chess that I just happened to checkmate you even though you had way more pieces? Or that I ground you down and ended up with a winning king-and-pawn ending? In American football, if I kneel down at the end of the game and kick a last-second field goal to win, is that a technicality because I didn't try to score a touchdown? In association football (the one the world plays), if I score off of a free kick, is that a technicality because it isn't in normal play? At the end of a basketball game, is it a technicality if I foul you to make you hit free throws so that there's enough time left for me to possibly come back? Or failing that, if I would just hold the ball to run out the clock (considering there's a shot clock), is that a technicality? In poker, if I hit my flush draw, am I just winning because my hand is "technically" stronger than yours?

So what's the deal about technicalities? Basically, it's that they're unintended, yeah? So like, if Goko has a glitch and you take advantage of it purposefully, that is a case I'd be with you. I absolutely believe that how you play is super important. But steering to a 3 pile is not a cheap, cheesy, or at all unethical way of playing. And it's also a competitive game, so you should expect that people will generally, you know, try to win.

[Warfreak2]

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.

[KingZog3]

Also I know for a fact we have played eachother on Dominion, I remember your name

It's certainly possible we played each other, but I split the card cost with my brother, so he uses the account sometimes too. Maybe you played him and not me

[Jimmmmm]

WW, I love the chess analogy.

[KingZog3]

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. You notice this because you have some +respect from another post somewhere.
You have to realize that you're coming onto a forum where people really enjoy Dominion, and then saying how they're all dishonorable for winning a certain way.

[markusin]

She can't say No said that doing so is extremely unethical and She can't say no is in the top 10 pro rankings

Shecan'tsayNo was joking. Sarcasm that it's unethical to do this when he is losing.

Thanks for clearing that up, actually.

[WanderingWinder]

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.

Of course they do? Have you never watched the last 20 seconds of an NBA game where the team with the ball is up by 1-3 points? I guess not if you don't know that fouling does not in fact mean necessarily hurting the guy. Typically, they try to intercept an inbounds pass, and then when they fail, they'll go after a steal, but in a way that almost always means they end up having physical contact with the other guy, and most physical contact is enough for a foul call. Sometimes it just looks like a bear hug, sometimes it's more like a slap on the wrist. If it's actually physically dangerous, it would be a flagrant foul, which has a harsher in-game penalty (potentially out-of-game too), which makes it grossly unprofitable.

[Warfreak2]

Basketball, and all physical sports, are far outside my introvert bubble which protects me from the real world.

[Count Grishnakh]

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

[Count Grishnakh]

I'd open Wishing Well/Island there. You want zero Silvers and even less Pillages. This loss had nothing whatsoever to do with luck, it was poor play from the beginning till the end.

Blaming things on luck that are entirely under your control, to the point that you complain about them on a forum, is the most effective way to stunt your growth as a player.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep that in mind.
Now that I see the log I can see where I went wrong.
I just really, really hate wishing well but I see where it would have benefitted me here.

[Awaclus]

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! 

[Grujah]

Ok, read the whole topic.

It seems that you've constructed these imaginary rules that restrict your play and ability to win, and you expect other people to be bind by the same rules. It doesn't work like that. People, especially on-line, cannot know what you expect of the game and what do you find "fair". Even if they did, why would they care? They play to win not to make you feel good.

Moreover, the game doesn't care how you won. It doesn't give points for style or elegancy or fairness or whatever. You win the same whether you bought the last province on turn 32 in a slog or you emptied the whole supply turn 4.

Most importantly, where do you draw the line?
First, how do you define "no piledriving early"? How early is too early? No provinces bought? one province? two? Than, if that is not fair, why is opening Mountebank/Chapel or Mint/Fool's Gold on 5/2 opening fair? Isn't that exploiting luck too? How about drawing your Treasure maps both on turn 5? If you play them, is that exploiting the luck too? You may say it's not, and MIGHT think it is. Now, what makes you right and not me? I might feel it's very unfair and that you are exploiting your luck. Same goes to your little 'rule'. It is impossible to make adopt one universal rule of subjective "fairness". If it is in the rules, it's fair. Making subjective, superfluous rules will make playing the game impossible if everybody is playing what they theselves feel "fair", and expect everybody else to obey. You'll end up with game where nobody is allowed to buy a village along with 2 torturers cause double torturer chain is unfair, unfun and doesn't let the other person play out their deck.

[Count Grishnakh]

Ok, read the whole topic.

It seems that you've constructed these imaginary rules that restrict your play and ability to win, and you expect other people to be bind by the same rules. It doesn't work like that. People, especially on-line, cannot know what you expect of the game and what do you find "fair". Even if they did, why would they care? They play to win not to make you feel good.

Moreover, the game doesn't care how you won. It doesn't give points for style or elegancy or fairness or whatever. You win the same whether you bought the last province on turn 32 in a slog or you emptied the whole supply turn 4.

Most importantly, where do you draw the line?
First, how do you define "no piledriving early"? How early is too early? No provinces bought? one province? two? Than, if that is not fair, why is opening Mountebank/Chapel or Mint/Fool's Gold on 5/2 opening fair? Isn't that exploiting luck too? How about drawing your Treasure maps both on turn 5? If you play them, is that exploiting the luck too? You may say it's not, and MIGHT think it is. Now, what makes you right and not me? I might feel it's very unfair and that you are exploiting your luck. Same goes to your little 'rule'. It is impossible to make adopt one universal rule of subjective "fairness". If it is in the rules, it's fair. Making subjective, superfluous rules will make playing the game impossible if everybody is playing what they theselves feel "fair", and expect everybody else to obey. You'll end up with game where nobody is allowed to buy a village along with 2 torturers cause double torturer chain is unfair, unfun and doesn't let the other person play out their deck.

How early is too early? No provinces bought is too early IMO unless its a slog


I understand where you and others are coming from. I'm not here to shove my opinion down anyone's throats.

There is a difference between exploiting luck with cards and exploiting luck by ending the game on your first big lucky draw, thus denying anyone the opportunity to have such a turn.


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.

Now more than anything I wanted to understand the mentality of the Dominion community. I see everyone is quite accepting of three-piling, no matter how early in the game you do it. That's fine.

I guess more than anything I disagree with the three pile rule. I would suggest the following amendments to the rules:

1.) If a player ends the game in any manner other than purchasing the last province, the other players have the opportunity to play their hands and buy whatever is up for grabs.

2) When KC is on the table there should be a 4 pile rule. That's my own house rule, anyway.

[LastFootnote]

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.

[2.71828.....]

As previously mentioned: house rules are fine. They are not real rules, but rules you pay by to make the game more enjoyable for you and your friends. In fact there is a whole section on the forum dedicated to variants and fan cards for people like you who have different ideas about the game beyond what Donald X created.  But always remember that. It is not the game as Donald X made it, it is his game with your modifications. I (and I am sure others will agree) prefer the game without any of these variants, but prefer the rules made by Donald X.

[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.

[LastFootnote]

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?