Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Graystripe77 on November 19, 2011, 03:32:33 pm
-
I'm level 30 on isotropic, and I know how to read a board and plan a strategy, and I've memorized countless strategies.
How do go on from here?
-
Well, I'm no great player, but the things you mention there all relate pretty much to the start of the game and revolve around close of study of the cards i.e. it's the more academic part of the game. This is great obviously, but it doesn't really involve the opponent as such - planning a strategy involves an opponent for sure, but is not specific to your opponent who could do something unpredictable.
So with that in mind, how's your reactionary play? How's your timing of the greening phase? How do you change your game with respect to your opponent? How's your deck-management (shuffle awareness, card-counting etc.) too?
Also, I'm probably reading too much into your wording here so forgive me, but be carefully of working under the idea of "I know how to..." - the best tend to always assume they don't know and that there's something else to learn. This can change your receptiveness and subtly shifts your state of mind.
-
Well, I'm no great player, but the things you mention there all relate pretty much to the start of the game and revolve around close of study of the cards i.e. it's the more academic part of the game. This is great obviously, but it doesn't really involve the opponent as such - planning a strategy involves an opponent for sure, but is not specific to your opponent who could do something unpredictable.
So with that in mind, how's your reactionary play? How's your timing of the greening phase? How do you change your game with respect to your opponent? How's your deck-management (shuffle awareness, card-counting etc.) too?
Also, I'm probably reading too much into your wording here so forgive me, but be carefully of working under the idea of "I know how to..." - the best tend to always assume they don't know and that there's something else to learn. This can change your receptiveness and subtly shifts your state of mind.
I think I have a pretty good handle of when to green, and when to change a strategy if i'm obviously being crushed. I'm good at being able to tell what's left in my deck, if forcing a reshuffle is the right move. Thanks for pointing it out, but that's not a problem for me.
-
I'm level 30 on isotropic, and I know how to read a board and plan a strategy, and I've memorized countless strategies.
How do go on from here?
I like a lot of what Octo said, but I'll add a couple things.
When you lose, how do you typically lose? It's definitely possible to identify some trends there. Octo's mention of mistiming the transition from building to scoring is very common. And to give specific examples of reacting to opponents, alternative victory cards often require you to play more defensively. It can be important to deny Duchies in a Duke game or Vineyards even if you aren't making those the cornerstone of your effort, and recognizing when you need to do that sort of thing can save games. Are there particular cards or games you're bad at, relatively? A lot of people seem to have an idea about whether they are better at complicated engines or straightforward money footraces. Figure out where your strengths are and then work on the other thing. (added: A lot of people use Council Room stats for this, but I'm very dubious that the obvious interpretations of those hold a lot of water. Are there cards that you feel like don't understand, especially when to go for them or not? For example, I'd say until very recently I'd often misjudge Alchemist.)
I'd imagine you could also benefit from going slower and focusing a little more on all of the plans available. A lot of my losses come from settling on the first plausible idea I see instead of seeing everything. Playing your A game more reliably can make a big difference. I feel pretty sure that's a big thing I need to improve on; I've encountered only a handful of players that I feel are clearly superior to me, but there's obviously still a ways to go on the leaderboard.
-
When i lose, i typically lose horribly, by not seeing a major strategy or by bad shuffle luck, but generally the former. Now that i think about it, you may be right, it may be alternate victory cards, but not losing to them, losing because i tried them. I guess i could work on learning whether or not province is better in certain situations. Also, i tend to just play games against low levels without much of a plan, which has led to annoying losses. I personally don't think there are any cards I don't really understand, except maybe bishop, which i seem to lose to a lot, not exactly sure why. Thanks for the feedback.
-
maybe you shouldn't chat so much while you're playing or multitask ;), im not reallly 1 to give advice but i know that i do better when i stick with my strategy and don't let other peoples buys influence me
-
maybe you shouldn't chat so much while you're playing or multitask ;), im not reallly 1 to give advice but i know that i do better when i stick with my strategy and don't let other peoples buys influence me
Yea, talking to you while i play against you really has caused me to lose games i shouldn't have.
-
mwhahaha
-
At like level 30 you know most of the basics and further stuff. The thing you need to focus on are the little extra things, that will you win games. Imho you can only learn them by playing top-players (above level 35 or 40). Also try to ask them after the game about their opinion on your opening etc. At first you will lose many games this way (no wonder cause they are better) but you are likely to get better after this phase. Its not really easy to know, that one will lose a great amount of this games, but I think that this step is necessarry.
-
Look at your own games. If you can see mistakes in hindsight then you're still learning and improving. If you can't see why you lost then you need to think it through a bit more until you do. If you can see your mistakes and realise you just forgot everything you ever knew about Dominion then it's just a matter of concentration, or perhaps you need to try different ways of planning your games. Even in some games where lose you because of bad draws, there may still be improvements you can make to turn things round.
As an example, I recently lost a competitive game to Mean Mr Mustard involving fools gold. My draws weren't great and it would have been easy to forget it. However I'd ignored the militia because a 3 card hand of fool's gold is good enough and I was using tacticians. When I looked again I realised that a militia probably would have been really good against my opponent's stables, so I learnt something new to carry forward and I'll hopefully play better next time.
-
At like level 30 you know most of the basics and further stuff. The thing you need to focus on are the little extra things, that will you win games. Imho you can only learn them by playing top-players (above level 35 or 40). Also try to ask them after the game about their opinion on your opening etc. At first you will lose many games this way (no wonder cause they are better) but you are likely to get better after this phase. Its not really easy to know, that one will lose a great amount of this games, but I think that this step is necessarry.
Seems like a thought. If any high rank player wants some free wins and to teach me something, message me.
-
Same here. I'd love to learn a few more tricks of the trade.
-
From all that I can tell, the following is the difference between a level 40 and level 30:
Do you feel confident opening what you think is best, instead of trying to see what your opponent is doing and make balance? When you go green, do you see your opponent and think you can wait and get one more gold, or do you think it is the moment, and just go ahead?
Level is really some very specific assessment. Even the #1 on the board can miss a dominant specific 3-card combo, and it doesn't matter--you will need to play more than 1000 games to really see it. What it measures at high level, I would say, is not the combos, but your ability to read the situation and time. And you can only improve your own timing if you play according to it.
Let me just add one more way of saying it: from level 20-30, I think the process is called "building the lead." Here you can usually afford to wait; as if your strategy is winning, usually it does not hurt to wait a bit longer. from 30 up, the process can sometimes be called "steal when you have the lead." When two players are playing similarly, you need to make your good luck or your opponent's misfortune count. In some games it just counts; in some other games, waiting can let your opponent recover.
-
I firmly believe everyone understands the game enough to be 10 ranks above wherever they actually are, but can't resist shiny fun experiments. I think people move up when they get bored of trying to build a Highway Salvager deck that gets outraced by Jack and buckle down some.
-
Post some game logs?
-
Take this advice for what it's worth. I'm not at the very top or anything, but I've hit two plateaus that have eventually been exceeded, based in large part on the stuff outlined here.
The biggest thing is crutches. The main difference, I think, between level 30 and level 40+ is the extent to which players can build strategies based on the board, rather than based on which cards they like/feel comfortable with. My biggest jump (from mid 20s to upper 30s) perfectly coincided with a concentrated effort to play cards that I don't feel totally sure about. That's when I started to get a much better grasp on long-term deck construction - as I could no longer just drop strategies into prefigured molds.
I think there are basically three ways to lose games, once you've passed beyond basic strategic understanding. 1) pure bad luck, in a well-chosen strategy, 2) poor execution of a good strategy, 3) failing to comprehend what my deck is going to look like around turn 12 with the strategy you're pursuing.
Every player falls victim to #1. The very best players, it seems to me, don't fall victim to #2 very often, and have almost entirely eradicated #3.
I think #3 is really the thing to focus on improving. The easiest example is forgetting to buy money. Most of us go through that phase very early on. Another big thing is to build toward a realistic expectation of your draw, rather than a perfect one. That is, your combos need to have a reasonable likelihood of actually hitting. Beyond that, don't buy 'strong' cards just because they're there; make sure that they actually integrate into a strategy. Another thing is to anticipate their strategic choices and make sure your responses will integrate into the deck you're building. Will you need to purchase reaction cards, or cards that compensate for attacks they might play? Will you need to buy a few cards to prevent them from rushing the whole pile? Militia isn't a guaranteed buy, for example. But if they do make it a focal point of their strategy, are you going to feel obliged mid-game to start buying Menageries or Watchtowers to re-build your hands? And if so, will you have a deck that will make that workable?
In an ideal world, when the second re-shuffle hits you should already have a good sense (within a turn or two) of when you're going to buy your 1st and 4th provinces. I only manage that ideal very rarely, but my best managed games are the ones where that happens.
Final thought: playing the very top players is good, but I wouldn't agree with those who say it's absolutely essential. There are very good players even in the 10s and 20s. In fact, it can be useful to play them simply because they'll make the occasional mistake which will give you a chance to develop a better sense of the endgame. If you're consistently getting thwomped by the top 50 players you may be able to observe what they're doing, but that won't necessarily help you actually learn it.
I have found that I learn the most from playing people around the 20-30 range, and I get the best measurement of how I'm actually improving by playing the 35+s.
-
I was stuck around 26-29 for what seemed like a long time. I recently boosted up (in a very short space of time) to around 35, and seem to have settled there (I actually boosted up to 37 but dipped again). I've been trying to analyse what the breakthrough was, and I think for me it's been getting what I see as the golden balance more-or-less right: when to do something a little experimental, and when to stick with something that's a little dull, but effective. A few things Captain_Frisk said when he was standing in for theory stuck with me and helped, as well, particularly that Dominion is a really quick game, quicker than many people often give it credit for. Sometimes the exciting stuff just takes too long. It's only recently I've started to ignore Possession in some games, and even KC occasionally. Also I've been more on the lookout for boards where I can buy green earlier than usual without it clogging up the deck too much, particularly when there are alternate VP cards around. I've noticed myself squeaking more victories with Duchies and even Estates recently, limping over the finish line, but limping over in first place.
Also, I think a huge thing that's helped me get better is to play with what I hate. I went through phases of getting pounded with KC, Possession, even Pirate Ship early on. And yeah, Bishop. Play veto mode and never veto those cards, rather than tending towards veto-ing them. Play them on solitaire. Take your weakness and make it into your strength.
And yeah, always always try to work out why you lost. It's bad luck less often than you think, I think, or even when it is bad luck, maybe there was a way to place yourself out of its reach.
-
Here are some tips:
-Don't play veto. You might have a small drop in rating if you did before, but you'll be forced to play and learn cards you're uncomfortable with which will boost your rating eventually
-if you feel like you're not playing your A-game, don't play (you might be drunk, tired or tilting from previous losses)
-play as cutthroat against Captain Obvious (lvl0) as you would against theory (lvl very high). Yes, the Captain will make mistakes, but he will buy that Mountebank, destroy your engine and eventually win
-review your games and find spots where you messed up or where your (better) opponent did something that won him the game (don't restrict yourself to games you lost)
-know a strategy, don't think you know it: this is really hard, because it requires playing it a lot and keeping track of how well it did each time or learning about it from a high level player. You can also use the simulator to speed up this process immensly. An example: recently I played against a lvl 38 and he opened Potion (for Familiar) while there was a Witch on the board and no real engine to be made. I knew from simulations that the Familiar-strategy would get crushed by a Witch player so I opened Silver/Silver and proceeded to crush him as expected. It took me a few minutes to get that info while my opponent would have probably needed to play the matchup 10 more times to realize Witch is superior.
-
Make good decisions
Pay attention to what your opponent is doing
Do not attempt to circumvent the dominant strategy
Do not autopilot
No misclicks, please
Take thorough account of alternate VP cards
Do not open new windows during opponent's turn
Do not play after working long hours
Do not try to get too cute
Do not get cocky
-
Also, I seem to remember posting a comment like this awhile back on the BGG boards, thinking there was some golden answer. And I'm not sure there is. Just keep enjoying, playing, learning, and it'll come, was the gist of many of the replies. And they've been right so far.
I do wonder whether I've now reached a plateau which I can only move very far up from by getting into the more technical/maths side of things and simulations, etc, which I'm not sure I'm interested in doing (although absolutely fair play to those who do). But that's another story...
-
This game can't really be played on a high level if you don't know your numbers: how many terminals can I buy, what's the treshold to start greening, how much money do I need in this engine... Psychology plays a very very small part. I find it very hard to imagine a scenario where it has added value: If I know my opponent never buys cursing cards, I know I can skip Trader and buy a better $4 card.
Poker can also be played purely mathematically (read the excellent "Mathematics of Poker" by Bill Chen) but you're still going to get destroyed by an experienced player at the table because he'll be able to read your body language and make good decisions based on that while he may not even know the correct odds.
-
There's knowing your numbers and knowing your numbers. Throwing a baseball involves differential calculus and yet bottom-maths-set schoolkids can do it.
I do a lot of working out in my head; I 'feel' a lot of what comes from the numbers. Some of it I absolutely do work out and know in my head, but I would suspect that it's less than for many others. I do think I have a good *intuitive* head for numbers and probability; I don't suppose I would have come this far otherwise. I guess what I mean that it feels like the next stage may be to start sitting out and actually doing maths with relation to Dominion, separately from playing it -- looking at tables and graphs and stats, that kind of stuff, and doing a lot of solitaire and numbers gaming -- which part of me is resisting, as I tend to start to glaze over when I start looking at figures too much.
I guess it's an internal battle for me between wanting to win, wanting to have fun, and wanting to improve. Of course, for people who enjoy that stuff anyway, there's no battle between those. I'm absolutely not criticising that way of being good and getting better at Dominion.
-
"Feeling" the numbers is very dangerous even if you're good at it. I clearly remember the first posts when Hinterlands was spoiled and what chwhite had to say about Jack of all Trades:
I have yet to buy Jack of All Trades, and have so far been of the mind it's really, really weak. The problem is that its various functions trip over each other and conflict. Gaining a Silver is not something I'm usually excited about (and doesn't do anything for this turn); the trashing really only works on Estates and you have to do it after you draw, so again it doesn't help your current hand; the "draw up to 5" bit looks like it could combo with stuff like Festival/Hamlet/Oasis, like Library or Watchtower, except that: a) the draw power is less than Watchtower, probably weak enough to doom consistent combos, and b) if you're getting all this Silver you're not going to be able to chain your Jacks, because they'll just draw you Silver and Copper that you can't get rid of. I've avoided it every time, and have so far done well against opponents that went for JoaT. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong?
So one of the best players of the game who clearly has amazing "feel" for the game got the card that will dominate most boards completely wrong.
-
I absolutely see that. I felt the same about JoaT. And since I saw the conclusions of some of the people on these threads, I've tried it and found out how powerful it can be. I really appreciate the articles where people have gone through simulations, workings-out and done the maths, and come up with some conclusions (or just thoughts) in written-up rather than raw data form. I guess that's kind of exactly what what I'm wondering: do I need to do some of that number-crunching myself to get better than I am? And if I do, do I want to?
Part of me does think, though that maybe there's *always* in theory a putting-the-time-in, experience based equivalent of the conclusions drawn from the numbers. chwhite would have found that out eventually through experience. It may be a question of whether that amount of time is just too much in practice.
-
I absolutely see that. I felt the same about JoaT. And since I saw the conclusions of some of the people on these threads, I've tried it and found out how powerful it can be. I really appreciate the articles where people have gone through simulations, workings-out and done the maths, and come up with some conclusions (or just thoughts) in written-up rather than raw data form. I guess that's kind of exactly what what I'm wondering: do I need to do some of that number-crunching myself to get better than I am? And if I do, do I want to?
I don't think that's necessary. First the JoaT: chwhite was not really wrong with what he said. In the decks he concidered the JoaT is not strong. It is just that BM-Jack is so strong. But that's not against "feeling". Of course you have to know some basic tricks, but how to apply them in detail is another question.
Concerning the simulators: What they can tell you is how to play BM+X optimally, given you really want to play BM+X*. I don't think we have any result concerning how to build an play an engine the most effective way from simulators. And for BM+X, you want to know which X are good to play BM+X, and how many X you typically want. I don't really know the numbers there, and I doubt that Geronimoo knows them. It is usually 1-3, 1 if X is a drawer, and 3 is really 2 + 1 later. And optimizations there give you something like 5% winchance given you play BM+X, I don't think that is most important. Interesting numbers would be of course a comparison BM+X vs. BM+Y, but if thus numbers exists I have not seen them yet, and there are two problems with these numbers: a) you would have to optimize BM-X given Y and BM-Y given X recursively to adopt to the strat of the opponent, and b) in practice, you might want to play slight variations (possibly replacing Silver by powerfull Cantrip later in the game), and X and Y might be differently supported by this variation, so the most important skill is to see the synergy and not knowing that spherical X beats Y 46:50 in a vacuum.
* And of course about the strenght of other magic combos, which, beside the fact that they are more fun, is not really more complex as learning which BM-X is good.
-
It surprises me that people still think that the simulator is only good at playing big money strategies. There are a lot of engines that can be played very well by the simulator. But it's a lot harder to get the buy rules right so few people do it (I only know of DG and WanderWinder besides myself who do this regularly).
I learned a lot about how the game works by building engines in my simulator and finding out how they are played optimally. Some examples: the Hunting Party/Baron engine doesn't want to buy Gold (ever), University/Wharf building to a Vineyard deck with lots of actions doesn't want to buy Silvers (the correct opening isn't Potion/Silver, but Potion/nothing), Young Witch/Tunnel also doesn't need Silvers...
-
To add my two cents, I don't think simulator work is at all necessary to improve past level 30, but I really do think it's by far the best way to improve once you're already very very strong (say level 40ish or whatever). In my mind, it's no coincidence that WW is in the top3 players on isotropic I respect the most, and Geronimoo seems to have become a pretty scary opponent, too :)
I feel like if I want to get significantly better at this game at this point, I need to learn to work the simulators (or ask smart questions to get the simulator guys to do the work for me.. not really feasible in the long run :) ). Just learning little nuggets like Witch crushing Familiar is very helpful to me, despite being "very good" (around level 40).
Edit: Just to clarify, the stuff Gero mentions in the post above mine is exactly the type of stuff I'm after, but might not be so important for a level 25 or level 30 player. The closer you and your opponent are, skill-wise, the bigger effect luck will have on the outcome of the game. Imo this gets magnified, in a way, at very high levels; if a very strong player plays another very strong player, it's probably not reasonable to expect big mistakes from either player (from the perspective of a "theoretically optimal" way of playing). At that point, something as simple as opening Potion/nothing with a 4/3 opening might be the biggest edge you can reasonably gain, whereas at the "level 25" sort of level, you could (probably) easily make hugely more important, and less subtle, improvements.
-
The simulator can be like a lot of machines, garbage in means garbage out. However if you ask it the right questions, and know its limitations, then it can give some good answers. Once you've got a script set up for a kingdom it is quite good for showing how variations affect your results. Will it be better buying the fishing village before or after a silver? Will it be better buying duchies earlier or later?
-
tl;dr: Take a 5 minute break after each loss.
I realize from one person's earlier post how important patience is. Considering this thread was created about people who desire to get their level up, it is fair to assume they are competitive beings. I remember peaking at 37ish before my ego/pride got ahead of me. I told myself that if I lost to a person, it did not mean he was better than me, so I should just ask for rematches until victory. Then I lost about 7 straight and then 4 others to go 2/13 or so on the night. There goes that 37 rating. I never recovered.
Even after I maintained a 31 or so, I dropped into my current 27 for the same reason. I still enjoy rematching people until I get a victory. Maybe I can be irrationally competitive, but I doubt I am the only one. Losing is part of the game; do not rush into battle again until you either have become removed from the previous one.
One thing that is often emphasized in sports (mainly basketball) is to move on to the next play. "Next play" reminds us that a mistake made is in the past and that by focusing on it (on an emotional level) distracts you from the desired goal. Make sure that you give time to cool down after losses.
-
"Feeling" the numbers is very dangerous even if you're good at it. I clearly remember the first posts when Hinterlands was spoiled and what chwhite had to say about Jack of all Trades:
I have yet to buy Jack of All Trades, and have so far been of the mind it's really, really weak. The problem is that its various functions trip over each other and conflict. Gaining a Silver is not something I'm usually excited about (and doesn't do anything for this turn); the trashing really only works on Estates and you have to do it after you draw, so again it doesn't help your current hand; the "draw up to 5" bit looks like it could combo with stuff like Festival/Hamlet/Oasis, like Library or Watchtower, except that: a) the draw power is less than Watchtower, probably weak enough to doom consistent combos, and b) if you're getting all this Silver you're not going to be able to chain your Jacks, because they'll just draw you Silver and Copper that you can't get rid of. I've avoided it every time, and have so far done well against opponents that went for JoaT. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong?
So one of the best players of the game who clearly has amazing "feel" for the game got the card that will dominate most boards completely wrong.
When I saw all the Hinterlands cards, for whatever reason I decided to take a dim view of their power level and condemn most of them as trappy and often-skippable. I'm pretty sure this was more right than not, but man was I not right about JoaT!
I don't know that I have "amazing feel" so much as I've played way more games than is reasonable for any one person to play. :P
Another funny thing is, if you look at my stats, (and to a lesser extent the stats at large), I think it shows Jack actually isn't the dominating juggernaut everyone is giving it credit for being. My win rate is actually much higher when I ignore it, and I still ignore it like 40 percent of the time. It's stronger than Envoy, sure, being a little faster and a lot more resilient, but there are still a whole bunch of setups where even the fastest BM (and even here I would guess that Jack is probably second to Masquerade) is going to lose to a dominant engine, and Jack rarely if ever has a part to play in those sorts of engines. Keep in mind that "stronger than Envoy" is, to my ears, faint praise.
As for the OP's question: I really don't know. I plateaued around the low-mid 30s for quite awhile over the summer and then started to shoot up again, for reasons that are obscure even to me. Maybe starting to use the improved automatch or the advent of Cornucopia, which meshed really well with my style?
-
"Feeling" the numbers is very dangerous even if you're good at it. I clearly remember the first posts when Hinterlands was spoiled and what chwhite had to say about Jack of all Trades:
I have yet to buy Jack of All Trades, and have so far been of the mind it's really, really weak. The problem is that its various functions trip over each other and conflict. Gaining a Silver is not something I'm usually excited about (and doesn't do anything for this turn); the trashing really only works on Estates and you have to do it after you draw, so again it doesn't help your current hand; the "draw up to 5" bit looks like it could combo with stuff like Festival/Hamlet/Oasis, like Library or Watchtower, except that: a) the draw power is less than Watchtower, probably weak enough to doom consistent combos, and b) if you're getting all this Silver you're not going to be able to chain your Jacks, because they'll just draw you Silver and Copper that you can't get rid of. I've avoided it every time, and have so far done well against opponents that went for JoaT. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong?
So one of the best players of the game who clearly has amazing "feel" for the game got the card that will dominate most boards completely wrong.
When I saw all the Hinterlands cards, for whatever reason I decided to take a dim view of their power level and condemn most of them as trappy and often-skippable. I'm pretty sure this was more right than not, but man was I not right about JoaT!
I don't know that I have "amazing feel" so much as I've played way more games than is reasonable for any one person to play. :P
Another funny thing is, if you look at my stats, (and to a lesser extent the stats at large), I think it shows Jack actually isn't the dominating juggernaut everyone is giving it credit for being. My win rate is actually much higher when I ignore it, and I still ignore it like 40 percent of the time. It's stronger than Envoy, sure, being a little faster and a lot more resilient, but there are still a whole bunch of setups where even the fastest BM (and even here I would guess that Jack is probably second to Masquerade) is going to lose to a dominant engine, and Jack rarely if ever has a part to play in those sorts of engines. Keep in mind that "stronger than Envoy" is, to my ears, faint praise.
As for the OP's question: I really don't know. I plateaued around the low-mid 30s for quite awhile over the summer and then started to shoot up again, for reasons that are obscure even to me. Maybe starting to use the improved automatch or the advent of Cornucopia, which meshed really well with my style?
BM w/Jack is behind BM w/masq, witch, wharf, mountebank...
-
"Feeling" the numbers is very dangerous even if you're good at it. I clearly remember the first posts when Hinterlands was spoiled and what chwhite had to say about Jack of all Trades:
I have yet to buy Jack of All Trades, and have so far been of the mind it's really, really weak. The problem is that its various functions trip over each other and conflict. Gaining a Silver is not something I'm usually excited about (and doesn't do anything for this turn); the trashing really only works on Estates and you have to do it after you draw, so again it doesn't help your current hand; the "draw up to 5" bit looks like it could combo with stuff like Festival/Hamlet/Oasis, like Library or Watchtower, except that: a) the draw power is less than Watchtower, probably weak enough to doom consistent combos, and b) if you're getting all this Silver you're not going to be able to chain your Jacks, because they'll just draw you Silver and Copper that you can't get rid of. I've avoided it every time, and have so far done well against opponents that went for JoaT. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong?
So one of the best players of the game who clearly has amazing "feel" for the game got the card that will dominate most boards completely wrong.
When I saw all the Hinterlands cards, for whatever reason I decided to take a dim view of their power level and condemn most of them as trappy and often-skippable. I'm pretty sure this was more right than not, but man was I not right about JoaT!
I don't know that I have "amazing feel" so much as I've played way more games than is reasonable for any one person to play. :P
Another funny thing is, if you look at my stats, (and to a lesser extent the stats at large), I think it shows Jack actually isn't the dominating juggernaut everyone is giving it credit for being. My win rate is actually much higher when I ignore it, and I still ignore it like 40 percent of the time. It's stronger than Envoy, sure, being a little faster and a lot more resilient, but there are still a whole bunch of setups where even the fastest BM (and even here I would guess that Jack is probably second to Masquerade) is going to lose to a dominant engine, and Jack rarely if ever has a part to play in those sorts of engines. Keep in mind that "stronger than Envoy" is, to my ears, faint praise.
As for the OP's question: I really don't know. I plateaued around the low-mid 30s for quite awhile over the summer and then started to shoot up again, for reasons that are obscure even to me. Maybe starting to use the improved automatch or the advent of Cornucopia, which meshed really well with my style?
BM w/Jack is behind BM w/masq, witch, wharf, mountebank...
Okay, wharf too then. The curse attacks are stronger for sure, but I wasn't counting them as "faster".
I'd imagine that, in a board without super trashing or engine possibilities, that getting both JoaT and Witch is better than just one, and the risk of terminal collision is worth it.
-
Poker can also be played purely mathematically (read the excellent "Mathematics of Poker" by Bill Chen) but you're still going to get destroyed by an experienced player at the table because he'll be able to read your body language and make good decisions based on that while he may not even know the correct odds.
Glad you liked our book. :) -ja
-
No love for BM/Courtyard? The simulator has it beating every other single card/BM deck which doesn't involve curses. I think this card is so often overlooked because it's 'only' a $2.
-
No love for BM/Courtyard? The simulator has it beating every other single card/BM deck which doesn't involve curses. I think this card is so often overlooked because it's 'only' a $2.
Except that's not true. It loses to Goons and Ghost ship at least (though those are also the only two I've found/can think of).
-
Ah, my bad. I think i meant attacks in general, or at least the strongest ones, like curses. But yeah, ghost ship destroys big money.
Anyway, my point is that Courtyard is an awesome card. Probably #2 behind chapel for me at that price point. It just does so well in both big money and many engines, giving draw power plus a pseudo scheme effect that works on any card. And it's cheap price means if you have +buy anywhere, you can get them no problem. Also combined with many of the other single action/BM engines it only makes it better. For example, the built in Sea Hag bot buys 2 hags and does very well. If you tweak it to buy 1 hag and a courtyard or two, it does all the better.
-
try memorizing VPs of yourself and your opponents is definitely a big improvement.
I am still not able to do it, always mess up VPs in the middle of the game ...
-
I too find myself hitting a ceiling at lvl 30 and upwards, I'm mostly hovering about 32/33-ish.
But then again, if I'm #57 on a list of 6000+, why am I complaining?
I think with any game, the results you get are roughly equivalent to the amount effort you put in.
My own personality is such that when I discover something new and exciting, I dive into it head-first to the point it almost becomes an addiction. Luckily, I still have a social life and a good marriage which I care more about than games, so it's not all completely unsanitary. But with any game, I always reach my own equilibrium at some point at which I'm better than most, but still worse than the best. I'm just not willing to put in the extra work to squash that little extra out of it. I like to go by feel and experience rather than trying to simulate the game to death. I don't want to keep track of the exact details of both my and my opponent's deck so I can make better decisions. I still like and choose to be surprised at times.
If you really want to get better (the best even), there's no substitute for experience and effort. If you want to beat theory on a regular basis, analyze his last 100 games. "But what's the fun in that?" Right, there is none. I can think of 100 other things I'd rather do. And if that means I'm not going to get better, than I'll just have to accept that. Some players have a natural talent for spotting complex patterns, while others are BMU-ing every single game and only trying something different if someone one these forums spots it and is kind enough to share it, for example the Apothecary/NV combo which was recently posted.
You really have to ask yourself with anything you do if the effort is worth the result. When all is said and done, it's still a game. And there are no shortcuts that instantly turn you from a level 30 player to a level 40 players, mostly because you need to beat those better players and they know as much ins an outs as you do. If you want to beat them, be creative. Pick a strategy and stick with it, see if it works. Sometimes, there will be a dominant strategy that you both have to go for, but try to spot that little detail which will give you an edge. Pcik up that +Buy early that you dream you'd had bought later on.
In conclusion, just accept that there are people better than you and try to be creative. Evaluate every card on every board from the context of that board. Bureaucrat is usually pretty worthless, but there's another topic proving just how good it can be. Don't get lulled into a false sense of security. Don't automatically think the more expensive cards are the best ones. If I'm going BM, I'd rather have a $2 Courtyard than a $7 King's Court. Try to see the complete picture, visualize what you need in your end game deck and go from there.
And of course, shuffle better than your opponent, that's really the best advise. ;)
-
All of this general advice is pretty good. Here's my contribution.
Try to think about EVERYTHING. Things you wouldn't normally think about. Some decisions that you thought were super obvious, might not be so obvious. Try not to autopilot.
One example of this (and it's something that I think really elevated my game) is manipulating your shuffles. For example, it's the early-mid game and you have a hand that's like, Village-Witch-Copper-Silver-Silver. You play the Village, and then the Witch, and you draw Copper & Estate & Village, and you have no more cards left in your deck. It's hard to resist the temptation to just cycle that Village, but by doing that you'll trigger a nasty reshuffle that will blank TWO of your Villages, your awesome Witch, and the Gold that you'll probably buy until your next shuffle, and for what? What card could you draw that would drastically change what you're going to do/buy this turn? This is a pretty basic example, but hopefully the idea behind it is pretty clear: think critically about how your current turn affects your future turns.
Sorry if this was already obvious, but this is one aspect that really elevated my game. I always thought Navigator was pretty bad / unplayable, until I got a good grip on the deck manipulation aspect of the game. Now I love opening Navigator/Silver and using Navigator to discard upcoming draws that don't result in me buying a Gold.