Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: LibraryAdventurer on January 12, 2014, 01:22:15 am
-
One of the people I often play with simply refuses to believe me when I tell her that it's good to trash copper and estates. She never uses trashing unless it's to trash curses or TFB. She says, "That's just your style of playing", or "You beat us because you practice online not becuase you trash stuff." I'm afraid I'm going to start winning every time (or at least every time that trashing is available) and playing against them won't be as fun. I need new people to play with. (and I highly prefer playing in person to online.)
Then another possibility pops into my head: maybe I'm subconciously keeping myself from getting better to keep it from being less fun...
-
Well... you could not play online for a while. Otherwise, telling people strategy isn't usually the best thing, just let them learn.
-
Did you tell her the reason why Coppers and Estates are bad? (you need to reach $8 with a hand size of 5 and that means every card that gives less than $1,6 makes it less likely to happen).
-
Show her this thread, it should help.
-
One of the people I often play with simply refuses to believe me when I tell her that it's good to trash copper and estates. She never uses trashing unless it's to trash curses or TFB. She says, "That's just your style of playing", or "You beat us because you practice online not becuase you trash stuff."
I don't think you can or should give any direct advice. If you repeatedly trash and win then it will become obvious that it is a good strategy. If you try and lecture on the correct way to play then that gives substance to the criticism that you have an advantage from playing online.
-
One of the people I often play with simply refuses to believe me when I tell her that it's good to trash copper and estates. She never uses trashing unless it's to trash curses or TFB. She says, "That's just your style of playing", or "You beat us because you practice online not becuase you trash stuff."
I don't think you can or should give any direct advice. If you repeatedly trash and win then it will become obvious that it is a good strategy. If you try and lecture on the correct way to play then that gives substance to the criticism that you have an advantage from playing online.
Yeah, that's good advice. I need to shut up and play. I also need to take better advantage of trashing. When you can do it effiencently, it's easy. We don't have the Base game yet (the first one I got was Intrigue), so we've hardly ever played with Chapel. Steward can't trash as many cards at a time and doesn't have trash for benefit, so it's temping to use it for other purposes so I can buy something this turn. Steward basically is a harder (but maybe better) card to learn effective trashing. I say maybe better because it takes more discapline than chapel.
-
If she's into hard data, you could keep track of how many times your win when there is trashing and when there isn't, and maybe even make a few graphs...
...
-
Steward is a tricky card to learn to trash with. It usually comes down to either getting the +$2 and buying a decent $4 or $5 card this turn, or trashing 2 cards and buying nothing this turn. It can be really hard to see why filtering 2 bad cards out is better than adding 1 good card. As you say, the benefit is a lot more obvious with Chapel, where you're just devoting your whole turn to getting rid of your hand, and there's not as much temptation to not trash with it since it won't improve your hand otherwise.
-
Steward is a tricky card to learn to trash with.
Here is the trick: trash with steward early unless you can come up with an extremely strong case for why you should get +coin or +cards. Early trashing is always better*. Especially don't use the +coin or +cards to enable the purchase of a terminal. Law of Terminals: They always collide**
*There are always edge cases and I understand this
**This is not actually true, but you create this chance, which wastes one of your cards if it happens, which is bad.
-
One of the people I often play with simply refuses to believe me when I tell her that it's good to trash copper and estates. She never uses trashing unless it's to trash curses or TFB. She says, "That's just your style of playing", or "You beat us because you practice online not becuase you trash stuff." I'm afraid I'm going to start winning every time (or at least every time that trashing is available) and playing against them won't be as fun. I need new people to play with. (and I highly prefer playing in person to online.)
Then another possibility pops into my head: maybe I'm subconciously keeping myself from getting better to keep it from being less fun...
Is she any good at Eurogames in general? You may just be playing with someone who doesn't have the creative/mathematical chops to play Eurogames well.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
How is that sexist or patronizing?
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
Probably that girls love to be sexistly patronized, despite their token protestations to the contrary ^^
-
:/
-
Sometimes friendships are more important than winning an argument. Let's say that his friend is passionate about, say, tennis. She knows all about different types of serves, which angles to take, etc., but to him, it's merely a nice way to spend an afternoon.
She could spend her time trying to persuade him to become a serious tennis player--or she could simply appreciate the fact that he likes playing tennis, and that they enjoy each other's company. If she needs to talk about the fine points of tennis, or play at a high level, there are plenty of clubs where she could find high-level opponents--but if she browbeats him for not playing 'correctly,' she's likely to make him lose all interest in tennis, instead of making him a better player.
As for Ozle--if his point was to say, 'She's a girl--girls are stupid and don't get Dominion'--then of course he would be sexist. But if his point was, "She's a girl who likes spending time with you--don't blow it over a stupid argument" then his reply was spot-on, and much shorter than mine, which for most people will be tl:dr.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Don't follow this advice!
All following it got me were dozends of girls wanting to have sex and/or romantic relationships with me. It didn't help getting a more pleasant gaming experience at all!
-
>_>
-
Sometimes friendships are more important than winning an argument. Let's say that his friend is passionate about, say, tennis. She knows all about different types of serves, which angles to take, etc., but to him, it's merely a nice way to spend an afternoon.
She could spend her time trying to persuade him to become a serious tennis player--or she could simply appreciate the fact that he likes playing tennis, and that they enjoy each other's company. If she needs to talk about the fine points of tennis, or play at a high level, there are plenty of clubs where she could find high-level opponents--but if she browbeats him for not playing 'correctly,' she's likely to make him lose all interest in tennis, instead of making him a better player.
As for Ozle--if his point was to say, 'She's a girl--girls are stupid and don't get Dominion'--then of course he would be sexist. But if his point was, "She's a girl who likes spending time with you--don't blow it over a stupid argument" then his reply was spot-on, and much shorter than mine, which for most people will be tl:dr.
If that was the case, why did her sex matter? If you decide different because of somebodies sex, isn't "sexist" the exact word you're looking for?
-
Wow, ive never initiated a proper debate before!
-
Dude people, maybe I should've just said so, but that's a weird way to talk about my mom. :P
...also kinda hilarious the conclusions people come to simply over the word "she/her".
The only other Eurogame I know of that she's played is Settlers of Catan. She likes Dominion better, but she's not particularly bad at Settlers of Catan (at least not compared to us).
-
Dude people, maybe I should've just said so, but that's a weird way to talk about my mom. :P
...also kinda hilarious the conclusions people come to simply over the word "she/her".
The only other Eurogame I know of that she's played is Settlers of Catan. She likes Dominion better, but she's not particularly bad at Settlers of Catan (at least not compared to us).
Honestly, just keep winning. The best proof is the proof of victory. :P
-
Dude people, maybe I should've just said so, but that's a weird way to talk about my mom. :P
...also kinda hilarious the conclusions people come to simply over the word "she/her".
The only other Eurogame I know of that she's played is Settlers of Catan. She likes Dominion better, but she's not particularly bad at Settlers of Catan (at least not compared to us).
Family structures are no obstacle for patriarchy. In medieval France, a boy was considered in charge of his mother as soon as he was 14.
-
But KingZog3 is actually Prince Charles. He's 65 years old, but still has to report to his mother. :P
-
Honestly, if somebody doesn't want to treat a game competitively, then there's not much use for advice. Step one is to actually *want* to put in effort to improve, and that's a step most people don't take for most games, myself included. And there's nothing wrong with that.
-
Honestly, if somebody doesn't want to treat a game competitively, then there's not much use for advice. Step one is to actually *want* to put in effort to improve, and that's a step most people don't take for most games, myself included. And there's nothing wrong with that.
This is also very true, and it can ruin their fun to try to tell them otherwise. It'll just bother them.
-
Honestly, if somebody doesn't want to treat a game competitively, then there's not much use for advice. Step one is to actually *want* to put in effort to improve, and that's a step most people don't take for most games, myself included. And there's nothing wrong with that.
This is also very true, and it can ruin their fun to try to tell them otherwise. It'll just bother them.
It also ruins their fun, in my experience, to continuously win every game. Unfortunately many casual gamers don't see see that they have two goals at odds with one another (that is, occasionally winning to maintain fun, and not putting effort into improving because effort is unfun).
-
Honestly, if somebody doesn't want to treat a game competitively, then there's not much use for advice. Step one is to actually *want* to put in effort to improve, and that's a step most people don't take for most games, myself included. And there's nothing wrong with that.
This is also very true, and it can ruin their fun to try to tell them otherwise. It'll just bother them.
It also ruins their fun, in my experience, to continuously win every game. Unfortunately many casual gamers don't see see that they have two goals at odds with one another (that is, occasionally winning to maintain fun, and not putting effort into improving because effort is unfun).
Of course they won't like losing every game. But if I am better at a game, should I play badly on purpose? If I play someone who doesn't know what they're doing, I always tell my game plan before we start. Then they can try to mirror me, or try their own thing. I'm open to discussion, and I always tell them I may be wrong about things.
Yes, it's not fun to lose, but the person who is improving is not responsible if the other person insists on not trying. And in the end, I personally don't enjoy playing with people who don't try to do their best, or don't try to improve. I'm not saying anything about LibraryAdventurer's mother, but if she really just won't accept that trashing is a good thing (despite that cards exist that trash) why is he responsible to not play well, or to not keep getting better at Dominion?
-
It also ruins their fun, in my experience, to continuously win every game. Unfortunately many casual gamers don't see see that they have two goals at odds with one another (that is, occasionally winning to maintain fun, and not putting effort into improving because effort is unfun).
This is why many games (Dominion included) have chance components.
-
One of the people I often play with simply refuses to believe me when I tell her that it's good to trash copper and estates. She never uses trashing unless it's to trash curses or TFB. She says, "That's just your style of playing", or "You beat us because you practice online not becuase you trash stuff." I'm afraid I'm going to start winning every time (or at least every time that trashing is available) and playing against them won't be as fun. I need new people to play with. (and I highly prefer playing in person to online.)
Then another possibility pops into my head: maybe I'm subconciously keeping myself from getting better to keep it from being less fun...
Maybe telling isn't good enough. "Trashing is good" is a conclusion, not a reason (and not really on obvious conclusion unless you think hard). You probably have to provide multiple, good explanations with simple examples.
Gently suggest after a game that "Trashing Coppers allowed me to see my good cards more often."
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them. If it's the case that they don't stray from Smithy-Big Money (and its variants), then they won't see the benefit of trashing Coppers. Try to explain the speed and power of other non-money strategies.
You have Intrigue, right? Set up a kingdom with Minion, Pawn, and Steward. Explain as you are building a Minion-Pawn deck why trashing Coppers is good: It let's you see Pawns and Minions more often. Minion is clearly better than Copper. Pawn is better than Copper for this strategy, too, because you can get +$1 (and +1 Action) and replace that card when you draw 4 more with Minion netting more than $1 for that card slot. Fewer Coppers mean more Pawns and Minions in hand. In fact, Pawns and Minions are so much better than Copper, that it may be worth spending time early to trash Copper at the expense of better buys. It certainly is if no one competes for Minions with you. (You do have to be a little more careful about always trashing if there is competition for the Minions, though.) This is also a good example of a non-money strategy because you don't even want Silvers if you are uncontested.
If you really want to crank up the crazy, add a Village, Conspirator, and Ironworks. That should all but guarantee a win against money strategies.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
I think he means that a thin money deck is better than a normal money deck, but not enough so to justify spending the time to thin it.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
Would you prevent your opponent's Thief from hitting your Coppers if you could if you were playing Big Money?
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
I think he means that a thin money deck is better than a normal money deck, but not enough so to justify spending the time to thin it.
Cue Junk Dealer.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
Would you prevent your opponent's Thief from hitting your Coppers if you could if you were playing Big Money?
Late: yes. Early: no.
-
Just thought of another thing:
If you aren't having as much fun because you are winning all the time (because you play way more than they do), then you can handicap yourself via IRL "Zaps". Let them replace a starting Copper with a Silver or something.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
Would you prevent your opponent's Thief from hitting your Coppers if you could if you were playing Big Money?
Late: yes. Early: no.
I don't think that's quite right. With just a silver silver opening your money per card density is roughly 1 coin. Trashing a Copper will have no impact on your money per card density, but will mobilize it and make it easier to improve in the future, because your deck is smaller.
Increased variance is generally a plus if the board has 5$ Big Money cards. Only in a special case where a 3-4$ card is a good BM enabler and none of the 5$ cards are would I expect that it is a good to keep Copper early on.
Put another way, if you open 5/2 with Margrave for a big money strategy, do you take a Copper the first time you use it turn 3?
-
No, same as you don't take a Copper on the $2 turn.
-
Does your family play mostly money strategies? Then they're right! Trashing Coppers actually is bad for them.
Actually it's still good for them. It's just too slow and not worth it.
It's actually good for them, except that it's bad.
Would you prevent your opponent's Thief from hitting your Coppers if you could if you were playing Big Money?
Late: yes. Early: no.
I don't think that's quite right. With just a silver silver opening your money per card density is roughly 1 coin. Trashing a Copper will have no impact on your money per card density, but will mobilize it and make it easier to improve in the future, because your deck is smaller.
Increased variance is generally a plus if the board has 5$ Big Money cards. Only in a special case where a 3-4$ card is a good BM enabler and none of the 5$ cards are would I expect that it is a good to keep Copper early on.
Put another way, if you open 5/2 with Margrave for a big money strategy, do you take a Copper the first time you use it turn 3?
Late: Yes (I would prevent Thief from trashing my Copper). Early: No (I would NOT prevent Thief from trashing my Copper. Thus, I would allow Thief to trash my Copper early.)
-
If you're playing Wharf/BM, buying Coppers with extra buys or $2 hands after 5 Provinces have been bought increases your chances of winning a mirror match by around 0.4% according to Geronimoo's simulator.
EDIT: Seems to decrease your odds against Engine decks, though the difference is even smaller and it's worth noting that the simulator probably doesn't play those strategies quite optimally.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
I just assumed it was an extension of the-woman-is-always-right trope, especially prevalent in marriages. Basically it boils down to ending an argument with the man saying, "Yes dear."
Though the fact that this is the poster's mother makes this comedy gold.
So when is Dominion: Greek Tragedy coming out?
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
I just assumed it was an extension of the-woman-is-always-right trope, especially prevalent in marriages. Basically it boils down to ending an argument with the man saying, "Yes dear."
I believe pops's point was that that trope is sexist and patronizing.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
i mean, maybe you're just explaining the joke b/c that's a sort of in-joke round these parts, but you seem to've missed the key part of pops' request.
-
You're a boy right?
And she's a girl?
Just agree with her.
Could someone explain Ozle's joke to me in a way that doesn't seem sexist and patronizing? It has +2 respect so I must be missing something.
i mean, maybe you're just explaining the joke b/c that's a sort of in-joke round these parts, but you seem to've missed the key part of pops' request.
I'm on a bulletin board shared by many people who speak many languages, and English is not everyone's first language. So when there's a request for an idiom to be explained, I assume the person just hasn't been exposed to it in English.
And I don't think I was being sexist and patronizing in my explanation. I apologize if I came across that way. I tried to be as completely factual as possible.
-
"sexist and patronizing" was a reference to the nature of the joke itself, not the nature of the explanation.
The word "it" (with in-sentence antecedent "the joke") was mistakenly omitted between "that" and "doesn't", a couple other forumites have mentally added it, in accordance with my intent.
-
So today we played two games. Before we started I said I would try to stop giving advice and let her learn by losing. So of course she won the first game (there wasn't any trashing that game except for Pirate Ship so I didn't have any advantage in that respect). Second game, we had chapel in the kingdom and I trashed most of my starting junk. Then we ended up in a tie. I guess I need to get better before she can learn by losing...
-
So today we played two games. Before we started I said I would try to stop giving advice and let her learn by losing. So of course she won the first game (there wasn't any trashing that game except for Pirate Ship so I didn't have any advantage in that respect). Second game, we had chapel in the kingdom and I trashed most of my starting junk. Then we ended up in a tie. I guess I need to get better before she can learn by losing...
Trashing gets stronger with higher set ownership, so you would naturally be inclined to overrate it if your IRL collection is smaller.
-
Besides the special trash pile stuff with Dark Ages (my next expansion), how does having more expansions make trashing stronger?
Also, a completely unrelated question that I didn't want to start a new thread for: What does AP mean? I see a lot of people using that when talking about Dominion cards, but I've never seen an explanation.
-
Since most expansions encourage engines more, having more of them and making engines more viable means trashing is more helpful (since trashing is generally a lot better for engines than BM).
AP stands for analysis paralysis, which is when the game slows down because a player has too many cases to think through. A card that said "Look a the top 12 cards of your deck, discard four of them and put the rest back on top in any order" would be an example of a card that would create a lot of AP, because you have to think about which cards to discard, and then think through all of the different possible orderings for the other eight. AP is generally considered to be a very bad thing for a card to have (from a design perspective; it doesn't say anything about whether the card is strong or weak).
-
Besides the special trash pile stuff with Dark Ages (my next expansion), how does having more expansions make trashing stronger?
Better cards that do things other than money. Trashing is a relatively limited value strategy in the base set because engines have less value, because big money is stronger and engine potential is limited, and because junking attacks are less frequent and less painful. Witch is nothing compared to Mountebank or Ambassador. When you compare the base set's engine potential (village/smithy/market, say) to something like the Golden Deck which is impossible in the base set and impossible without strong use of trashing, or to a Goons engine, or to a deck getting hit by Mountebanks every turn, you see the value of trashing a lot more. Trashing also gets stronger as trash-for-benefit becomes more prevalent - againi, see Bishop, but also Scavenger, Apprentice etc. TFB is very limited in the base set, but can be a dominant strategy on some expansion boards.
When BM is strong, trashing is weak and will tend to seem weak.
-
You could try a simple argument:
So if all cards are good then I would give you a advantage, you will start with 6 estates and 14 coppers. This might not be enough, so I will take additional disadvantage and will start with only three coppers.
-
You could try a simple argument:
So if all cards are good then I would give you a advantage, you will start with 6 estates and 14 coppers. This might not be enough, so I will take additional disadvantage and will start with only three coppers.
Three coppers may not be a good idea, but getting rid of your estates would be great.
-
You could try a simple argument:
So if all cards are good then I would give you a advantage, you will start with 6 estates and 14 coppers. This might not be enough, so I will take additional disadvantage and will start with only three coppers.
Three coppers may not be a good idea, but getting rid of your estates would be great.
Actually, the other way around might be better because he will win less (thus showing it's bad). Your opponent winning less is more noticeable than you opponent winning even more.
-
Am I the only one who read Ozle's post as a satirical attack of the earlier mentioned sexist trope?
Or just Ozle trolling
-
Am I the only one who read Ozle's post as a satirical attack of the earlier mentioned sexist trope?
Or just Ozle trolling
earlier mentioned where?
(As a general note: we all live in a sexist/racist/generally messed up culture, so we all will make mistakes and do things that reinforce prejudice/whatever. It's not a big deal to do it, and it shouldn't be a big deal to point it out either.)
-
Am I the only one who read Ozle's post as a satirical attack of the earlier mentioned sexist trope?
Or just Ozle trolling
earlier mentioned where?
(As a general note: we all live in a sexist/racist/generally messed up culture, so we all will make mistakes and do things that reinforce prejudice/whatever. It's not a big deal to do it, and it shouldn't be a big deal to point it out either.)
Earlier mentioned as in the one Kuildeous brought up. Not that it had been brought up before Ozle posted.
-
Gotcha. (Took me like ten minutes...)
-
You could try a simple argument:
So if all cards are good then I would give you a advantage, you will start with 6 estates and 14 coppers. This might not be enough, so I will take additional disadvantage and will start with only three coppers.
Three coppers may not be a good idea, but getting rid of your estates would be great.
How that is so? Just pure BM will do job.
First five turns are s,s,g,g,g.then province, gold, silver in that order of preference.
I wrote a quick script to simulate shuffles and it gets to 4 provinces at turn 11, six at turn 15 How would you beat that except by combo like tr-tr-bridge-bridge-bridge hand?
-
You could try a simple argument:
So if all cards are good then I would give you a advantage, you will start with 6 estates and 14 coppers. This might not be enough, so I will take additional disadvantage and will start with only three coppers.
Three coppers may not be a good idea, but getting rid of your estates would be great.
How that is so? Just pure BM will do job.
First five turns are s,s,g,g,g.then province, gold, silver in that order of preference.
I wrote a quick script to simulate shuffles and it gets to 4 provinces at turn 11, six at turn 15 How would you beat that except by combo like tr-tr-bridge-bridge-bridge hand?
At first, I understood your post as "I start with a deck of three Estates and only three Coppers".