Print

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

[ehunt]

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/

For further reading, see the TV Tropes page on Scrubs. It's written specifically about video games but the principles still apply.

I just wasted an hour...

[Tables]

Something I've done before is designing an uber-engine game and playing it solitaire.  That's pretty fun.

I haven't been able to do that since Iso died though...

You can in Secret Chamber, IIRC.

[eHalcyon]

I can understand where the OP is coming from.  It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly.  I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling.  This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring.  And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated.  It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game.  Except Settlers.  Never seem to learn from that mistake.

I've experienced this in the two games of Power Grid that I've played.  In the first one, I noticed last minute that I had a way to win, and I took it.  It was unexpected.  In the second game, the same thing happened with another player (but it also was due to a really dumb mistake I made the turn before, where I could have guaranteed myself the win if I hadn't gone and built an extra city like a chump).  But I think the wins were unexpected because we were all very inexperienced with Power Grid.

I can see the same thing happening with Dominion.  A 3-pile ending is surprising if you aren't watching out for it and playing accordingly.  But that disappears as you play the game more.  I don't get surprised in Settlers because I played it extensively back in high school.

[manthos88]

Three-piling for the win is an interesting and strategic move, and I think it's not bad.

Something that is bad however (at least in my mind), is dragging on the game when you easily can end it.  If I have a mega engine going on and my opponent is floundering and can't do anything, it's better for me to end the game on a three pile if I can easily do it rather than slowly going through the Provinces.

I agree with that. And i would also like to add that knowing when to 3-pile shows skill...

[blueblimp]

Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....

Treasure Map BM beats BMU without any assumptions about luck, so at minimum a T5 hit would be winning vs BMU and probably many weak BM+X too.

[WanderingWinder]

Aside: I don't get why people think Treasure Map is a luck card that lets you play a strategy of "get two, connect them right away, win" sometimes. Even if you do connect them t5, I suggest most of the time you're still losing.....

Treasure Map BM beats BMU without any assumptions about luck, so at minimum a T5 hit would be winning vs BMU and probably many weak BM+X too.

Which would be relevant if you were playing BMU or weak BM+X often, as opposed to the virtually never that is correct.

[SirPeebles]

But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!

It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."

I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.

I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?

What's going on here is that you and Awaclus have different interpretations of what "without that rule" means. To you, it means "strike that rule from the current rulebook, leaving other rules the same as they are now"; to Awaclus, it means "return to the status quo ante before that rule was instituted".

In the latter case, what the game would be like without the 3-pile ending rule is that it would have the "game ends when any one pile is empty" rule, in which Duchy rushing is strong. The reason the game has the 3-pile rule is to eliminate that.

Right, but it's an interesting question why there is an "x-pile" rule at all. I suppose it's
a) to prevent infinite or very long games when no player can afford Provinces, and/or
b) because the game becomes less interesting when many piles are empty.

You could probably replace 3 piles by 4 (as in 5-6p) without too much detriment, if you prefer a longer/higher-scoring game.

To expand upon (a), an x-pile condition is what enables non-Province strategies in general.  Gardens, Silk Road, Vineyard, Duchy/Duke, Duchy/IGG, etc. are all strategies where five $8 green cards is not your goal.

[sudgy]

Something I've done before is designing an uber-engine game and playing it solitaire.  That's pretty fun.

I haven't been able to do that since Iso died though...

You can in Secret Chamber, IIRC.

I know that, but I don't have cards.

[Count Grishnakh]

I can understand where the OP is coming from.  It can be really frustrating when you are excited about a new idea or engine or other strategy, are feeling really invested in this particular game of Dominion, and then the game ends quite suddenly.  I'm usually paying attention to the Province pile, so sudden (i.e. unexpected) endings usually result from three-piling.  This happens to me often in Settlers of Catan also, where I am building up gleefully when someone else declares that they've won and frankly I'm not even cognizant of how many points I have since I'd only been focused on building and not scoring.  And of course in chess, where I feel like I'm am clearly dominating, and then I am suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly) checkmated.  It is frustrating at the time, but in all of these cases I learn from my mistake and try to do better next game.  Except Settlers.  Never seem to learn from that mistake.

I've experienced this in the two games of Power Grid that I've played.  In the first one, I noticed last minute that I had a way to win, and I took it.  It was unexpected.  In the second game, the same thing happened with another player (but it also was due to a really dumb mistake I made the turn before, where I could have guaranteed myself the win if I hadn't gone and built an extra city like a chump).  But I think the wins were unexpected because we were all very inexperienced with Power Grid.

I can see the same thing happening with Dominion.  A 3-pile ending is surprising if you aren't watching out for it and playing accordingly.  But that disappears as you play the game more.  I don't get surprised in Settlers because I played it extensively back in high school.

Thanks for your response.

Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.

Case in point:

I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..

So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.

Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...

So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.

And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because

A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.

So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"

[Count Grishnakh]

But you can't just omit the middle step in an argument!

It'd be like saying "I ordered the cheapest entrée because I had some spare money to spend on food". It makes no sense, even if the full story is: "I went to a more expensive restaurant than usual because I had some spare money to spend on food. I didn't want to be too extravagant, so I ordered the cheapest entrée."

I'm not omitting the middle step, there never was a middle step in the scenario unless Donald X. is hiding something. What I'm saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided that the cheapest entrée at an expensive restaurant would be the thing I'm getting, then I went there and ordered it". What you're saying is "I had some spare money to spend on food, therefore I decided to go a more expensive restaurant, and while I was there, I realized I couldn't afford anything but the cheapest entrée", and the conclusion you're drawing from that is that you actually didn't get a more expensive meal than you usually do, because it was cheaper than some other stuff you could have ordered in that restaurant.

I'm at a loss to explain this honestly because, to me, answering "what is the game design purpose of ending the game when 3 piles are empty" with "to reduce the strength of Duchy rushing" is obviously nonsensical, because Duchy rushing would be weakened without that rule. Am I the only one?

What's going on here is that you and Awaclus have different interpretations of what "without that rule" means. To you, it means "strike that rule from the current rulebook, leaving other rules the same as they are now"; to Awaclus, it means "return to the status quo ante before that rule was instituted".

In the latter case, what the game would be like without the 3-pile ending rule is that it would have the "game ends when any one pile is empty" rule, in which Duchy rushing is strong. The reason the game has the 3-pile rule is to eliminate that.

Right, but it's an interesting question why there is an "x-pile" rule at all. I suppose it's
a) to prevent infinite or very long games when no player can afford Provinces, and/or
b) because the game becomes less interesting when many piles are empty.

You could probably replace 3 piles by 4 (as in 5-6p) without too much detriment, if you prefer a longer/higher-scoring game.

Yeah exactly.In Donald X's own words, the 3 pile rule exists because "You have to end it somewhere" (I am paraphrasing)

Also, the three pile rule is needed to make alternate VP strategies more viable because players who pursue them can end the game before the other players manage to get all the provinces

IMO the three pile rule is okay, the only amendment needed is to allow the other players one last turn to buy what is up for grabs if you decide to three pile. This would act as a deterrent against people who would three pile when they are one point ahead... which is analogous to choosing when to end a race, and choosing to end the race while you happen to be ahead.. its silly

I understand why so many players disagree with me so vehemently.. But dominion must be the only game out there where you can cause the entire game to end by buying something... That alone should be reasons to question whether this rule needs to be amended.




Think of it this way too, Prosperity made the game "bigger" in all aspects, KC drastically changes the scope of what is possible in a turn...  It makes the purchasing power too "big" for the 3 pile rule, IMO. Why not officially change the rules to "4 pile" for KC games?

[markusin]

What you've been describing all along is pretty much first player advantage. We all acknowledge that there is first player advantage when it comes to three piling. So yes, your complaints are rather justified in this case, because first player can use their extra turn to shut you out of the game.

This has been true since the beginning of Dominion, and we mostly accept that it's an imperfection of the game. But we continue to play anyway, despite that imperfection. The best solution is to just play more games. You may not get to play with the same person again, but so what. Let it go and play a new game, which hopefully you enjoy more.

In tournaments, this kind of thing is addressed by alternating first player. That seems to be the best solution we've come up with so far.

[Count Grishnakh]

What you've been describing all along is pretty much first player advantage. We all acknowledge that there is first player advantage when it comes to three piling. So yes, your complaints are rather justified in this case, because first player can use their extra turn to shut you out of the game.

This has been true since the beginning of Dominion, and we mostly accept that it's an imperfection of the game. But we continue to play anyway, despite that imperfection. The best solution is to just play more games. You may not get to play with the same person again, but so what. Let it go and play a new game, which hopefully you enjoy more.

In tournaments, this kind of thing is addressed by alternating first player. That seems to be the best solution we've come up with so far.

I understand. But I still think the problem is deeper than that. The thing I love in Dominion is that there are so many creative ways of defending yourself. The only card that offers defense against three-piling prematurely is embargo. Even then, it can be weak in many cases for this purpose.

If there were action cards that could do an embargo effect every time you played them, I would be satisied. If there were a card that could "lock" up a pile for x number of turns, I would be satisfied. If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.

I think those who do the quick and dirty three pile ftw have a very strong trump card in their pocket, and perhaps the real problem is a complete lack of cards to combat this strategy.. You must admit its the most vicious attack in the game and the only defense we have is
A) don't buy powerful cards that your opponent is hoarding or
B) Sabotage your deck hand by greening early, which allows him to counter by building a better engine than you, making you wish you bought a king's court instead of that province, or making you wish you bought a platinum instead of that province you bought for insurance.

I realize there are more games than not where you can walk the line with finesse but there are some games where its a lose-lose situation if your opponent is an aggressive three piler.

[EvanC]

No player can reliably protect against ANY strategy, though.

Thanks for your response.

Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.

Case in point:

I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..

So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.

Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...

So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.

And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because

A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.

So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"

First,  three player games are always going to feel "unfair" - with three equal skilled players you only win 1/3 of the time and so on. Yes, this is mostly going to feel like "luck" and "turn order" in a game based on buying a very finite number of cards.


I don't understand your definition of problematic. You've said before that you essentially thinks it's better to let engines "duke it out" in the long run over VP cards piling because this is somehow a better measure of player skill than three pile endings. But in the situation you just described, everyone has the same strategy - you're all just scrambling for villages, wharfs and conspirators.

Where would the skill difference come in if the game continued? You'll end up with the same first player advantage problem when buying out the last few provinces

Making the game last longer (by not letting the game end with three piles) only kicks the can down the road in terms of player advantage.

Your example of why you are helpless if you buy a province ("he'll just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators") ignores the fact that YOU could have started buying VP earlier (say, a province and two estates) so that HE only has enough for a province and one estate and YOU can end the game by buying the last conspirator. So what if the game kept going when the piles are empty? one of you will just win because of shuffle luck or better splits. Same difference.

Sure, you may lose if one of your opponents doesn't stop buying cards and ends the game when he has no chance of winning - but the fact that the three pile rule makes "kingmaking"  easier in 3+ player games doesn't make the rule problematic, it makes those players problematic.

[Count Grishnakh]

No player can reliably protect against ANY strategy, though.

Thanks for your response.

Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.

Case in point:

I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..

So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.

Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...

So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.

And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because

A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.

So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"

First,  three player games are always going to feel "unfair" - with three equal skilled players you only win 1/3 of the time and so on. Yes, this is mostly going to feel like "luck" and "turn order" in a game based on buying a very finite number of cards.


I don't understand your definition of problematic. You've said before that you essentially thinks it's better to let engines "duke it out" in the long run over VP cards piling because this is somehow a better measure of player skill than three pile endings. But in the situation you just described, everyone has the same strategy - you're all just scrambling for villages, wharfs and conspirators.

Where would the skill difference come in if the game continued? You'll end up with the same first player advantage problem when buying out the last few provinces

Making the game last longer (by not letting the game end with three piles) only kicks the can down the road in terms of player advantage.

Your example of why you are helpless if you buy a province ("he'll just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators") ignores the fact that YOU could have started buying VP earlier (say, a province and two estates) so that HE only has enough for a province and one estate and YOU can end the game by buying the last conspirator. So what if the game kept going when the piles are empty? one of you will just win because of shuffle luck or better splits. Same difference.

Sure, you may lose if one of your opponents doesn't stop buying cards and ends the game when he has no chance of winning - but the fact that the three pile rule makes "kingmaking"  easier in 3+ player games doesn't make the rule problematic, it makes those players problematic.

Well I already stayed away from the conspirators in order to stall the three pile ending. He had more of them than me. So it puts me in a situation where if I buy a province, he beats me due to having those extra conspirators. I could try to buy the remaining conspirators and an estate with my turn, but a lot of things would have to line up just right for me to do that

things lined up for him right away, so he was able to drain the third pile because he didn't draw his cards dead whereas I had a wharf and no villages in my hand

So that's what I'm saying, is in games like this, whoever's pieces line up just right first wins.. its totally luck driven and this strategy does skew the game in the direction of luck.. that's all I'm saying.

And even though we had the same decks, there's still meaning in letting the decks square off over a longer game. Just because people essentially have the same decks doesn't mean they'll both execute them as well, or that both players will both make all of the right choices with respect to how they spend their money

My distaste for the "quick and dirty" three pile tactic bothers me because I am trained in statistics and I know the shorter the game, the smaller the sample size, the smaller the sample size, the greater the randomness.

[EvanC]

I understand. But I still think the problem is deeper than that. The thing I love in Dominion is that there are so many creative ways of defending yourself. The only card that offers defense against three-piling prematurely is embargo. Even then, it can be weak in many cases for this purpose.

If there were action cards that could do an embargo effect every time you played them, I would be satisied. If there were a card that could "lock" up a pile for x number of turns, I would be satisfied. If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.

I think those who do the quick and dirty three pile ftw have a very strong trump card in their pocket, and perhaps the real problem is a complete lack of cards to combat this strategy.. You must admit its the most vicious attack in the game and the only defense we have is
A) don't buy powerful cards that your opponent is hoarding or
B) Sabotage your deck hand by greening early, which allows him to counter by building a better engine than you, making you wish you bought a king's court instead of that province, or making you wish you bought a platinum instead of that province you bought for insurance.

I realize there are more games than not where you can walk the line with finesse but there are some games where its a lose-lose situation if your opponent is an aggressive three piler.

You're defining "defense" very narrowly - three piling isn't an attack, it's a game ending condition. You defend against it the same way you defend against someone "attacking" you by buying provinces to end the game: have more victory points when the condition is triggered.

I can't help but think your scenario B amounts to "If I do anything he'll just outplay me" or "It's hard to time my engine, he always does it better than me". I agree with you that KC games can be fast and unpredictable - but I'll tell you one thing, I'm WAY better at them now than when I started playing. There is certainly a skill element.

[Count Grishnakh]

I understand. But I still think the problem is deeper than that. The thing I love in Dominion is that there are so many creative ways of defending yourself. The only card that offers defense against three-piling prematurely is embargo. Even then, it can be weak in many cases for this purpose.

If there were action cards that could do an embargo effect every time you played them, I would be satisied. If there were a card that could "lock" up a pile for x number of turns, I would be satisfied. If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.

I think those who do the quick and dirty three pile ftw have a very strong trump card in their pocket, and perhaps the real problem is a complete lack of cards to combat this strategy.. You must admit its the most vicious attack in the game and the only defense we have is
A) don't buy powerful cards that your opponent is hoarding or
B) Sabotage your deck hand by greening early, which allows him to counter by building a better engine than you, making you wish you bought a king's court instead of that province, or making you wish you bought a platinum instead of that province you bought for insurance.

I realize there are more games than not where you can walk the line with finesse but there are some games where its a lose-lose situation if your opponent is an aggressive three piler.

You're defining "defense" very narrowly - three piling isn't an attack, it's a game ending condition. You defend against it the same way you defend against someone "attacking" you by buying provinces to end the game: have more victory points when the condition is triggered.

I can't help but think your scenario B amounts to "If I do anything he'll just outplay me" or "It's hard to time my engine, he always does it better than me". I agree with you that KC games can be fast and unpredictable - but I'll tell you one thing, I'm WAY better at them now than when I started playing. There is certainly a skill element.

Three piling is indeed an attack. Anything that forces the player to lose is an attack. You're basically summoning Azathoth to destroy the entire planet when you three pile super early. Think of Arkham horror. If the ancient one awakes you will probably lose, so you try to build yourself up so you are prepared to win if he should awaken. Because this is a central focus of the game, there are items available to combat or delay his awakening

there is nothing to defend from someone doing the quick and dirty three pile on you. I think the reason why Donald didn't give us any cards to defend against this is because he never intended that rule to be exploited quite to the extent that is has been. I don't think Donald X thought it would be such an aggressively pursued tactic, except for the case of non province VP cards, otherwise he would have given us cards that could defend us from 3P

[Count Grishnakh]

Here's a simple solution to make me happy.. Donald make a card that is a reaction card.. when an opponent plays you activate the reaction card and you can choose any non-province pile to block so nobody can buy from that pile if you have this card in your hand

We need cards like this to address this aspect of the game

[Marcory]

If you see that one or two piles are so low that you might lose before you get another turn, then buy VP so that you will be ahead when the third pile goes out--even if this means buying a Duchy instead of a Kings' Court. If you allow yourself to get more than a Duchy or Province behind your opponent when 3-piling is a danger, then you deserve to lose.

And if he plays some fancy combo (say, KC-KC-Forager-Forager-Fortress when Foragers are worth 4) that lets him buy 8 or 10 cheap cards and win that way, then he deserves to win, even if it's by a score of 4 estates to 3.

Think of Chess: If you set up some fancy attack that lets you promote 3 pawns, but you ignore the fact that your opponent is moving in for a rook/bishop checkmate, then you deserve to lose--no matter how many queens you have on your board at the end.

[Davio]

Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?

[EvanC]

I think , CG, that your objection comes from the fact that three piling accentuates first player advantage in certain circumstances and therefore in your view obscures "true" skill at the game.

But look at it this way:

I don't think anyone on this forum will disagree with the fact that certain board/kingdom combinations have larger first player advantages than others. If I open 5/2 on a cultist board with no trashing or sifting, I have no doubt my win percentage is greater than 50% in most circumstances - all through luck. But consider this

1. A single game isn't a good way to judge Dominion skill. It's a fast, random game - you need to play many games against an individual to know who's better and I may win a game through skill (say, because I saw a faster combo/opportunity) against a player who is in general much better than me.

2. Even if your win percentage is low for a given circumstance, you can still improve it through superior play (and your opponent's inferior play). I don't know of any kingdoms with a 100% first player win rate - there's always room for skill to play a factor. Maybe you only win as second player 40% of the time on a given kingdom, but a top 10 player wins 45% of the time... the fact the first player may win more often doesn't impact the ability of win/loss rates to show skill - after all, you're the first player half the time. Dominion is all about maximizing your play under constraints (the kingdom, the hand you drew), this is just another constraint - as are situations where you know you are at a disadvantage from the start.

The fact is, I think any of your fixes actually limit the diversity of strategies one can use and limit the ability of skill to play an impact on the game in the long run.

To be honest, cards that prevent me from three piling would be very frustrating. What's so special about provinces that they can't be blocked? If you want better measures of skill, play more games - don't just turn every game into a province race.

4 provinces 4 estates / 4 provinces 3 estates is just as silly an outcome as anything you've suggested.

[Jimmmmm]

Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?

Because someone on the internet is wrong!

[EvanC]

Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Jimmmmm]

Can anyone tell me why this has gone 9 pages?

http://xkcd.com/386/

My sentiments exactly.

[Count Grishnakh]

I think , CG, that your objection comes from the fact that three piling accentuates first player advantage in certain circumstances and therefore in your view obscures "true" skill at the game.

But look at it this way:

I don't think anyone on this forum will disagree with the fact that certain board/kingdom combinations have larger first player advantages than others. If I open 5/2 on a cultist board with no trashing or sifting, I have no doubt my win percentage is greater than 50% in most circumstances - all through luck. But consider this

1. A single game isn't a good way to judge Dominion skill. It's a fast, random game - you need to play many games against an individual to know who's better and I may win a game through skill (say, because I saw a faster combo/opportunity) against a player who is in general much better than me.

2. Even if your win percentage is low for a given circumstance, you can still improve it through superior play (and your opponent's inferior play). I don't know of any kingdoms with a 100% first player win rate - there's always room for skill to play a factor. Maybe you only win as second player 40% of the time on a given kingdom, but a top 10 player wins 45% of the time... the fact the first player may win more often doesn't impact the ability of win/loss rates to show skill - after all, you're the first player half the time. Dominion is all about maximizing your play under constraints (the kingdom, the hand you drew), this is just another constraint - as are situations where you know you are at a disadvantage from the start.

The fact is, I think any of your fixes actually limit the diversity of strategies one can use and limit the ability of skill to play an impact on the game in the long run.

To be honest, cards that prevent me from three piling would be very frustrating. What's so special about provinces that they can't be blocked? If you want better measures of skill, play more games - don't just turn every game into a province race.

4 provinces 4 estates / 4 provinces 3 estates is just as silly an outcome as anything you've suggested.

A card that blocks people from buying provinces or colonies would be overpowered

How about this.... OBSTRUCTIONIST: "while this is in your hand, you may prevent all players from buying cards of your choice except for province and colony. If you select province or colony, players who purchase them must take a curse."

[Davio]

Why couldn't it be more like this:


#23396 +(36053)- [X]
<Donut[AFK]> HEY EURAKARTE
<Donut[AFK]> INSULT
<Eurakarte> RETORT
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-RETORT
<Eurakarte> QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
<Donut[AFK]> SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
<Eurakarte> NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
<Donut[AFK]> RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> ADDON RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> COUNTER-RIPOSTE
<Donut[AFK]> COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
<Eurakarte> NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
<Miles_Prower> RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
<Eurakarte> WORDS OF PRAISE FOR FISHFOOD
<Miles_Prower> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS

(source: bash.org)