Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

101

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Making Dominion Online better for new players

« on: September 26, 2017, 11:40:56 am »

This is exactly how I bought the sets on Goku. I bought them (in release order) every month or so and played the campaigns for that set until I learned all the new cards. Eventually I owned everything, but I definitely enjoyed adding new sets incrementally.

If you think about it, this is how long-time Dominion players have experienced new cards/sets too (just on a different timescale).

And this is often how people who play offline learn the sets as well. When a beginners asks me what Dominion set they should buy, I tell them the 2e Base Set. When they've played that for a little bit and ask what set they should buy next, I say "2e Intrigue" (and Seaside if they want a third set), not "2e Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity, Hinterlands, Cornucopia, and Guilds - and mix all of those cards in all at once."

I guess the problem is that, even if it turns out that the assumption being made about people not wanting to buy a Copper Subscription is wrong, Stef's point about the cost of supporting a player not scaling is still valid. A player who buys one expansion is going to cost the same resources as one buying all of them.

102

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 25, 2017, 01:25:39 pm »

I was just objecting to Awaclus' comparison, which made it sound like TR and ST are part of some sort of "elite" group of dominion cards. They are below average - otherwise we wouldn't be making this discussion.

They aren't below average, people just compare them to other splitters and other Trashers and that's why they seem weaker than they really are

That's because it's an important comparison to make. By my slapdash estimate, there are 53 Trashers for thinning your starting deck with*, including Loan. That would mean that in 87.63% of games with Loan, there will be another Trasher in the Kingdom. If we're to assume that Loan is the weakest Trasher, that leaves only 12.37% of games where Loan is out and I actually want it. So I don't think it's helpful to tell a new player there are no weak Trashers. What you're really trying to tell them is: "Trashing as a mechanic is very powerful", which is different. Even though there are hypothetical Kingdoms where I want Loan, the majority of the time that it's out, I don't want it.

In response to everyone else saying Moneylender is solid: maybe I'm wrong then. I just always thought there were many better terminal Trashers. Thinning coppers is sweet, and the cash boost gives a nice head start. But it becomes a dead card soon (and if I'm gonna trash it, why don't I just open with that other Trasher instead?), it only defends against one specific subset of Junking attacks, and I'd rather be trashing my Estates than my Coppers. If it's the only Trasher, sure, I want it. But even in Base-Only Moneylender games, 60% of the time I'm gonna see Sentry and/or Chapel as well.

I think you still likely want Moneylender in a Sentry game to complement your Sentry, maybe even opening with Moneylender to help you hit $5 as it's functionally a Silver. Moneylender will speed up your trashing and clear out the straggling Coppers that Sentry has trouble finding.

Fair enough. I'll test it sometime. I don't doubt that Moneylender/Sentry can work well, and I'd do it if that's what I can afford first. But do you think that, on a turn you get $5, you'd really get a Moneylender over a 2nd Sentry?

I did get Sentry/Moneylender instead of Sentry/Sentry in a game I played recently. I was going for a Minion stack, and I absolutely had to trash everything I could to get the deck where I wanted it to be. Native Village was on the board too, so I wanted to increase the chance of using Sentry to topdeck Province to set aside on the Native Village mat.

Admittedly, I was getting Minion over a second Sentry there.

Cool! Thanks for the idea!

103

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 25, 2017, 12:22:24 pm »

Most of the time when you have Loan and another trasher in the kingdom, you get both.

I promise you, I don't. Most other Trashers can Trash 1 copper per shuffle, which is all Loan does for me, and I don't face the same high risk of them failing on other treasures the more my number of coppers decrease. A Trade Route in hand is far more likely to trash that last Copper (since I'll have 4 other cards in hand) than a Loan in hand milling through a deck of 3-4 Silvers and one final Copper. To make Loan work fully, I'm going to need Loan, another Trasher, and some non-terminal money from Action Cards (or +Card, or some other form of control that makes this strategy a house of cards).

You don't face a high risk of Loans failing on other Treasures if you don't have many other Treasures

Which is why I said you're going to need non-terminal money from Actions as well, which you left out when you said that Loan is good with other Trashers. You aren't just going to do Loan/Remodel by themselves. It relies on either non-terminal money or terminal money with reliable Villages or Throne Rooms. So this scenario in which Loan is a rock star keeps getting more and more specific the more we talk about it. What you're telling me sounds a lot like saying that your entire strategy gets hijacked in the attempt to make Loan not be really bad.

Compare that to just buying the other Trasher by itself, which will probably not need all of these moving pieces to make it feasible.

and you almost certainly shouldn't have 3-4 Silvers even if Loan wasn't in the kingdom.

My point of course being that the more treasures you have, the more crap Loan is for your deck. As opposed to most other Trashers which are going to keep working for you without discriminating over whether you get your money from treasures or actions.

What an awfully contrived scenario. Trade Route will put me quite far ahead IF my opponent also buys something stupid on the 2nd buy? Well man, in that case, Pearl Diver is an amazing 2nd buy if your opponent buys a Curse on their 2nd buy. In fact, I'd say you'd be really far ahead in that case!

It's not supposed to demonstrate a scenario that happens in the game. It demonstrates how strong the effect of Trade Route is, even if you never buy it.

Same with mine. I'm not saying your opponent would actually buy a Curse on turn 2, just that it demonstrates how strong the effect of a Pearl Diver is, even if you never buy it. Pearl Diver is like an 8 or 9 out of 10 by virtue of being a Cantrip and not being as bad as buying Curse on Turn 2.



Go ahead and take the last word, and then please stop responding to me. As I've explained once before when asking you to not talk with me, I don't think you're willing to be wrong about anything, and I don't think debate between the two of us will be fruitful.

104

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 25, 2017, 11:33:29 am »

I was just objecting to Awaclus' comparison, which made it sound like TR and ST are part of some sort of "elite" group of dominion cards. They are below average - otherwise we wouldn't be making this discussion.

They aren't below average, people just compare them to other splitters and other Trashers and that's why they seem weaker than they really are

That's because it's an important comparison to make. By my slapdash estimate, there are 53 Trashers for thinning your starting deck with*, including Loan. That would mean that in 87.63% of games with Loan, there will be another Trasher in the Kingdom. If we're to assume that Loan is the weakest Trasher, that leaves only 12.37% of games where Loan is out and I actually want it. So I don't think it's helpful to tell a new player there are no weak Trashers. What you're really trying to tell them is: "Trashing as a mechanic is very powerful", which is different. Even though there are hypothetical Kingdoms where I want Loan, the majority of the time that it's out, I don't want it.

In response to everyone else saying Moneylender is solid: maybe I'm wrong then. I just always thought there were many better terminal Trashers. Thinning coppers is sweet, and the cash boost gives a nice head start. But it becomes a dead card soon (and if I'm gonna trash it, why don't I just open with that other Trasher instead?), it only defends against one specific subset of Junking attacks, and I'd rather be trashing my Estates than my Coppers. If it's the only Trasher, sure, I want it. But even in Base-Only Moneylender games, 60% of the time I'm gonna see Sentry and/or Chapel as well.

I think you still likely want Moneylender in a Sentry game to complement your Sentry, maybe even opening with Moneylender to help you hit $5 as it's functionally a Silver. Moneylender will speed up your trashing and clear out the straggling Coppers that Sentry has trouble finding.

Fair enough. I'll test it sometime. I don't doubt that Moneylender/Sentry can work well, and I'd do it if that's what I can afford first. But do you think that, on a turn you get $5, you'd really get a Moneylender over a 2nd Sentry?

105

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 25, 2017, 11:26:40 am »

Most of the time when you have Loan and another trasher in the kingdom, you get both.

I promise you, I don't. Most other Trashers can Trash 1 copper per shuffle, which is all Loan does for me, and I don't face the same high risk of them failing on other treasures the more my number of coppers decrease. A Trade Route in hand is far more likely to trash that last Copper (since I'll have 4 other cards in hand) than a Loan in hand milling through a deck of 3-4 Silvers and one final Copper. To make Loan work fully, I'm going to need Loan, another Trasher, and some non-terminal money from Action Cards (or +Card, or some other form of control that makes this strategy a house of cards).

Even though it does apply to Trade Route, it doesn't mean it's a weak card. If Forager is present, you're not going to buy Trade Route, but if you did buy Trade Route instead of your second Forager, you wouldn't be that far behind an opponent who just got two Foragers, and you would be quite far ahead an opponent who got something that doesn't trash instead of a second Forager in most kingdoms.

What an awfully contrived scenario. Trade Route will put me quite far ahead IF my opponent also buys something stupid on the 2nd buy? Well man, in that case, Pearl Diver is an amazing 2nd buy if your opponent buys a Curse on their 2nd buy. In fact, I'd say you'd be really far ahead in that case!

What exactly is your point? If I buy a better card than Trade Route first, Trade Route isn't going to sting quite so badly? That's a point in the other card's favor, not in Trade Route's favor. You admit yourself, you would not open with a Trade Route, and even if you buy a Trade Route over the 2nd Forager, that can only be worse or equal to opening with 2 Foragers. You can't just brush it off with "You won't be that far behind". You'll still be behind. It's still a worse decision to buy Trade Route than almost any other Trasher, and it's still most likely that any other Trasher will be there.

106

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 25, 2017, 10:53:23 am »

There are some trashers that don't work on starting Estates/Coppers.

Which I excluded from my comparison for not being comparable to Loan. Did you read the footnote?

It sounds like you're arguing that this is a point in Loan's favor or something. By excluding things like Watchtower, I made Loan look more favorable in the results. If you want, I can throw Watchtower and those other cards in to make Loan look even crappier than I already made it look.

More importantly, there are trash-for-benefit cards that work best on things that aren't your starting cards.

Which is why I said "If we're to assume that Loan is the weakest Trasher". Arguing that it's not sounds like denying the antecedent to me. This discussion is predicated on Awaclus' suggestion that: "people just compare them to other splitters and other Trashers and that's why they seem weaker than they really are".

Remodel/Loan is a solid opening for that reason; Remodel is not a good way to trash Coppers, but it's an excellent way to trash Loans that have outlived their usefulness.

Feel free to list all possible edge cases of Loan/X, and all of the edge cases to those edge cases (for instance, I'll still prefer a single Chapel over a Remodel/Loan), and I'll update the percentages. I think you'll find that it's not going to boost Loan's favorable % very well. I don't think the general consensus is that there are a lot of Combos of Loan/X that make it a good opener.

107

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 25, 2017, 10:19:29 am »

I was just objecting to Awaclus' comparison, which made it sound like TR and ST are part of some sort of "elite" group of dominion cards. They are below average - otherwise we wouldn't be making this discussion.

They aren't below average, people just compare them to other splitters and other Trashers and that's why they seem weaker than they really are

That's because it's an important comparison to make. By my slapdash estimate, there are 53 Trashers for thinning your starting deck with*, including Loan. That would mean that in 87.63% of games with Loan, there will be another Trasher in the Kingdom. If we're to assume that Loan is the weakest Trasher, that leaves only 12.37% of games where Loan is out and I actually want it. So I don't think it's helpful to tell a new player there are no weak Trashers. What you're really trying to tell them is: "Trashing as a mechanic is very powerful", which is different. Even though there are hypothetical Kingdoms where I want Loan, the majority of the time that it's out, I don't want it.

In response to everyone else saying Moneylender is solid: maybe I'm wrong then. I just always thought there were many better terminal Trashers. Thinning coppers is sweet, and the cash boost gives a nice head start. But it becomes a dead card soon (and if I'm gonna trash it, why don't I just open with that other Trasher instead?), it only defends against one specific subset of Junking attacks, and I'd rather be trashing my Estates than my Coppers. If it's the only Trasher, sure, I want it. But even in Base-Only Moneylender games, 60% of the time I'm gonna see Sentry and/or Chapel as well.


*Excludes Dame Anna (since you may have to dig through some Knights to get to her, whereas you can open Loan on the first shuffle), Cards that only trash themselves/cards from supply/cards as they're being gained (Watchtower, Gladiator, Small Castle, Engineer), and Events. Like I said, it was a quick slapdash tally. I could have missed some Trashers or counted some that don't actually work on starting Coppers/Estates.

108

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Making Dominion Online better for new players

« on: September 23, 2017, 04:53:34 pm »

For example, I believe that the bots don't know that Witch + money is much better than Smithy + money.

I wouldn't really expect them to know that though. Programming AI with hard rules like that becomes a hot mess.

109

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 23, 2017, 03:38:19 pm »

There are powerful and weak attacks, villages, sifters, alternate treasures, trash for benefit, throne rooms, remodelers, gainers, pseudo-attackers, durations, reactions, etc.

There are no weak villages, no weak thrones and no weak trashers. Well, maybe Trader is just a B but certainly everything else in those 3 categories is at least an A simply by virtue of being a splitter or a trasher.

You don't feel that in general Loan or Moneylender are weak? Also, Remodelers are a subset of Trashers, so do you also think that there are no weak Remodelers (Mine comes to mind), or were you just talking about non-Remodeling Trashers?

Also, I'd disagree with there being no weak Villages, but could concede that there may be no weak Throne Rooms (but would still say that they vary more than OP is expecting)

110

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Making Dominion Online better for new players

« on: September 23, 2017, 03:02:36 pm »

Campaigns will help more if the bots play better. People can create a table now and get games against bots with random combinations of cards from the base set and their choice of expansion. Hopefully your FAQ will help more people realize that's an option, but these games are of limited use because it's so easy to beat the bots on most kingdoms, particularly with later expansions. So I hope better bots will be a priority first.

I think campaigns will be easier to implement than making bots more competent and will help new players get familiarized with expansions quicker. Whether or not the bots are too easy won't change how familiar a new player gets with the new cards.

111

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 23, 2017, 02:00:04 pm »

I think the overarching issue is: Does relying on any sort of tier system to make in-game decisions actually make you a better player? I don't think I've made a single in-game decision by comparing cards' Qvist rankings. I make all my decisions based on intuition and experience, and I think all the top players do as well.

I think somebody actually pointed out on the Qvist ranking thread that the rankings are mostly just made for fun. There's just so much information that a ranking can't tell you: How many copies of a card to buy, at what stage of the game to buy a card, how your opponent's strategy affects things, niche cases that make a weak card good, etc. Looking at a list and seeing that a card you were ignoring is actually really good might be helpful to a beginner, but I'm not sure it's actually THAT helpful. A player could buy Governor solely because of its high ranking and still lose because they don't know how to play a Governor deck. It's not enough to know a card is good; you have to know WHY it's good.

Yes, I agree completely. I however, don't know all the ins and outs of card interaction, nor even their over all power. I think it could actually help someone like me. Yeah, I'll eventually outgrow it's usefulness, but I'm not at that point yet.

It would also be a good way to see where different types of cards rate in the overall META. Are gainers mostly rated as B's? Are attacks mostly rated as A's. What about sifters? Are they mostly rated as C? Are alternate treasures all over the board for ratings, or are they mostly A's? It would be a good way to be able to compile a bunch of data quickly.

(Emphasis added)

Other, better players can feel free to chime in, but in general, all types of cards are all over the board. There are powerful and weak attacks, villages, sifters, alternate treasures, trash for benefit, throne rooms, remodelers, gainers, pseudo-attackers, durations, reactions, etc. Part of what has given Dominion so much longevity is that Donald X has done a great job at throwing wrenches in any rules of thumb. Each new expansion not only adds new mechanics, it adds some cards which incentivize certain behaviors that would previously be losing strategies, or deincentivizes the common winning strategies.

To get to intermediate level play, rather than trying to worry about which cards tend to be the best most often, I feel that your best bet is to learn what mechanics each card plays nicely with. Knowing what to look for to see if you can make your Tunnels trigger, or to make your Gardens work, or to build that Poor House strategy, is going to be far more beneficial (and a more efficient use of your time) than learning/compiling a tier list so you can buy the card that has the highest tier. In each game, you have to be able to look at each card and try to find all of its supporters and counters. Once you've done that for all 10 Kingdom cards, you'll end up seeing a handful of approaches you could take. It's then your job to try and figure out which of those will work best. And when you're new to the game, you're going to make the wrong choice a lot. That's just how we learn.

I love analysis, and I love that you want to analyze the cards, but I think that the vast majority of Dominion cards are in a huge middle tier- one which is highly situational as to whether the card is good or bad. It's just not the type of game that lends itself well to this specific type of analysis. I think that's what some here are trying to explain to you.

If you're mostly just looking for a beginner overview of what cards are generally very good and which ones aren't, you really are best off following the Qvist rankings. I don't see what you have to gain by trying to reinvent the wheel there. And that's not to say that we couldn't use a different type of ranking. But it sounds to me like the thing you're aiming for has already been done well enough. When you're in 100% doubt on what to do, feel free to pick the highest rated card on the Qvist rankings, try it out, and if you lose, then you've learned a lesson in one of the thousands of exceptions that Dominion has to offer.

That's just the best way to learn right now. Read articles, try to find cards that play nicely together in the Kingdom (just based off of their language), play a lot of games, and pay attention to the advice of people like Mic Qsenoch (currently the 2nd highest on the Dominion Online Leaderboards), who handed you his personal list of rankings for Base Set on a silver platter based on his years of experience. No need to split hairs over whether or not he gave too many cards the S rank. If he tells you that Chapel, Throne Room, Sentry, Witch, and Artisan are all top-tier, I would take his word for it

112

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 23, 2017, 12:18:45 am »

As you can see, according my criteria for each tier, you have far too many "S" cards.

This is reality-defying. It could be that half the cards were "S" cards; the power-level curve can look like anything. You can't simultaneously say "these are cards you want 95% of the time" and "it's 3-7% of the cards." Combined they are data you don't have, that you are trying to find even.

Huh? I could want Chapel 95% of the time. But if Masquerade were in the kingdom, I may choose it instead of Chapel, making up the 5% that I don't want Chapel in my deck. That doesn't take away, nor even interact with the 3-7% that are "S" cards. It just means that even for an "S" card, there may be a better option, which is probably taken by another "S" card. Plus, 95% was just an arbitrary number; something to get discussion going. It could be even higher. 98%? 99%?

By the way, I love the game.

But like, how can you know that 3-7% number is realistic without having first collected data? It could be in actuality that 20% of Dominion cards are "broken". Same with other tiers. Maybe Tiers A, B, and C shouldn't have a perfectly equal distribution. What if 75% of Dominion cards are equally terrible? Why refuse to put a card where it belongs just to suit a pre-defined restriction of how big or small the tiers must be?

113

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 22, 2017, 09:33:50 pm »

Don't we already have access to some "Win rate with" statistics from Isotropic? Has such data been collected in any of the subsequent implementations of Dominion Online?

114

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Need Help Developing a Ranking System

« on: September 22, 2017, 09:32:05 pm »

I am skeptical of the value of giving survey respondents very specific instructions on how to rate cards.  The thing is, you don't actually know that people are following your instructions.  Imagine all the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you, but now instead of voicing their disagreement out loud, they are quietly filling out your survey according to their own views.  It just can't be helped.

I couldn't agree more. Especially since, more detailed instructions means more words, and more words means less people will actually read them. A good survey aims to design the User Experience in such a way that it is almost impossible for the respondents to answer any question other than the exact question you're trying to ask, rather than prepping them beforehand and hoping that they understood and will be obedient.

I also second Mic Qsenoch's opinion about not shoehorning distributions. I think it would be better to collect pure data, then let that data tell you the story of what the tiers are, rather than trying to force the data into predefined tiers that were picked somewhat arbitrarily. Can you really know if 4 tiers will be the proper number without first collecting the data?

115

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Making Dominion Online better for new players

« on: September 21, 2017, 10:18:36 am »

One could file this idea under "Not even fully fleshed out" rather than Hard or Easy to implement.

When it comes to players taking a long time, I like to give a lot more leniency on turn 1. I've played against some newer players who have had to take a really long time to:

A) Read the 10 Kingdom cards and Events/Landmarks to learn how they work
B) Understand what the card is actually doing
C) Figure out what feels like a good plan to them

Some people are just slow readers. As long as they are picking up the pace in future turns, I don't think it's a problem. I wouldn't want them to feel like they can't get into Dominion because other players don't give them a chance to learn the game.

But the problem is, how do you give them more leniency? There are obvious downsides to just increasing the amount of time allowed for Turn 1 (maybe I'm willing to wait around on Turn 1, but some players are going to find that agonizing enough that they would rather just resign). My initial thought was there could theoretically be a system in place that tells players what their Kingdom cards are going to be before they even queue up for a match. To avoid gaming the system, the random seed that determines their cards would have to be determined immediately after every match they play, and stored in the server. Otherwise players could just keep logging in and out of their account until they get a Kingdom they like.

The immediate flaw is, how are you going to reconcile the fact that two players are going to have two different random seeds? Hypothetically, one player may be told that they're going to see cards A through J in the next game, and another will be told they'll see cards K through T. So then the matchmaking system can't pair them together, right? What makes this completely game breaking is, there are so many possible Dominion Kingdoms, odds are that no two players would ever have the same random seed at the same time. What you can do is this: Have the matchmaking system only show 5 cards to each player beforehand (for 2 player games), then when the matchmaking system picks its two players, it takes the 5 cards from Player 1 and the 5 from Player 2 and combines them to make 1 Kingdom. This way, each player only gets to read 5 cards instead of 10, but the matchmaker doesn't have to fulfill any extra criteria than it already does when finding someone to play with.

Sidenote: If one of their preview cards were something like Urchin or a Traveller, the system would also show them the matching non-supply card(s). You probably wouldn't have it show them the bane card for Young Witch though.

I have thought out a method that would work irrespective of how many players there will be in the game, which doesn't break when there are duplicates in the players' previews (Such as, if Player A sees [Rats, Market, Mine, Magpie, Fishing Village] and Player B sees [Chapel, Ill Gotten Gains, Highway, Jester, and Rats], when the matchmaker tries to combine those two lists with a naïve approach, the Kingdom only has 9 cards since Rats was in both lists), and which could work by generating only 1 random seed per player. If anyone's curious I'll share, but otherwise I thought I'd stop there to keep the reply from getting way too long.

-------------------------------------------------------

So, possible problems with this idea:

• It might not be worth the time to implement into code. No arguments from me here. I'm not at all qualified to speculate on how easy it is to integrate something like that into the current implementation of the online game
• Players could find it confusing that they're only being shown 5 Kingdom cards, "but aren't there supposed to be 10?". I'd resolve this by having it show 10 card shapes, but 5 of them are just black silhouettes with question marks on them and the other 5 are actual cards. This way they pick up on the fact that they only get a sneak peak at half of the upcoming cards.
• There could be unintended side effects in how this incentivizes player behavior. Maybe I was gonna play one more game, but I see that 5 of my upcoming cards really suck. Nah, on second thought I've got some other things to do irl. Then, because you can't avoid the seed by logging out and logging back in, you're aware of the fact that that sucky kingdom is waiting for you when you return. So every time I think "I'm gonna play some Dominion tonight", I remember "Oh wait, I'd have to start with that really crappy kingdom first.... Nah, forget it". With the current implementation, since players don't see a sucky kingdom until it happens, I feel like they take a much more "That's just the hand you're dealt" approach than if they were to be informed about the kingdom ahead of time. The only solution I can think to this is to give players a new random seed if it has been over 24 hours since their last game.

Anyway, this is all just an early rough attempt at spitballing something that could give players some more leniency on time without driving their opponents crazy. It very much may be killing a housefly with a hand grenade. But I think it's an interesting thought at least

116

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Making Dominion Online better for new players

« on: September 21, 2017, 08:56:37 am »

Easy to implement ways:
A “Copper” subscription that adds only Intrigue and Seaside. The current smallest subscription option, “Silver,” adds Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity, Cornucopia, Hinterlands and Guilds, which may be too much for a new player to learn at once.

I would argue that adding Prosperity to a theoretical Copper subscription would be a good idea. Among all of the "casual" players I know, Prosperity and Seaside are always tied for the favorite expansion. This does have the downside of having 3 new sets to learn instead of 2 though. But maybe if Seaside and Prosperity are loved that much more than Intrigue, then new players will be more willing to put up with learning new cards?

I don't know. Would it be too much of a sin to have a Copper subscription that is just Seaside and Prosperity? I mean, I feel dirty even suggesting skipping Intrigue- the most basic expansion- but if we're already skipping Alchemy, maybe it's not unreasonable to say that the cheapest subscription tier should be composed of the two expansions that new players tend to like the most.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the sample size of new players I've spoken with is representative of the majority (which very well may not be true). Maybe Donald X would have a better feel for this?

117

Dominion Articles / Re: Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types

« on: September 20, 2017, 11:08:04 am »

So yeah, I agree with you that your "7 obstacles" are pretty fundamental from a theoretical standpoint.  But when playing a game, I'm not going to sit there and think through all 7 of those.  I'm going to glance at the Kingdom, realize I can make an engine (or should go Big Money, or good stuff, or a combo, or a slog) and do that.

In all fairness to Awaclus though, I think you probably have a pretty strong intuition which comes from years of experience and many games played. A new player won't have that, and I think they're more likely to build up their judgement than intuition from reading an article. Whether or not they'll actually go through the trouble of answering the 7 obstacles, I can't say.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I'm not gonna open that whole can of worms again, as it's not fair to Awaclus to talk about his ideas and not expect a reply

118

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:40:13 pm »

If you're getting mad about arguments on the internet, just stop arguing. Sure the other guy might get the last word, but it's better for your mental health.

I could've swore that's what I tried. Twice. And a lot of good it's doing, given how Faust is mocking me now as well.

If you don't want to engage in pedantic debate, don't do it.

With all due respect, I did want to have a pedantic debate, and I said as much when replying to Trivialknot. That never changed. What I did not want was to be condescended to by somebody with absolutely zero social skills. My responses- up until Awaclus posted Replies #32 and #33- were far more polite than anything he has said to me this entire time. After those two replies, I'd had enough of him returning my genuine interest, genuine compliments, and genuine attempts to find common ground with insults and stubborn dismissiveness. Even then, I still tried to focus more on de-escalating far more than I thought he deserved, on the off chance that I'm not as right about my assessment of him as I think I am (see Reply #58). Out of curiosity, how many times have you ever seen Awaclus:

• apologize for anything?
• admit to an error?
• display the self-awareness to say that it's conceivable that he has misjudged something?
• try to find common ground with another user?
• disagree with/debate a user for a prolonged period of time without calling their ideas "useless" or some other such dismissive or disrespectful term?

Not just in this thread, but in all of his years on here. Has he ever been polite or courteous in any way?

You couldn't be more right when you say that the meta-debate was pointless. But I really don't see how you could read the entire thread and walk away from it reducing the source of my frustration to Awaclus being pedantic.

PS incidentally there is a blacklist feature on the site.  http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore

Thank you. I happened to look at the "help" page before asking about the Blacklist, and found a description of the Ignore feature. At the time, it sounded to me like it only prevents people from emailing or direct messaging. Is that what it is, or did I misunderstand and it actually does block? If it's the latter then that's all I need.

When I read this topic, as an independent observer, I see a person who is known for getting into pedantic debates...

I see a user who is acting extremely divisively, a group of users who have complained that they feel he is almost always this divisive, and a moderator who understandably would prefer not to moderate in response to that complaint (but who I feel should). It's your site, I don't have any right to tell you how to run it. I just feel that if you try to sweep those complaints under the rug to avoid the discomfort that addressing it would bring, then that's an honest shame, because you're probably driving away more new users than you realize just to avoid an awkward conversation with one existing user.

Don't some of the comments here about Awaclus bother you as the moderator? Not just because they're off-topic and have caused a frustrating amount of drama (both of which I admit are true), but because they speak to an underlying sense of tension and source of dissatisfaction among f.ds users? People are basically telling me that the best way to enjoy the site is to more or less pretend Awaclus doesn't exist. I don't think one even has to agree with those comments to find that concerning. Whether your interpretation is that Awaclus is impossible to get along with, or you think that Awaclus is unfairly judged by others, it's a red flag regardless.

What exactly is an offense worth confronting here? Is it just being off-topic? If, from here on, I am always on-topic 100%, do I get to be a dick without repercussion and ruin others' experience too? I don't think anybody is asking for you to bring down the ban hammer. Don't you think there could be some benefit in asking an unlikable user to please try to be more likable?

119

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 19, 2017, 08:47:57 am »

Well, I'm totally convinced Arguing me into submission is a great tactic for convincing me that you don't try to argue every single person into submission.

How about we both just agree to stop talking to each other? That's what I was trying to do by ignoring you in the first place (since there is apparently no blacklist feature on the site). I'm not about to PM you so we can get into a never-ending argument where I won't even have others to back me up when I feel you're being contrarian. If we can't even get along while talking about a card game, we're not going to get along while talking about why we dislike each other.

I feel that you've got a chip on your shoulder and a need to be right, such that we will never have a pleasant discussion. I would understand if you thought the same thing about me. So we can probably just agree that the most constructive solution would be to not talk to each other, right?

And even though we're both talking about your character on this thread, and others are as well, I can be adult enough to agree with you that this isn't the platform for it. For the record, I didn't start it (as you seem to be implying by only calling me out for being off-topic), but I definitely didn't try to end it either, so I'm sorry for that.

120

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 19, 2017, 07:53:48 am »

That unfortunately sounds like an effective way to keep the community as small and stagnant as possible

It also sounds like it's not true, as I already said.

And yet it matches with the only experience I have with you. It's fair to say that you and I are both biased. So if everyone else says you're like this, what makes you think I'm going to take your word for it that you're not?

121

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 19, 2017, 06:58:44 am »

Out of curiosity, do you ask if I'm new because of the "refuse to believe you're that much of a novice" comment, or the "being a contrarian" comment?

It was just you arguing with Awaclus, which is a thing newer people do and a thing older members just ignore.

That unfortunately sounds like an effective way to keep the community as small and stagnant as possible

122

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 18, 2017, 08:11:08 pm »

Out of curiosity, do you ask if I'm new because of the "refuse to believe you're that much of a novice" comment, or the "being a contrarian" comment?

Awaclus' thing is being pedantic and contrarian.  I don't post much here either, but... yeah, it's the sort of thing you tend to pick up quickly, hence the joking reference to you being new here.

Thought that might be the case, but I didn't wanna assume what he meant. I recognized Awaclus' profile pic as "that argumentative guy". But given that I'm new to posting, I figured I may have misjudged him based on a flawed memory, and thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

...On a completely unrelated note, is there a way to blacklist users? Just asking for research purposes 

123

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 18, 2017, 07:53:28 pm »

I refuse to believe that you're enough of a novice player that you can't tell the strategic difference between a coin token and +Buy. You're just trying to be contrarian. I have never been more done with a more pointless conversation.

Hi, you must be new to f.ds! Have you checked out the forum games?

I've lurked as a guest for years, primarily looking at fan cards, predictions, and strategy discussions. I'm new to posting though.

I have not checked out the forum games. Should I?

Out of curiosity, do you ask if I'm new because of the "refuse to believe you're that much of a novice" comment, or the "being a contrarian" comment?

124

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 18, 2017, 06:00:41 pm »

I'm not saying that all engines must fall into one of faust's more specific types. I'm saying that all engines must fall into the one, more abstracted type.

Well then maybe you should've linked me to that instead of to Faust's two specific types before trying to say that I'm the one using a useless definition. By chance, where is this extremely useful "more abstracted definition"?

I could do that, but so far I've been relying on everyone's ability to look at faust's two different engines and see how to generalize them into a set of solutions that encompasses both, because that really isn't very difficult.

Ahhhh, ok, so it turns out you haven't defined it yet. We're still waiting on that. You're shifting the goalposts here when pressed to actually define Engine. Convenient how you get to keep arguing that you have a working definition even though you don't. If it's not even very difficult, then why do I have to basically pull your teeth to get you to define it? The fact is, you're saying out of one side of your mouth that you have a rigid, well-defined definition, but then out of the other you're speaking in vague, subjective terms. When pressed on this, you just criticize my own classification instead of providing your own definition.

That's not true. How well a strategy addresses the obstacles isn't strictly connected to how well that strategy will do in practice

Oh, well in that case then your entire point about "A pure big money deck handles the challenges of deck building perfectly" was a giant red herring, given that it was in response to me saying:

So I have had situations where I felt that I had too few moving parts relative to the 7 questions you're asking. Or in other words, situations where I look at the Kingdom and say "In this situation, an Engine actually handles the primary challenges of deck building better than my Big Money approach did, so more moving parts would have paid off more effectively here"

And that was in response to you asking me about how well the hindsight of my classifications help me do in practice. Thanks for derailing us for no reason other than to argue for argument's sake

You have admitted that the obstacles are strategically relevant and that your classification isn't. Why is it that you insist that your classification should be used and the obstacles shouldn't be used for classification?

Looks like you answered your own question. The obstacles aren't classifications. My classifications are classifications though. And in other news, A = A, I am what I am, a Rose is a Rose, and a definition has to actually be defining.

What you said is basically: 'You've already admitted that my doughnut tastes good and your wedding ring doesn't. Why is it that you insist that your wedding ring should be used and the doughnuts shouldn't be used for wedding rings?'
How well your obstacles work strategically has no bearing on whether or not they are better classifiers than my classifiers

But it feels like you're losing sight of the reason we're even talking about +Buy. You originally made it sound like you were considering removing the "You only have 1 Buy" thing from the 7 obstacles, and the reason you gave (as I understood it) was that there's only ever really one solution to that problem. As we have just established, this is not the case. I can name at least 3 (since we're disagreeing on the Gainer thing), but you're still acting like those 3 are just 1.

As we have just established, that is indeed the case. I can name only one thing, but you're acting like that 1 is 3.

I refuse to believe that you're enough of a novice player that you can't tell the strategic difference between a coin token and +Buy. You're just trying to be contrarian. I have never been more done with a more pointless conversation.

125

Dominion Articles / Re: The Infinite Number of Fundamental Deck Types

« on: September 18, 2017, 04:31:59 pm »

I feel that taking my question out of context only shows that you're assuming my position. Notice, I didn't say Engine = Actions (or that BM = Treasures). I said, in my example, at what point after adding supporting Action Card after supporting Action Card does the BM stop being BM and starts to be an Engine?

The point at which it starts to be an engine is the point at which it has the 7 14 solutions faust wrote.

Fixed that for you.

However, we're not unable to come up with a well-defined description of them. I already came up with the definition for big money, then faust came up with two more specific example definitions

I don't know what an "example definition" is, but the fact that you think that two conflicting answers qualifies as "well-defined" is telling.

Your examples are not all-encompassing, and they are not really even objective. The obstacles are great for players to think about. But how one answers them is not a definition, or anything even closely resembling a definition.

If there's a different framework that:

• applies universally, even to deck types we haven't discovered yet
• is based on strategically relevant attributes

Then I'd love to look into it, but so far it looks like mine is the only one that does both, and while we have my framework that does both, I don't see a reason why we also need a different framework that only does one.

Clearly yours doesn't, as you couldn't generalize "Engine" down to one definition. Once somebody mentions a third type of Engine that doesn't fit the mold, I assume the 14 bullet points will become 21.

That's also a classification that works, but it's entirely useless.

What, you mean like the difference between a "Trashing Megaturn Engine" and a "Sifting VP Removal Engine"?

Meanwhile I'm using one definition which actually helps a person compare two different decks.