Most of the charts are shown up as broken images to me. I can't see them.
Most of the charts are shown up as broken images to me. I can't see them.
I noticed that happens on my phone, but not on desktops. I'll look into it.
Most of the charts are shown up as broken images to me. I can't see them.
Huh, now they work on my phone. No idea haha. They're just images. Nothing special about them. Maybe it fixed itself?
This is great. Have you considered adding cumulative running totals? For example, this could show how the percentage of Village-variants among all cards has changed as sets have been released.
Is your data on the number of types in Guilds correct? Only two cards even have more than 1 type in that whole set, namely Taxman and Soothsayer. There's just no way that the average is more than 1.5, unless you count things like 'overpay' or 'coin token' as a separate type, which they are usually not counted as.
As more and more Dominion cards get released, I'm finding more and more often there will only be one or zero villages most MF games in random sets, just due to the vast amount of cards.Since the fraction of cards which are villages has been slightly increasing. this cannot be correct. As in, there's no way you're seeing fewer villages because more sets have been released.
As more and more Dominion cards get released, I'm finding more and more often there will only be one or zero villages most MF games in random sets, just due to the vast amount of cards.Since the fraction of cards which are villages has been slightly increasing. this cannot be correct. As in, there's no way you're seeing fewer villages because more sets have been released.
| Expansion | # Kingdom cards | # Villages | Proportion | Cumulative # Kingdom cards | Cumulative # Villages | Proportion |
| Base | 25 | 3 | 0.12 | 25 | 3 | 0.12 |
| Intrigue | 25 | 2 | 0.08 | 50 | 5 | 0.10 |
| Seaside | 26 | 4 | 0.15 | 76 | 9 | 0.12 |
| Alchemy | 12 | 2 | 0.17 | 88 | 11 | 0.13 |
| Prosperity | 25 | 3 | 0.12 | 113 | 14 | 0.12 |
| Cornucopia | 13 | 2 | 0.15 | 126 | 16 | 0.13 |
| Hinterlands | 26 | 3 | 0.12 | 152 | 19 | 0.13 |
| Dark Ages | 35 | 6 | 0.17 | 187 | 25 | 0.13 |
| Guilds | 13 | 2 | 0.15 | 200 | 27 | 0.14 |
| Adventures | 29 | 4 | 0.14 | 229 | 31 | 0.14 |
| Expansion | Cumulative # Kingdoms | # Kingdoms with 0 Villages | Proportion |
| Base | 3,268,760 | 646,646 | 0.198 |
| Intrigue | 10,272,278,170 | 3,190,187,286 | 0.311 |
| Seaside | 954,526,728,530 | 247,994,680,648 | 0.260 |
| Alchemy | 4,513,667,845,896 | 1,096,993,404,430 | 0.243 |
| Prosperity | 62,088,566,355,816 | 15,579,278,510,796 | 0.251 |
| Cornucopia | 192,657,357,567,675 | 46,897,636,623,981 | 0.243 |
| Hinterlands | 1,340,705,736,329,960 | 337,429,331,439,200 | 0.252 |
| Dark Ages | 11,280,482,088,242,100 | 2,584,164,477,130,240 | 0.229 |
| Guilds | 22,451,004,309,013,300 | 5,076,973,385,101,050 | 0.226 |
| Adventures | 89,545,738,240,627,300 | 20,256,672,480,820,800 | 0.226 |
Events are trickier because they effect the number of possible Kingdoms in a more complicated way than I can calculate using a single Excel function call. I could hack something together in R, but that was more than I had time for yesterday.
With a 2 event limit, you can't simply look at the chance that a certain event comes up before you draw 10 kingdom cards alone. You also need to know whether it is the first or second event, as future events won't be used.This, if I'm not wrong, gives:
Fortunately, every event has an equal probability of showing up, so if you calculate the average number of events that show up in a game, then that number is divided evenly among the 20 (21 with Summon) events. You can determine the distribution of the number of events that show up with the negative hypergeometric distribution. As of Adventures and 20 events, jonts26 did the following calculation of the chance for different numbers of events (I believe assuming 235 Kingdom cards).I should have actually used negative hyper geometric instead of a naive binomial in my last post. Real probabilities are (for all cards):
0 events: 43.5%
1 event: 35.5%
2+ events: 21.0%
0.355*1/20+0.21*2/20=3.875% chance of drawing a specific event as the only event or as one of the first two events.
This gives a 0.4% deviation from the unadjusted value of 10/236.
If Lost Arts is the only event that qualifies as +Actions, you just need to know the chance that Lost Arts shows up in a given Kingdom. Assuming 10 cards kingdoms and no limit on the number of events used in a kingdom, the answer is just 10 / # of Kingdom cards you have to choose from. This is the chance that an otherwise +Action-less Kingdom gets changed to effectively being a +Actions Kingdom by Lost Arts.Perhaps, but I think you're forgetting one of the major contributing factors - I'm lazy.
There's also Necropolis. Sometimes that's all the villages you need.Great Prince target, amiright? ;)
It's a perfectly reasonable Prince target; it's never going to backfire on you, and it makes it less likely that your turn will fail due to lack of +Action. Princing a Necropolis is never something I'll be excited about, but I'll happily do it in the absence of a better Prince target.There's also Necropolis. Sometimes that's all the villages you need.Great Prince target, amiright? ;)
I mean, you start every turn with 3 actions!
This is only because we choose kingdom cards without replacement, which is such a negligible effect after a couple sets that it is overwhelmed by the slight variation in overall proportion, as ConMan demonstrates.As more and more Dominion cards get released, I'm finding more and more often there will only be one or zero villages most MF games in random sets, just due to the vast amount of cards.Since the fraction of cards which are villages has been slightly increasing. this cannot be correct. As in, there's no way you're seeing fewer villages because more sets have been released.
He didn't say he was seeing fewer villages on average. He said he's seeing more games with no villages. That is absolutely a result of a larger card pool.
As more and more Dominion cards get released, I'm finding more and more often there will only be one or zero villages most MF games in random sets, just due to the vast amount of cards.
As more and more Dominion cards get released, I'm finding more and more often there will only be one or zero villages most MF games in random sets, just due to the vast amount of cards.
I almost never play random kingdoms. When I get a new expansion (I play almost exclusively IRL) I play the recommended kingdoms, and then create kingdoms of my own. It takes more time, but it's more rewarding and I don't get stupid or screwed up kingdoms.
As more and more Dominion cards get released, I'm finding more and more often there will only be one or zero villages most MF games in random sets, just due to the vast amount of cards.
I almost never play random kingdoms. When I get a new expansion (I play almost exclusively IRL) I play the recommended kingdoms, and then create kingdoms of my own. It takes more time, but it's more rewarding and I don't get stupid or screwed up kingdoms.
True, I guess I just prefer the challenge of coming up with combos while making the kingdom then while playing it. Plus, as soon as I forget how to beat them, I'll take all the kingdoms I have written down and play them again. My problem with random kingdoms is it seems to boil down to: Go for the power cards + a support card. In most cases, there will not be a normally weak card which counters a power card effectively.
I find getting screwed up kingdoms are the best way to play. That way, you have to go out and make something work. It's so much more rewarding when you pull something off. Constructed kingdoms are great too, but nothing really beats a random combo I had to make up on my own.
This was a fun one. This shows the percentage of any card art (so randomizers, non-supply cards, and Events) that has primarily (1) females on it, or (2) males on it, or (3) neither/both/I couldn't tell. I used my eyes to determine this and didn't look on any rulebooks or anything, so I may have gotten some of it wrong. But I did my best.
DX, we need more chicas!! And I now see why the Dark Ages were so dark :P
This was a fun one. This shows the percentage of any card art (so randomizers, non-supply cards, and Events) that has primarily (1) females on it, or (2) males on it, or (3) neither/both/I couldn't tell. I used my eyes to determine this and didn't look on any rulebooks or anything, so I may have gotten some of it wrong. But I did my best.
DX, we need more chicas!! And I now see why the Dark Ages were so dark :P
I did this count, pretty carefully: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.0
Update for Adventures: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg486478#msg486478
(Summon not included.)
I think you are a little off some places. For instance Alchemy has about 33% female art. (I only exclude cards where it's neither or unclear.)
I included neither/unclear in the percentages. So for example:
Female: Scrying Pool, Possession
Male: Apprentice, Transmute, Apothecary, Alchemist, Familiar, Golem
Both/neither/couldn't tell: Herbalist, Vineyard, University, Philosopher's Stone
Female: 2/12 = 17%
Male: 6/12 = 50%
Both/neither/couldn't tell: 4/12 = 33%
Looking back at my chart, I think I counted Possession as a male, which would be wrong. But I sort of don't feel like going back and correcting minor things like this. Maybe I will some day if I ever get around to it. Do you notice any other major discrepancies?