Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: WrathOfGlod on May 09, 2012, 09:22:00 am
-
This idea was brought on by a game against JFrisch where the game was essentially decided by the starting split:
Would Dominion be improved if each player for his hand could choose the cards from his draw pile? (IE choose whether he has 5/2-4/3 splits).
Obviously this option is similar to the identical starting hands option but I think it has the major advantage that on boards where there are viable divergent 5-2 and 4-3 strategies the mirror matchup is not enforced by the game.
I am unsure what effect this has on first player advantage, on the one hand it increases it by guaranteeing that Player 1 can start with the fastest tempo card, on the other hand P2 gains the advantage of choosing his first buy reactively.
-
This is actually a common variant that I used to play all the time in real-life games. I think it adds a nice little bit of strategy, and helps prevent get-screwed openings.
I haven't tried it since Hinterlands came out; things like Nomad Camp would add even more strategy, because before all that mattered was 4/3 vs 5/2, now 4/3 and 3/4 can be different, as well as 5/2 and 2/5.
As for second player choosing reactively, I would probably arrange the rules such that before the game began, each player orders his 10 cards however he wants, rather than letting player 2 do that at the start of his turn.
-
We play it like this in our real life Dominion league (except we all decide before P1 makes the first buy, so there's no switching from 4/3 to 5/2 based on what other paople are doing, like Gendo says). I personally think it's an awful rule and would much prefer to play random, but it is what it is.
-
I think it's something players should agree upon after seeing the kingdom but before drawing. Most of the time the difference won't make or break a game and adds interesting variation. Occasionally, a 5/2 vs 4/3 start will be really lopsided to the point where one player doesn't stand much of a chance.
When you do this, do you get to pick whether you start 4/3 vs 3/4? How do you handle that?
-
We've done this a couple time: everyone chooses a split for themselves, but if everybody makes the same choice, then everyone gets the opposite split instead (ie if everyone chose 5/2, then everyone gets 4/3).
-
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/09/game-20120509-053054-1f17857f.html
Here was the game in case anybody is interested, as you can see by the final scores, it was a very close one.
-
This idea was brought on by a game against JFrisch where the game was essentially decided by the starting split:
Opening splits have massive effects on the game, but...
I don't think any game is totally decided by the opening split. Of course, often you need a key one of their cards to miss the ext reshuffle or something, but it's certainly not just over.
-
We've done this a couple time: everyone chooses a split for themselves, but if everybody makes the same choice, then everyone gets the opposite split instead (ie if everyone chose 5/2, then everyone gets 4/3).
That's clever. I'd expect the original rule to produce too many 5/2 splits compared to normal Dominion, but if you do this as well, then that wouldn't be a problem. Plus this rule is game-theoretically nicely designed, since it's a dominant strategy to choose the split you think is best.
-
This idea was brought on by a game against JFrisch where the game was essentially decided by the starting split:
Opening splits have massive effects on the game, but...
I don't think any game is totally decided by the opening split. Of course, often you need a key one of their cards to miss the ext reshuffle or something, but it's certainly not just over.
In my chat I defined the game being over as there being no strategy for the 5-2 player which gives a greater than 35% chance against a competent opponent
-
This idea was brought on by a game against JFrisch where the game was essentially decided by the starting split:
Opening splits have massive effects on the game, but...
I don't think any game is totally decided by the opening split. Of course, often you need a key one of their cards to miss the ext reshuffle or something, but it's certainly not just over.
Obviously with the right luck, any game is salvageable beyond the split, but there are certainly rare games that are, say, 90% decided by an opening split difference. Mint / Fool's Gold comes to mind (assuming the rest of the Kingdom supports it) because the trashing offered by Mint makes it much less likely that future luck will impact the outcome.
The situation I dislike more is a 5/2 start with powerful $3-$4 cards, mediocre $5 cards, and no $2 cards. You just lose a turn. It's not by any means crippling, but it saps a little of fun out of the game.
-
This idea was brought on by a game against JFrisch where the game was essentially decided by the starting split:
Opening splits have massive effects on the game, but...
I don't think any game is totally decided by the opening split. Of course, often you need a key one of their cards to miss the ext reshuffle or something, but it's certainly not just over.
Obviously with the right luck, any game is salvageable beyond the split, but there are certainly rare games that are, say, 90% decided by an opening split difference. Mint / Fool's Gold comes to mind (assuming the rest of the Kingdom supports it) because the trashing offered by Mint makes it much less likely that future luck will impact the outcome.
Right. Except... you still have over a 20% chance to win against a Mint/FG opening if you have a 4/3 split. Heck, you even have over 15% AS SECOND PLAYER in this situation. And this is about the biggest differential you get. Point is, people put WAY too much emphasis on the opening split. Yes, it's important. But it's not THAT important.
-
The situation I dislike more is a 5/2 start with powerful $3-$4 cards, mediocre $5 cards, and no $2 cards. You just lose a turn. It's not by any means crippling, but it saps a little of fun out of the game.
Agreed. With 4/3, the absolute WORST you could be forced into is Silver/Silver. With 5/2, you could be forced into Silver/-.
-
This idea crossed my mind earlier as a possible balance between p1 and p2 by allowing p2 to set their opening hand. Thus giving some upside to going second. Similar to what M:TG during its evolution by eliminating the first draw phase of p1. This would ensure you aren't faced with going second AND having a bad opening split. Probably more trouble than it's worth however, as it wouldn't really change much nor is the problem a glaring flaw, just a part of the game.
-
I feel like splits are not a big deal. Splits are part of the game, the first reshuffle's split might be very important, but the reshuffle after that your $ will be divided a particular way, and the reshuffle after that too. Where do you draw the line about when players should lose control of their splits?
On isotropic I think games are fast enough that variance is no big deal. In IRL games I think I would like a bit more consistency to compensate for real shuffling, but I don't think this is the best possible house rule to fix that since the purchases for the first reshuffle don't seem that special to me.
If I were to change the game to ratchet down variance, I'd change the way attacks work for player 2 long before messing with splits. And ban Treasure Map. Or make it work like Stash, except with your opponent's control over its distribution. I hate that card so very much.
-
It gets very interesting with Noble-Brigand and Smugglers..