Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: chaosofslayer on December 23, 2019, 07:08:32 pm
-
I was just wondering if people had any general tips for playing at higher player counts. I’ve put so much time into 2 player that it’s been kind of frustrating not being able to find my footing in larger games.
-
Whenever I play in-person Dominion (which is not nearly as often as online), I often play 3-4 player Dominion. Strategy depends hugely on how good are the other people you're playing with, but here are a few of my very general tips.
1. All attacks are still pretty good, but handsize attacks are less good if all the other players get them, too. So, if there are two comparable cards you're thinking of getting and one is a handsize attack that other people are likely to get (like Militia), go for the other card. Playing a junking attack as often as possible is still very good if there is no easy defense.
2. In general, if you think it would be a close call between going for a money-based strategy and a draw-your-deck strategy in a 2P game, go for the money strategy in a multiplayer game. Note: this largely depends on what your opponents go for and how good your opponents are. If your opponents don't contest the key cards needed for a draw-your-deck strategy, it may actually be worth it to go for it yourself.
3. If your strategy depends on getting enough copies of a key card, don't go for it if your strategy fails by not getting enough of the card. If there is one village and everyone goes for it, no one is going to have enough for a great village + smithy type deck.
4. Piles run surprisingly fast if multiple people go for the same thing. If the other people don't realize this is happening, green early so that you have a points lead when the piles empty earlier than they should. Again, this largely depends on how good your opponents are.
5. Last point that somewhat comes from the other points: taking a different strategy from the other people can be good so you're not contested on key cards. If your opponents try to contest you later on, they often just make their deck worse for whatever they were trying to do initially.
-
if you're playing with any "player to your left" cards, make sure the player to your left is worse / better than you according to what card you're using (better = Possession / Masquerade; worse = Envoy).
-
if you're playing with any "player to your left" cards, make sure the player to your left is worse / better than you according to what card you're using (better = Possession / Masquerade; worse = Envoy).
Sitting to the left of the worst player is inherently such a huge advantage regardless of any kingdom cards that Envoy isn't enough to offset it.
-
Defenses can be better than attacks.
Collectively, your opponents may be able to make a wide variety of strategies work. Be prepared to go with them or against them.
It's sometimes good to have a Plan B as your opponents can collectively make your plan A fail.
-
The blog has a good series on multiplayer: card strength (https://dominionstrategy.com/2018/05/31/multiplayer-series-part-2-card-strength/), strategy (https://dominionstrategy.com/2018/06/14/multiplayer-series-part-3-deciding-on-a-plan/), gameplay considerations (https://dominionstrategy.com/2018/06/21/multiplayer-series-part-4-gameplay-considerations/).
Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4... :P
It's also worth mentioning that one should seriously consider buying Province whenever you hit $8 (unless it's a Colony game, of course). Provinces run fast in multiplayer, so continuing to build risks not having enough VP available to catch up later. I'm not saying auto-buy Province when you hit $8, just that it's worth thinking about, and you probably shouldn't skip more than one or two opportunities to buy Province. The jump from 3 to 4 players is significant here; at least in 3-player you still have the same 4 Provinces/player in the supply as you do in 2-player, so building is a bit safer.
-
I almost always play 3/4 and barely ever play 2.
Piles run out much more quickly and attacks that can stack hit you more often (as well as interaction effects).
-
I played a 4p game last night with Swindler and it was crazy. Just absolute chaos. Which is great if that's what you're going for.
-
Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4... :P
I think you're saying that Attacks are more powerful when you get hit by multiple players. But that's a different thing. The point is that for the player considering to get the Attack card, it will be less powerful. In 2 player, if you don't get the junker and your opponent does, you'll get 100% of the junk. In 3 player, if you don't and your opponents do, you'll get 50% of the junk (the others 25% each). In 4 player, you'll get 33% (the others 22% each). So it matters less the more players there are. If the others go for the attack, it's not rare that you'll win if you don't, because then you can do something more useful instead.
-
Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4... :P
I think you're saying that Attacks are more powerful when you get hit by multiple players. But that's a different thing. The point is that for the player considering to get the Attack card, it will be less powerful. In 2 player, if you don't get the junker and your opponent does, you'll get 100% of the junk. In 3 player, if you don't and your opponents do, you'll get 50% of the junk (the others 25% each). In 4 player, you'll get 33% (the others 22% each). So it matters less the more players there are. If the others go for the attack, it's not rare that you'll win if you don't, because then you can do something more useful instead.
You ignore tempo. In a symmetrical situation in a 3P game, players get on average 6.7 instead of 5 Curses and at double the speed.
That kinda matters. A lot. Gee, tempo is the entire reason why Cultist is OP.
-
Exactly. Tempo is a big deal.
I think the specific example I had in mind was Torturer. In 2-player, it takes a while before the "should I take the curse because there may be another Torturer incoming anyway?" dilemma comes up, but that happens almost immediately in multiplayer (as soon as two other players have a Torturer).
More generally, I think fraction of junk is a misleading metric to care about. What's important is do you get enough junk, fast enough, that it cripples your deck? That is much more likely to happen in multiplayer, getting two or three Curses before your next turn instead of the one you'd get early in a 2-player game in the same kingdom.
Same thing with some other forms of attacks - how many cards do you lose to Swindlers, Knights, etc. before your next turn?
It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.
-
Exactly. Tempo is a big deal.
I think the specific example I had in mind was Torturer. In 2-player, it takes a while before the "should I take the curse because there may be another Torturer incoming anyway?" dilemma comes up, but that happens almost immediately in multiplayer (as soon as two other players have a Torturer).
It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.
Sure, Torturer stacks, so that one is still pretty brutal in multiplayer. I still like my example of Militia for being somewhat skippable in multiplayer - I've played multiple 4-player games with Militia, and while it's not awful, it's quite a bit less good than in 2-player games. I would often only attack the player who went just before me, and while that still sounds good, one of the other 2 people will probably play a Militia anyways before it gets to the turn of the person before me. When everyone else goes for Militia, it really starts to feel a terminal silver with only a minimal effect sometimes. I would still probably open with it if there are no other good 4 cost cards, but it becomes a much closer decision if there are other good 4 cost cards.
-
But you're still talking about the effect of being attacked by multiple players, not the effect on the game of (you, one player) buying an attack. Sure, the tempo is faster in multiplayer, but that is true whether you buy the junker or not, if everyone else buys it.
Okay, not junking the others will probably slow them down a little less. (Obviously between 3-player and 4-player there's also a big difference, in 4 player it's pretty marginal whether the others get junked by two or three players.) And that could lead to you getting junked more than otherwise, but it also leads to the others junking each other more than otherwise, offsetting the slowing down. So I don't think you get junked much faster if you don't buy the attack. The main difference will be when the junk runs out. At that point, after that shuffle, will be the first time you're deck is really worse in terms of junk, and now the fraction of junk is exactly what matters. (But now your deck should be better in other things.) This is not accounting for trashing of course.
In any case, the initial claim was that attacks are less good in multiplayer, and that is obviously true. With Militia it's very obvious; you're literally not attacking all the players, while in 2-player you always are. With junkers, even it were true (and in some kingdoms it's more true than in others of course) that buying the attack is very good and important, it's still less so than in 2-player. I don't see how anybody can disagree with that. (This is ignoring attacks that you actually benefit from and that target players, like Pirate Ship and Thief.)
-
It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.
I've seen it several times. Especially with cards that don't help your deck, like Sea Hag.
-
It's certainly possible to win while skipping the attack(s), but if that works in multiplayer it also works in 2-player. I can't think of an example where an attack would be a must-have in 2-player but becomes ignorable in multiplayer.
I've seen it several times. Especially with cards that don't help your deck, like Sea Hag.
Jeebus has it right. Witches and Militias both fall in importance with more players; everyone will already be discarding to someone's Militia, and your percentage of the Curses isn't much higher than theirs.
-
In any case, the initial claim was that attacks are less good in multiplayer, and that is obviously true.
Not obvious to me. 3P vs. 2P, symmetrical play: Curses are distributed at DOUBLE the speed and you end up on average with 6.66 instead of 5 Curses.
Tempo is incredibly important as anybody who ever played a Cultist game could tell.
Do people skip junkers? Perhaps they do (not in my playing group though) but if Alice forsakes the Witch while Bob and Charlie go for it she will end up with 10 Curses in 2P and 3P but in 3P she will receive them again twice as quickly.
These dynamic considerations are kinda relevant. You can play a game in which the decks are very similar at the end of the game but that static perspective will tell you little about why one player won.
-
You have to compare
1) Alice forsakes the Witch and ends up with 10 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
2) Alice buys the Witch and ends up with 6.67 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
The difference between these two is less than the difference between buying the Witch and not buying it in 2P.
-
You have to compare
1) Alice forsakes the Witch and ends up with 10 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
2) Alice buys the Witch and ends up with 6.67 Curses twice as quickly as in 2P
The difference between these two is less than the difference between buying the Witch and not buying it in 2P.
No. The spread is indeed smaller, 5 instead of 3.33. But the tempo is higher. How many Curses you end up with is one thing, how quickly you get them another. In other words, the incentive to get a Curser is influenced by static distribution as well as tempo. You cannot simply ignore one factor.
-
No. The spread is indeed smaller, 5 instead of 3.33. But the tempo is higher. How many Curses you end up with is one thing, how quickly you get them another. In other words, the incentive to get a Curser is influenced by static distribution as well as tempo. You cannot simply ignore one factor.
You're saying the tempo is higher in (1) than in (2)? Or are you saying the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P?
-
No. The spread is indeed smaller, 5 instead of 3.33. But the tempo is higher. How many Curses you end up with is one thing, how quickly you get them another. In other words, the incentive to get a Curser is influenced by static distribution as well as tempo. You cannot simply ignore one factor.
You're saying the tempo is higher in (1) than in (2)? Or are you saying the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P?
2P: spread is 5 Curses at normal tempo.
3P: spread is 3.3 Curses at double the tempo.
Spread refers to what you wanted to analyze, the difference between gaining and not gaining a Curser.
-
So the mistake you're making is still the same as from the start. The choice is between buying an attack and not buying it, and we have to compare these two scenarios. Like I said, the difference between these two in 3P is less than the difference between them in 2P. It doesn't really matter that the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P.
-
I also don't find your definition of "spread" helpful. It's just the difference for YOU between buying and not buying the attack, but doesn't say anything about how much the others get in comparison. 10-0 is much more serious than 10-5-5.
-
So the mistake you're making is still the same as from the start. The choice is between buying an attack and not buying it, and we have to compare these two scenarios. Like I said, the difference between these two in 3P is less than the difference between them in 2P. It doesn't really matter that the tempo is higher in 3P than in 2P.
And importantly, when you don't buy the attack, you buy something else, and that card helps you.
-
I also don't find your definition of "spread" helpful. It's just the difference for YOU between buying and not buying the attack, but doesn't say anything about how much the others get in comparison. 10-0 is much more serious than 10-5-5.
Huh? This is not my definition, you analyzed those differences. Getting 10 Curses vs getting 5 Curses in 2P is the difference of 5 that I mentioned. But you constantly ignore tempo. That matters. A lot. I rather get 10 Curses by Witch slowly than 5 Ruins via Cultist quickly.
-
Huh? This is not my definition, you analyzed those differences. Getting 10 Curses vs getting 5 Curses in 2P is the difference of 5 that I mentioned. But you constantly ignore tempo. That matters. A lot. I rather get 10 Curses by Witch slowly than 5 Ruins via Cultist quickly.
Again you're acting like the choice is between playing 2P and playing 3P.
-
Huh? This is not my definition, you analyzed those differences. Getting 10 Curses vs getting 5 Curses in 2P is the difference of 5 that I mentioned. But you constantly ignore tempo. That matters. A lot. I rather get 10 Curses by Witch slowly than 5 Ruins via Cultist quickly.
Again you're acting like the choice is between playing 2P and playing 3P.
The choice that you wanted to analyze is between buying a Curser and not. Your argument was that this very spread was larger in the case of 2P. I commented that this is not per se the case as it is two-dimensional: number of extra Curses you get is larger with the 2P spread but the tempo is larger in the 3P case.
First, marginal benefit of getting a Curser. Second, compare those marginal benefits in the 2P and 3P case. Not my ideal, it was yours so it is weird that you are confused about your very own analysis.
-
I said: In 3 player, if you don't and your opponents do, you'll get 50% of the junk (the others 25% each). In 4 player, you'll get 33% (the others 22% each).
There are many ways to crunch these numbers. It was your idea to compare the absolute difference between attack and not attack. There is also the relative difference: 100% (2P) vs. 50% (3P) vs. 33% (4P). And the difference in the proportion of curses you get: 50 percentage points (2P) vs. 16.7 (3P) vs. 8.3 (4P).
You are just saying that the tempo is larger in 3P. My point is that in 3P, the tempo is not (or only to a small degree) larger if you don't buy the attack compared to if you do. The point of the "spread", or any other metric of the difference of junk, is to compare within 2P games, how much do you get if you buy the attack as opposed to if you don't: There is a big difference! And then do that also within 3P games: There is a difference but much smaller! If we compare within 2P games, how much faster is the tempo, it's the same. If we compare within 3P games, how much faster is the tempo, it's the same.*
So the only thing we are left with, is that the tempo is always faster in 3P than in 2P, whether you buy the attack or not. So then what does it matter? Please explain that.
*Ok, as I said in a previous post, the fact that you're not slowing down your opponent(s), might mean that the tempo is actually a little faster for you than if you were also junking them. But that is actually even more true in 2P than in 3P, since in 3P your opponents are still junking each other!
-
In 2P games you get one Curse per shuffle, in 3P 2. Of course there are feedback effects, due to the junking the frequency of playing Curses decrease. But a rough benchmark is nonetheless twice the speed. It is pretty basic and it is beyond weird to see the denial of the fact that that Alice gets one Curse per Bobˋs shuffle yet two if Charlie also plays along. Dude if you don’t believe basic arithmetic, just play a simple 4P base game with Witch. Lots of purple landing in your discard.
The only exception to that is a situation in which only one player has a junker. As I regularly play 3P games, that is not a situation which frequently occurs so I do not view it as relevant (you can make the case that we are all idiots or that not getting a junker while only one player has one is frequently a dominant strategy; I obviously do not think so).
What occurs is two players having one but one player not getting a junker. And I totally agree that this can be the best strategy in a particular Kingdom. For example if there is good trashing, you can deal with the high tempo of incoming junk. Bu in Kingdoms in which this tempo issue is more relevant than the final distribution of Curses, it can also be the best strategy for everybody to get a Curser.
-
Another funky card which neatly illustrates how junkers scale with the player count is Ambassador. Assuming symmetrical play, it is a net trasher in 2P, keeps the equilibrium in 3P and becomes a net junker in 4P.
-
In 2P games you get one Curse per shuffle, in 3P 2. Of course there are feedback effects, due to the junking the frequency of playing Curses decrease. But a rough benchmark is nonetheless twice the speed. It is pretty basic and it is beyond weird to see the denial of the fact that that Alice gets one Curse per Bobˋs shuffle yet two if Charlie also plays along. Dude if you don’t believe basic arithmetic, just play a simple 4P base game with Witch. Lots of purple landing in your discard.
What you seem to be not getting is that we are not talking about Alice, we're talking about Charlie. The question is, should Charlie buy the attack if both Alice and Bob is giving out curses. If he does, that will have exactly the tempo effect you're talking about for Alice. But we're talking about the player considering whether to buy it - Charlie! It will have no tempo effect on Charlie whether he buys it or not.
-
I've seen it several times. Especially with cards that don't help your deck, like Sea Hag.
That is, to put it mildly, an unconvincing example. Sea Hag is very often skippable, in 2-player or multiplayer.
Re: Militia, agreed, that's not an attack that scales in multiplayer. Though it's safe to assume not everyone will skip it, since getting the first attack out there is still good, and people aren't going to let that first player be the only one not affected by a handsize attack.
Re: good junking attacks (Witch/Cultist/Torturer etc., rather than the weaker ones like Sea Hag or Marauder), the argument seems to be as follows. In 2-player, both players must get them. In multiplayer, it can be reasonable to ignore them in favor of some other useful card. Put in more concrete terms, you're saying that on a board with Witch and Lab, in 2-player your first $5 is always Witch, in multiplayer one should take Lab. Am I correctly understanding the argument being presented here?
In my experience (playing this game for ten years, almost exclusively multiplayer), that is not correct. Eating 2-3 curses/ruins per turn will cripple you, and the "but when the junk runs out" end state is irrelevant because the game is over. Remember, piles run really fast in multiplayer.
If the card you buy instead of the junker is a trasher like Sentry or Junk Dealer, yeah, that could sometimes work. But if something like that is on the board there's a decent case to be made that they should be the first $5 you buy anyway.
Suggestion for those of you in the "attacks are weaker in multiplayer" camp: play the Invasions recommended set (Dark Ages + Intrigue). Compare 2-player and 4-player, particularly as player 4. That was the most memorable, though not the most enjoyable, Dominion game I've ever played. ::) At least in 2-player there's a chance shuffle luck can keep you afloat...
-
In 2P games you get one Curse per shuffle, in 3P 2. Of course there are feedback effects, due to the junking the frequency of playing Curses decrease. But a rough benchmark is nonetheless twice the speed. It is pretty basic and it is beyond weird to see the denial of the fact that that Alice gets one Curse per Bobˋs shuffle yet two if Charlie also plays along. Dude if you don’t believe basic arithmetic, just play a simple 4P base game with Witch. Lots of purple landing in your discard.
What you seem to be not getting is that we are not talking about Alice, we're talking about Charlie. The question is, should Charlie buy the attack if both Alice and Bob is giving out curses. If he does, that will have exactly the tempo effect you're talking about for Alice. But we're talking about the player considering whether to buy it - Charlie! It will have no tempo effect on Charlie whether he buys it or not.
Do you really not get that this features 2 layers, first calculating marginal benefits of buying a Curser and then comparing these very marginal benefits of the 2P and 3P game? In case you really don't get it, and are not just willfully ignorant to deny the tempo issue, I will go over it again.
Step 1 - marginal benefits of getting a Curser relativ to not getting a Curser:
2P: difference is 5 Curses at normal tempo.
3P: difference is 3.3 Curses at double the tempo
Step 2 - compare these marginal benefits with each other:
In 2P games, it hurts more (relative to 3P) to not get a Curser as you will end up with 5 more Curses than you would otherwise. In 3P games, it hurts more (relative to 2P) to not get a Curser as you will receive the Curses at double the tempo.
Which of these effects dominates is Kingdom-dependent. For example if there is good trashing, the tempo issue is less relevant and your argument that junking is nastier in the 2P game likely holds. But if there is no or slow trashing, the tempo issue matters a lot and the junking in the 3P game is likely harsher.
-
Re: good junking attacks (Witch/Cultist/Torturer etc., rather than the weaker ones like Sea Hag or Marauder), the argument seems to be as follows. In 2-player, both players must get them. In multiplayer, it can be reasonable to ignore them in favor of some other useful card. Put in more concrete terms, you're saying that on a board with Witch and Lab, in 2-player your first $5 is always Witch, in multiplayer one should take Lab. Am I correctly understanding the argument being presented here?
In my experience (playing this game for ten years, almost exclusively multiplayer), that is not correct. Eating 2-3 curses/ruins per turn will cripple you, and the "but when the junk runs out" end state is irrelevant because the game is over. Remember, piles run really fast in multiplayer.
If the card you buy instead of the junker is a trasher like Sentry or Junk Dealer, yeah, that could sometimes work. But if something like that is on the board there's a decent case to be made that they should be the first $5 you buy anyway.
If we're going with arguments by authority, I've been playing since 2006, beat that, with thousands of games of multiplayer.
Yes if you pass on Witch it might be for a trasher, though it may also be for a significant money card. It probably won't be for Lab; a key thing is that when everyone has a lot of Curses fast, the +2 Cards on Witch sucks, and Lab is no better.
To be definitive we'd have to consider each attack and each non-attack you could get over it separately, plus the rest of the board, and time does not permit. For sure there are some non-attacks you will want over some attacks, and with Witch it's specifically because, your extra Curses aren't so many, Witch isn't great in your deck, and the other card you get can make up the difference. You still might get that Witch, there are all the circumstances where you get it. But it's not rare to not want it, once the other players have it (if the other players somehow pass on it, man, get it).
For me the key thing is, that I want Witch less often in multiplayer than in 2-player, and prefer the amount I want it in multiplayer; I wish I'd scaled Curses differently.
-
I will make a note on this argument.
Until the curses (would have) run out, the rate at which you receive curses is independent of whether or not you buy witch.
Instead, buying witch affects the rate at which the other players receive curses, and does so to the same extent in both 2p and 3p.
-
First of all, as I said, I don't think it's helpful comparing these differences in absolute numbers without considering the amount of curses the other players have. So saying 5 and 3.3 isn't saying much.
In 2P games, it hurts more (relative to 3P) to not get a Curser as you will end up with 5 more Curses than you would otherwise.
You are saying that you will end up with 100% of the curses instead of 50% which you would "otherwise", meaning if you do buy the attack. This is true.
In 3P games, it hurts more (relative to 2P) to not get a Curser as you will receive the Curses at double the tempo.
"It hurts more to not get a curser, since you will receive them at double the tempo." It sounds like you're saying that you will receive them at double the tempo if you don't get a curser. Which of course is false. You will receive them at double the tempo no matter what you do. This is why I'm still waiting for the explanation of why "double the tempo" is a factor in deciding whether to buy a curse.
It does have an effect on your opponents, but so far you have not argued that, at least not in a way coherent enough to understand. But as Heron said, it has the same effect on your opponents in 2P and 3P, so this is not an argument to make buying the curser better in 3P.
-
"It hurts more to not get a curser, since you will receive them at double the tempo." It sounds like you're saying that you will receive them at double the tempo if you don't get a curser. Which of course is false.
It would indeed be wrong. But that's not what I wrote:
In 3P games, it hurts more (relative to 2P) to not get a Curser as you will receive the Curses at double the tempo.
The goal of my last post was to clearly seperate the marginal benefit of getting a Curser (intra-game) and the comparisons of those benefits over different player counts (extra-game). So please don't blur those very differences via misquoting me.
-
I included two (accurate) quotes from you. I'm both of them you said "relative to 2/3P". In the first one you were actually saying that the effect was due to not getting a curser. You're just not expressing yourself very clearly. But I think it's because you're not thinking about this clearly. In any case, I already responded to the other possible thing you could have meant, and you didn't respond to that. Since we agree that getting the curser has no effect on tempo for you, only your opponents, then what are you talking about?
-
I don't read the forums as much as I used to, but it's always comforting to know you can come home and find tristan arguing with people here.
-
Tristan hasn't posted here? Is an alt in play here
-
Wizard_Amul's post summarizes most of the content, though the phrasing "attacks are still pretty good" is misleading - attacks are in general much better in multiplayer than in 2-player. For example the "Invasion" recommended set for Dark Ages + Intrigue is quite an experience, particularly for player 4... :P
I think you're saying that Attacks are more powerful when you get hit by multiple players. But that's a different thing. The point is that for the player considering to get the Attack card, it will be less powerful. In 2 player, if you don't get the junker and your opponent does, you'll get 100% of the junk. In 3 player, if you don't and your opponents do, you'll get 50% of the junk (the others 25% each). In 4 player, you'll get 33% (the others 22% each). So it matters less the more players there are. If the others go for the attack, it's not rare that you'll win if you don't, because then you can do something more useful instead.
I can't find it, but I know I had this exact same discussion not all that long ago... a long argument with someone that all came down to the paradox that attacks hurt more with more players, yet are better buys with fewer players.
*Edit* Found it! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801810#msg801810
-
I can't find it, but I know I had this exact same discussion not all that long ago... a long argument with someone that all came down to the paradox that attacks hurt more with more players, yet are better buys with fewer players.
*Edit* Found it! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801810#msg801810
And who did you have that discussion with...? ::)
-
You're just not expressing yourself very clearly. But I think it's because you're not thinking about this clearly.
I think segura is thinking about this perfectly clearly, and neither of you are understanding what the other is trying to say. You're having two separate arguments, and are both making valid points for the arguments you each think you're having.