Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - tlloyd

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
51
Solo Challenges / Re: No Treasure
« on: May 05, 2012, 12:24:05 am »
I swapped out Secret Chamber for Chapel (duh!) and got there in 9 turns (ignoring the first four while I waited to draw $5 or $2): http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/04/game-20120504-212057-4e0bd7e3.html

By the way, the first time I started a solitaire game to try this challenge, I didn't draw $5/$2 until turn 55! I think that's a personal record.

52
Dominion Articles / Re: Thoughts on Strategy vs Skill
« on: May 04, 2012, 11:06:10 pm »
Nice article, but why not stick with the standard "strategy/tactics" distinction? Then you could use "skill" for either one: "a skilled strategist" vs. "a skilled tactician".

53
Solo Challenges / Re: No Treasure
« on: May 04, 2012, 02:05:49 pm »
Open Vault/Secret Chamber, then buy Hunting Parties and Grand Markets until you can start buying Provinces.

54
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer Dronings
« on: May 03, 2012, 06:39:34 pm »
Quote
Forgive me for saying it, but your response here makes me wonder whether we still are not understanding each other. The type of play we're describing here would ONLY happen in competetive play! If we're just playing a game, I do my best to win and then we play again. If I'm worried about advancing in a tournament, I might worry about such things as which of my 2+ opponents is the biggest threat and seek for ways to trip them up - not just in a particular game, but across the series.


That's part of the game in competitive play though! So what? Your point is that competition and strategy happens in competitive play? Maybe it's not an aspect you like. But it is 100% legitimate!

Please tell me you've read both of these threads in their entirety before chiming in. Let's not go round again unnecessarily. Competetive play is doing your best (within the rules) to win each game. Taking a loss in one game in order to increase your odds of winning the tournament is (1) anti-competitive, and (2) a potential aspect of 3P games, not 2P games.

I'm playing to win the tournament, not any one game. I will use any strategy that benefits
me most in reaching this goal.

I don't doubt you would. The point is that certain tournament setups can incentivize behavior that runs counter to the incentives involved in a game of dominion. In that sense the winner is the one who plays the tournament best, not the one who plays the game best -- which is what an ideal tournament would promote.

The rest of your post honestly isn't worth responding to.

55
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer Dronings
« on: May 03, 2012, 06:10:16 pm »
Quote
Forgive me for saying it, but your response here makes me wonder whether we still are not understanding each other. The type of play we're describing here would ONLY happen in competetive play! If we're just playing a game, I do my best to win and then we play again. If I'm worried about advancing in a tournament, I might worry about such things as which of my 2+ opponents is the biggest threat and seek for ways to trip them up - not just in a particular game, but across the series.


That's part of the game in competitive play though! So what? Your point is that competition and strategy happens in competitive play? Maybe it's not an aspect you like. But it is 100% legitimate!

Please tell me you've read both of these threads in their entirety before chiming in. Let's not go round again unnecessarily. Competetive play is doing your best (within the rules) to win each game. Taking a loss in one game in order to increase your odds of winning the tournament is (1) anti-competitive, and (2) a potential aspect of 3P games, not 2P games.

56
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer Dronings
« on: May 03, 2012, 05:57:01 pm »
ftl, yes, this is an issue, it's part of the game (i.e. that someone who is not you can do something to stop you from winning while not making himself win), you don't like it, we've agree about this... many times. What's your point?

The point is that it's a bad part of the game, which is not present in 2p, which makes it less suitable for competitive play.
You think it's bad. I don't like it terribly either, but there are people who don't mind it. Also, I don't understand what the competitive play aspect has to do with it. I think that it's actually better in competitive play than casual play, because you have more incentive to win in competitive play, and you're also keeping better track and playing better, so the random third person doesn't come up as much - he's still going for the win.
My great big overall point is that just because you don't like it or I don't like it doesn't mean we should slam it for everyone.

Forgive me for saying it, but your response here makes me wonder whether we still are not understanding each other. The type of play we're describing here would ONLY happen in competetive play! If we're just playing a game, I do my best to win and then we play again. If I'm worried about advancing in a tournament, I might worry about such things as which of my 2+ opponents is the biggest threat and seek for ways to trip them up - not just in a particular game, but across the series.

57
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer Dronings
« on: May 03, 2012, 05:49:53 pm »
ftl, yes, this is an issue, it's part of the game (i.e. that someone who is not you can do something to stop you from winning while not making himself win), you don't like it, we've agree about this... many times. What's your point?

The point is that it's a bad part of the game, which is not present in 2p, which makes it less suitable for competitive play.

HALLELUJAH!!!!

58
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer Dronings
« on: May 03, 2012, 05:29:26 pm »
As far as I can tell, you either (1) have failed to see how in 3P a play could be against your interests in a particular game but promote your interests for the series, or (2) don't have any problem with that kind of play and don't see how it is qualitatively different than 2P, or (3) have a mild form of schizophrenia. ;D

59
Dominion Isotropic / Re: First player bias
« on: May 03, 2012, 05:15:53 pm »
Unfortunate that we're having this debate across two threads now, but what can you do. When I say someone is gaming the game, I'm not talking about 3P strategic interaction. I'm talking about multi-game meta-strategy, which is only relevant in 3P games. Choosing to lose a game in order to give yourself a better chance of winning the series is gaming the game, and can happen in 3P.

60
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Multiplayer Dronings
« on: May 03, 2012, 05:02:02 pm »
Long story short: I don't think you miss the point, but you choose to hide the point by a wall of text (which I have read through.)

The bottom line is, unlike you have claimed, the "collusion" or "king making" is very different in 2p games and 3p-or-more games. Sure you can throw away a game for any number of players; however, only in a 3p-or-more game you will have the problem that a irrelevant decision of yours can greatly hurt or benefit one of the other players.

Sure you can digress and say something about strategically preparing for it. Does not change that there's something different.

Note that I don't claim 3p games cannot be ranked. I also do not deny there is very often a clear best way for a player to play. I just want to say, denying that there is higher/different collusion and kingmaking possibilities is wrong. Viewing them as similar or extended effects from 2p games is also wrong.
I do think you miss the point. The point is, the decision is not irrelevant to you. It is relevant to you. In terms of the collusion issue, it's very simple: anything you do to throw the game toward one opponent or the other is either: A) also good for your chances of winning, in which case, yeah, it may suck for the person you're hurting here, but that's part of the game; B) bad for your chances of winning, in which case there's no reason for you to do it. But situation B can happen in 2 player, as well. Of course, there's no incentive for you to buy out piles when you're behind in 2-player. There isn't in 3-player either. Look, it's just not a different phenomenon in the vast majority of games. In the small minority of the time one person is totally out of it, most of the time, their decisions don't have meaningful impact on who wins otherwise.

Of course the game is different. Who's arguing this? Duh, it's different. Of course it's different. Again, who's arguing this?

Once again, you're upset that someone besides the winner can make a decision that can cause you to not win. Fine. That's part of the game, and there's nothing nefarious about this. It just is part of the game, one you have to take account of. Now, you can hate that, and I'm totally fine with you hating it. But I don't understand why you're complaining so much about it. Why are you complaining so much about it? Nobody's saying YOU have to play multiplayer...

How can I be digressing? It's my post, I can talk about different related topics. This isn't the 'collusion problem in multiplayer' thread - it's the 'Multiplayer dronings thread'. Everything I talk about has to do with multiplayer, so there's no digression.

WW - I think where we differ is that you are focusing on individual games, and I'm talking about a series of games (which is, after all, where this conversation started). As you have said, in a 3P game, anything you do to advantage opponent A over opponent B is either in your own interests (in which case this is legit and too bad for B) or against* your own interests (in which case the problem is random play, not the game). And all of this applies equally in a 2P game.

*There are conceivable circumstances in which the choice has no effect on your own interests, if we're talking about a single game.

However, if you are playing a series of games, your interest go beyond winning any particular game. In 2P this changes nothing -- the only thing that matters in each game is whether you win that game. But in 3P, there arer circumstances in which your winning or losing is not the only thing that matters, because you also care about your opponents' performance relative to each other. If you have the chance, you'll try to hamper whichever of your opponents is doing the best in the series so far, and help the one that is struggling.

This rational, self-interested, meta-strategy is simply not present in 2P. And this is exactly the sort of thing Donald tried to avoid in the design of the game (he even references settlers of catan where all-too-frequently the opportunitty arises to target whoever is the biggest threat). In fact, perhaps the simplest way to explain is to think of a series of games as providng opportunities for targeted (meta-)attacks, which is only an issue if you have more than one opponent.

PS- I don't think the above amounts to much of a critique on the game of Dominion (however many players), but it is a flaw in your argument which you have so far failed to acknowledge.

61
Dominion Isotropic / Re: First player bias
« on: May 03, 2012, 03:55:55 pm »
WW -

The first substantive difference is that in my hypotheticals the game-ending player is playing rationally, not randomly.

Also, you keep moving the goal posts. The initial dispute was over whether 3P is different from 2P in a way the makes it less legitimate in trrms of competition. You denied that it was different ("you can do the same thing in 2P"). Now you've been presented with several negative aspects of 3P games that are not possible in 2P, so you change your argument to "it's different, but not bad." When we then explain why these aspects of 3P games are bad, you give a very slippery defense that they can't be bad because they are aspects of the game. If targeted attacks became part of the game, that wouldn't change the truth of Donalds reasons why they are bad for the game.

When these circumstances come up in 3P games, success comes not to whomever is best at the game, but to whomever is best at gaming the game. Surely you will admit that this makes 3P tournaments less sporting, less "pure" in some sense, than 2P. That's all we're saying. There are other aspects of 3P that male the game more fun or strategically intereting, but these are offset by aspects that make it less fair.

UPDATE: after reading your responses to my previous post, I've lost all hope for a productive conversation. Clearly you are determined to avoid the question and change the subject whenever your views are challenged.

Nobody said that 3P is not worth playing or not part of Dominion. We have merely been noting some ways in which 2P competition is less susceptible to collusion, kingmaking, and other anti-competitive behavior. I think other aspects of 3P more than make up for this, but then I see it as a game rather than a serious competition. So don't act like I'm somehow criticizing Donald by asking you to defend your own views. Both 2P and 3P are part of the game of Dominion - that doesn't mean we can't note differences in how they play.

I'll wait for GendoIkari to respond before I waste any time on your "opinion-y" rant.

And your final comment is just the same circular crap regurgitated. You say as long as you win within the rules you deserve to win. I show how that statement is harder to justify in 3P, and you say "that's 3P!" Come back when you're ready to actually make and respond to real arguments.

62
Dominion Isotropic / Re: First player bias
« on: May 03, 2012, 03:38:17 pm »
To throw in my opinion here... if a third player who is losing ends the game, giving the victory to player B instead of player A, then in my view, player B fully deserves that victory. The game is basically a race. A race to see who can get the most points the fastest; who can get the most points by the time the game ends. In this case, player B basically played better; he got more points in his deck than player A did.

...

The situation of a person ending the game because they are behind, and just want to get it over with, is not king-making. The player who wins that game wins because they managed to get more points faster than the other players. Someone else didn't make them the king; their superior play made them the king.

I cannot agree with this. It's easy enough to say that whoever won deserved to win, but the point is that one of the players is choosing when the race ends, and that may be a factor in who wins. If the player who chooses to end the game does so not to win, but to determine which of the other opponents will, that's just not legitimate. It's perfectly rational meta-strategy, but it's exactly the kind of "politics" that Donald has said repeatedly he didn't want to be a part of the game.

Perhaps you'll see why your statement is wrong if I alter the hypothetical: now say that it's P2 who is far behind with the choice to end the game. If he does, P1 will win, but only by virtue of having an extra turn. If P2 allows P3 to have another turn, P3 will end the game and score more points in an equal number of turns. Now who has played better? And if P2 gives the win to P1, are you still willing to say that P1 somwhow deserves to win?

63
Dominion Isotropic / Re: First player bias
« on: May 03, 2012, 02:15:09 pm »
Not to break up the discussion here, but it seems like 3P involves, in addition to as much or more potential for collusion as 2P, the possibility of unilateral king-making. It obviously depends on how the games are scored (does second place score higher than third?), and how turn order is determined for the next game (does seating order remain the same so it's best to be to the left of the previous winner? Is it even the same three players?), but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a player would give the win to opponent A in order to take it from opponent B.

I can also think of circumstances in which the winner might be able to influence which of his opponents came in second, rather than just playing the game "straight." Is that legit strategic play? I tend to say no. So that's another potential problem that you face with 2+ players.

WW - rather than responding only to the weakest arguments with which you are challenged, why don't you address the following hypotheticals:

#1: P3 is so far behind on points that he has literally 0% chance to win or even take second. P2 has a narrow lead over P1, and there is one Duchy left. P3 can buy it to give P2 the win, or can leave it and give P1 the win. If the tournament is played in multiple rounds, each with a series of games, P3 will likely give the win to the opponent who has the lowest score up to that point. Or, if seating order doesn't change, he may give the win to P2, in order to go first in the next game. That is optimal play, and is problematic in a way 2P games would never be.

#2: P3 is guaranteed to win the game (he has built an insurmountable VP lead with a Goons deck), but second place is still up for grabs. P1 is ahead of P2 at the moment with a traditional Province-buying strategy, but P2's Goons deck is just starting to click, and he is likely to overtake P1 in the next few turns (before P1 could end the game). P3 can end the game on this turn, or can continue extending his VP lead while P2 overtakes P1 and then end the game. P3 is likely to give second place to the opponent with a lower score up to that point in the tournament. Again, optimal play, problematic, and only possible with 3 or more players.

64
Rules Questions / Re: Smugglers
« on: May 02, 2012, 06:14:36 pm »
And forge simply ignores any potion in the cost of a card. So you could forge a familiar and a silver into a gold, but not into a possession.

65
Dominion Isotropic / Re: First player bias
« on: May 02, 2012, 05:42:59 pm »
Not to break up the discussion here, but it seems like 3P involves, in addition to as much or more potential for collusion as 2P, the possibility of unilateral king-making. It obviously depends on how the games are scored (does second place score higher than third?), and how turn order is determined for the next game (does seating order remain the same so it's best to be to the left of the previous winner? Is it even the same three players?), but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a player would give the win to opponent A in order to take it from opponent B.

I can also think of circumstances in which the winner might be able to influence which of his opponents came in second, rather than just playing the game "straight." Is that legit strategic play? I tend to say no. So that's another potential problem that you face with 2+ players.

66
GokoDom / Re: Kirian's Bracket, Week 5
« on: May 02, 2012, 02:43:38 am »
tlloyd wins 4, yuma wins 3

Game 1: tlloyd 26 - yuma 29
We both struggle to buy Grand Markets while also destroying each others' decks with Mountebank. Once the GMs are gone, we opt for Duchies over Provinces because (1) Duke, and (2) we are having a hard time reaching $8! I had an extra Vault, which probably gave me the long-term advantage and should have made me more patient, but toward the end I get a series of bad draws and panic into buying too many estates, which allows yuma to empty the pile for the win. Yuma played it well, of course, but this is one where poor play, rather than luck, determined the outcome.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-210859-c725c9d5.html

Game 2: tlloyd 59 - yuma 44
Another game with GM and Mountebank, but Goons is the key card (although Mountebank prevents any incredible Goons turns). The game was much closer than the final score suggests.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-212449-1ecb2dcf.html

Game 3: yuma 1 - tlloyd 12
We both buy Swindler, but I don't think it made much difference. The key combo was King's Court/Grand Market, with Loans to slim the deck. I pile drive the Estates for the win, but at that point my lead in terms of deck development was probably insurmountable. This is the only game of the series where I actually felt that I had both good play and good luck.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-213212-6ece8f5a.html

Game 4: yuma 31 - tlloyd 8
We both have identical strategies (Bazaar/Masquerade/Goons), but boy did the outcomes differ. I was puzzled by yuma's decision to buy Bank, but you can't argue with results. Mostly I was just glad there was no KC to go with Goons/Masq.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-214035-1cde0841.html

Game 5: tlloyd 12 - yuma 1
Key cards are King's Court, Wharf, and Goons. I felt, well, cursed when yuma hits me with a KC/Sea Hag on turn 7, but in the end the curse split was only 6/4, and it only takes one solid Goons turn for me to make up the point difference and end on piles. I very nearly failed to see the winning play on my final turn.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-214807-f42d40ae.html

Game 6: yuma 53 - tlloyd 40
I really don't know what to say about this game. Envoy, Vault and Mint are all great BM options with Platinum on the board, and I may have made a mistake to grab Hamlets and try to chain actions together. But yuma buys King's Court with only three other action cards (!?), and it only misses once (?!?!). On the other hand, yuma buys a Mint turn 4, and is never able to use it. So, yeah, someone needs to tell me what happened here.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-215609-4ee56e77.html

Game 7: tlloyd 79 - yuma 65
With both Duke and Silk Roads on the board, an alternate-VP strategy is tempting. But it's likely a trap for three reasons: (1) Colonies are much harder to ignore than Provinces, (2) there wasn't a great enabler for a rush strategy, and (3) Rabble can really punish a deck with lots of green cards. We both opt for Colonies, but at some point yuma diverts into Silk Roads and my Rabbles make him pay. Also, Contraband allows me to sneak an early Platinum when yuma very reasonably banned Golds. That may be the first time I've put Contraband to good use.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201205/01/game-20120501-220404-6103edd1.html

Thanks for the games yuma - they were all fun and very competitive.

67
GokoDom / Re: Kirian's Bracket, Week 6
« on: May 01, 2012, 02:05:42 am »
tlloyd wins 5, perdhapley wins 2

Game 1: tlloyd 48 - perdhapley 42
Pretty straightforward Tournament game. Trade Route (bane) beats Young Witch.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-211206-86c8e997.html

Game 2: perdhapley 52 - tlloyd 36
Perhaps the ideal board for a Tunnel strategy: Workshop to gain them; Hamlet, Oasis, Inn and Cartographer to discard them. Unfortunately I have a blind spot for Tunnel.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-212440-d6e75291.html

Game 3: tlloyd 36 - perdhapley 52
I trash down with Steward and buy lots of Caravans, but somewhere along the way forgot to buy any money.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-213615-5a99a639.html

Game 4: tlloyd 60 - perdhapley 45
We both seem to be planning on KC/Scheme/Monument. Perhapley's Governors are a two-edged sword, especially with $7 cards in play. I gain two Provinces, a Duchy and a Fairgrounds during perdhapley's final turns.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-214455-33e08487.html

Game 5: perdhapley 33 - tlloyd 42
A fun Crossroads/Silk Roads game. Perdhapley's Haggler opening was a solid move, but I win the Silk Road split using Horse Traders.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-215237-86061bee.html

Game 6: perdhapley 23 - tlloyd 43
I really enjoyed this one. I Chapel down to practically nothing plus a couple Horse Traders, then proceed to buy 7 of the Highways. By the end I'm easily grabbing multiple Provinces while continuing to build my deck. Perdhapley is a really strong player, but I think he wants this one back.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-220054-607d893b.html

Game 7: perdhapley 34 - tlloyd 58
Props to MMM for the Bishop/Apothecary speed deck.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/30/game-20120430-221105-780f5845.html

68
Game Reports / Re: How I was almost crushed by a n00b with $1 Banks
« on: April 30, 2012, 03:29:06 pm »
What's the point of a ranking system if it doesn't reflect skill at the game? There are minor things like misclicks and 5/2 versus 4/3 splits that can uneven the odds in a way that has little connection to the game. We should try to minimize these effects.

How are 5/2 vs. 4/3 splits any less a part of the game than shuffling? In fact, that's exactly what it is: the first shuffle of your deck determines your opening hands. I expect people who insist on identical openings wouldn't also insist on some form of identical shuffling from that point on, but on what principle? Shouldn't turns 3 and 4 also be identical in order to better reflect skill? Of course not. I mean, in some sense you could make games better reflect skill by refusing to play with highly luck-dependent kingdom cards (familiar, treasure map), but you can't claim that by doing so you are somehow playing a truer form of the game. Quite the opposite.

69
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Great responses / counters
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:53:49 pm »
Opponent plays a militia. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck.

Opponent plays Margrave. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck.

Opponent plays 8 Governors for +cards, followed by Militia. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck. Discard tunnel. Reveal watchtower and put gold on deck.

...then play Watchtower and draw 2/3/4 golds!

70
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Where's the official app?
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:36:20 pm »
This:
I don't know what the deal is here, because nobody's telling us anything.
Wouldn't it seem like that should be the marketing guys job though?
Informing customers, drumming up interest, managing expectations?

And this:
The very fact that no one's saying anything is the PR/marketing falling down on the job. ... Instead, we've dealt with nebulous rumors for over a year, I think, at this point. 

And most of all this:
I'm personally just a fan wanting some information on the game, or at least an explanation of why there's no information or why previous information has proved unreliable.  I'm not trying to complain.  I am a little frustrated, though, that a simple inquiry is greeted by essentially "Tough luck" followed by a flame war.

71
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Where's the official app?
« on: April 25, 2012, 11:36:11 pm »
Donald I have no problem with the obvious frustration in your response, and I agree that people should quit complaining and quit feeling entitled. However, I think a better use of your time would be to actually tell us something - anything - about what we can expect and when. That goes for the new basic cards "expansion" as well. If you have no update for us, then (most of us) will just keep on patiently waiting.
Wow, I didn't actually read him as being frustrated there, and uh, that's not really his place. I mean, if there were some design-related issue, then yeah, I'd be going for him telling us about it. Or maybe if there were a rules issue, since he's basically the de facto rules judge for the game, then I'd be ok with asking him for something like this here (actually, even then, you hurry a decision -> you get a bad decision).
I mean, his alternative is to not talk to us at all. Which might indeed be a better use of his time. But I, for one, would not like this change.

I may have misread his intent, but you have certainly misread mine. I didn't say "tell us everything you know! screw the game developers!" I said give us an update if you can; otherwise we'll just have to wait. Clearly I'm not hoping that he'll stop talking to us.

72
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Where's the official app?
« on: April 25, 2012, 11:32:42 pm »
However, I think a better use of your time would be to actually tell us something - anything - about what we can expect and when.
The people making the online version wish to control that flow of information. Since I am working with them I would like a friendly relationship with them, so I am respecting that!

So, no, not a better use of my time.

Okay. I just meant if you did have information to pass on, that we're all anxious to get it. But as I said, if there's nothing new to report then we'll just keep on looking forward to the release. I hope you take the general anticipation as the sincere compliment it is, and ignore those whose eagerness doesn't come across politely.

73
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Where's the official app?
« on: April 25, 2012, 07:16:58 pm »
Donald I have no problem with the obvious frustration in your response, and I agree that people should quit complaining and quit feeling entitled. However, I think a better use of your time would be to actually tell us something - anything - about what we can expect and when. That goes for the new basic cards "expansion" as well. If you have no update for us, then (most of us) will just keep on patiently waiting.

74
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Can NV/Bridge lead to a stalemate?
« on: April 23, 2012, 04:50:51 pm »
No matter how many times I try the NV/Bridge strategy, my mat invariably gets filled primarily with NVs, forcing me to empty my mat in order to avoid a choked deck.

It sounds like your buy priorities might not be quite right.. I've stalled out a NV/Bridge deck once or twice, but it should be very rare.

In general, you don't want your number of Bridges and Native Villages to ever get too unequal. To facilitate this, your T3 and T4 buys really need to be 1 Bridge and 1-2 Native Villages. After that, you want to slightly prioritize Bridges over Native Villages (e.g. with two coppers and 1 Bridge in hand, buy 1 Bridge instead of 2 Native Villages), making sure that you don't ever get more than 2 Bridges or Native Villages ahead. At two Bridges ahead, it's usually pretty easy to double-buy Native Villages to catch up (which you want to do asap).. ideally, you need to place *at least* 8 cards on the Native Village mat in order to mega-turn, and accomplishing this quickly is imperative. Too few Native Villages and your mat won't build up quickly enough (also, *never* take the cards on the mat off early.. I've tested it extensively.. it's always bad). Staying two Native Villages ahead for more than a turn or two is also very bad. You become more and more likely to send too much of your economy onto the mat.

Also, you shouldn't need to add any other card to your deck beyond Bridges and Native Villages (assuming no competition, of course) unless your first (or first and second) Bridge gets sent to the Native Village mat.. in which case stopping buying Native Villages and grabbing a Silver or two is necessary.

That is all very helpful advice. Thanks!

75
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Great responses / counters
« on: April 23, 2012, 03:39:40 pm »
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=171.0
Quote
This was the absolute best "gems to gemonade" turn I've ever had playing Dominion.  I turn something really bad (gaining 3 curses), into something really awesome (KCing a torturer).

I get hit by a KCed torturer, gain 3 curses, cellar off 6 cards from my deck, and turn the tables, hitting my own KCed torturer and finishing off by trading post away the 3 curses I picked up at the start of the turn.

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110417-171217-038cf33a.html#mlo-show-turn-15

A case where cellar is better than warehouse!

Don't tell Theory!   :P

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 19 queries.