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 - infangthief

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78
1901
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The more I read the worse I get?
« on: January 04, 2018, 07:22:11 am »
Welcome!

Yes, I found the same in my early days with the game. By reading a lot and playing little I thought I'd got concepts like engine-building nailed, only for it all to unravel horribly in actual games.

There's an article on skill plateaus at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17655.0 which may be helpful. My advice would be to just aim at the next plateau, rather than the mountaintop. Even then you find that the path from one plateau to the next has some down-slopes in it; the first time you try to build an engine you will fail and lose to someone who stayed on the last plateau... but the tenth time you will succeed.

Good luck!

1902
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: January 03, 2018, 09:43:16 am »
To bring this thread back on track a little...

Is there a card (/event/landmark/mechanism) that has really surprised you in terms of its strength or popularity?
I mean, have you designed a card thinking "this is going to be awesome", and then it has fallen completely flat during playtesting. Or have you unwillingly gone ahead with some idea that seemed mediocre and then it turned out to be awesome after all.

1903
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: January 03, 2018, 09:31:13 am »
The obvious follow up: when will you ask?
Well of course I'm waiting at least until you stop beating your wife.

So when did the Nocturne playtesters stop beating their spouses? And when did Dame Josephine stop beating hers? :P
When did this thread just become rhetorical questions?
If I answer that question will you answer this question?

1904
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Confessions
« on: January 03, 2018, 07:53:58 am »
I was quite far behind against Lord Rattington
Apologies for the self-quote, but maybe I should have stopped right there.

1905
Dominion Articles / Re: Key card-based kingdom analysis
« on: January 03, 2018, 07:51:24 am »
Looks reasonable to me. I think I do something similar, but probably with less experience to contribute to my mental table.

And I think my table also has a 'fun' factor, like "Baron: I had fun that time I built an overdrawing deck that played 3 Barons per turn on a single Estate."
How much emphasis I give to the fun factor of course depends on the competitiveness of the situation.

A couple of clarifications:

1. Before you start a game, have an existing mental table of all the cards and the roles (component, support, counter, etc) they play in each strategy and roughly how strong they are in each role
2. After you start a game, focus on cards starting with the most important ones until you find a strategy that works
By "start" of game here you mean the moment when you see the board for that game. On my first read through I thought you meant the moment when you play your first card; "that's interesting, you start playing and buying cards until you find a strategy that works..." Could you choose a different phrase?

Having emphasized the abstractness of your mental table, and how it is gradually built up with experience, I think it would be better not to provide your whole example table in this article. Just a couple of example cards would suffice. By providing a detailed table you risk people arguing over your evaluations, instead of considering the overall analysis process which was the main point of your article.

1906
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Confessions
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:26:26 am »
I was quite far behind against Lord Rattington, but confident that I could catch up using Torturer chains (he always discards).
Then one turn I only managed to play 2 Torturers, and his remaining card was... Lighthouse.
Hmm, so my Torturer plan might not work. Tell you what, I'll buy some Rabbles and get him with those instead.

1907
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / High score by the AI
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:05:43 am »
In my experience Lord Rattington does not seem to favour cards which give VP tokens. Also in Colony games he seems to be satisfied with Provinces and rarely builds up to Colonies.

The other day I was impressed to see him reach a score of 85 (5 Colonies, 4 Provinces, 1 Duchy, 5 Estates, 1 Gardens (3pt) I think); rest assured I got 86.

What is the highest score you have seen him achieve?

1908
Looking forward for my first Goons Boons game.
Setup: Set aside the top 3 Goons face up.
Yep, the top Goons card has a picture of 3 Goons on it so that'll do nicely.

1909
Dominion: Nocturne Previews / Re: Is there any update on Nocturne?
« on: October 19, 2017, 06:39:48 am »
Event, $40
New Dominion Expansion
Open the box. If you did, examine the contents.

Setup: In games involving this, read teasers and previews of upcoming cards(haped-things). Speculate on how they would interact with the rest of the board.

1910
But there's no need to require Wolf Den, Wall or Bandit Fort. Sure they mean the game could be interesting, but they're not the only ones.
So I'm going to repurpose this thread. What cards/events/landmarks or combos could:
1. turn almost any uninteresting board into an interesting one?
2. add significant interest to almost any board which is interesting already?

Here are the ones I can think of:
1. Create interest.
  • Wolf Den
  • Wall
  • Bandit Fort
  • Ambassador
  • Messenger (especially combined with cost reducers or cheap alt-victory cards)
2. Add interest.
  • Swindler
  • Masquerade
  • Possession
  • Temple, if it's the only trasher
  • Embargo

1911
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Anti-Dominion
« on: October 08, 2017, 02:13:11 am »
Thank you, yes I missed that. Nice.

Now that adds a whole new meaning to an old comment by SCSN:
... Mic Qsenoch (you don't want to Smuggle the crap he buys... and beats you with).

1912
Dominion General Discussion / Anti-Dominion
« on: October 06, 2017, 11:46:39 am »
What about Anti-Dominion? (Game end conditions same as normal, but player with lowest score wins; player with fewest turns wins if scores are tied.)
I'm fairly sure that this just would not work on most boards; maybe opening Remodel/Curse stands a chance of beating Curse/Curse, I'm not sure.

But with the right board, does it have the potential to become interesting? How about this one?

Estates/Provinces
Hamlet, Stonemason, Smugglers, Swindler, Gardens, Messenger, Temple, Worker's Village, Highway, Hunting Grounds
Landmark: Wolf Den

If you like the idea, feel free to suggest strategies for this board, or other 'neat and potentially useful card interactions'.
And I'd recommend you don't try this just before your league game...

1913
You can trash down with feasts
... and trash up again with scouts.

1914
Dominion Articles / Re: Common Skill "Plateaus" in Mastering Dominion
« on: October 03, 2017, 05:26:21 am »
  • It occurs to me that the path from one plateau to the next is sometimes a steady incline and sometimes you descend a bit before ascending again.
    Eg Sea Level to 1000ft, maybe even 3000ft, is a steady incline - you just win more as you learn to recognise better payload cards.
    But to get to 5000ft is difficult; you have to experiment and learn by experience, and during that time you're likely to lose plenty to the guy who just sticks to Big Money. Until you get it. That's what makes Big Money such a sticking point.
  • Also, in my experience there is a big difference between (i) knowing what the next plateau is, (ii) thinking you've reached the next plateau and (iii) reaching the next plateau.
As an example of both points, my first game of Dominion was the recommended "Victory Dance" set up in Intrigue 1st Ed. Only 2 players, but it took aaaages. I was truly at "Sea Level" and I just never seemed to hit more than .

My reflections after Game 1 went like this:
  • I could have just bought Silvers, then I could have afforded Golds and then Provinces. That would have beaten my opponent in that game. (Reached 1000ft.)
  • People on Board Game Geek are talking about engines being better than Big Money. (Aware of 5000ft plateau.)
  • Ooo, on that Victory Dance board I could use Ironworks to get lots of Ironworks and Great Halls, then Scouts later to draw all those Great Halls. Hmm, I won't be able to afford Provinces that way, but maybe I can get some Upgrades to turn all those Ironworks and Scouts into Duchies and Dukes and make a 3-pile ending on Great Hall, Ironworks and Duchy. (Thinking I've reached 3000ft with all those synergies, and maybe elements of 7000ft with some thought of deck tempo and how to end the game before opponents get too many Provinces.)
So bring on Game 2, months later, with a different group and they chose "Victory Dance" again. Here we go. I did win, but only just.

Conclusion: I thought I had progressed beyond 1000ft but in fact found myself floundering just above Sea Level.

1915
Dominion Articles / Re: How to Win at Dominion, With Minimal Jargon
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:01:33 am »
Yes, definitely more complete now that trashing is clearly included.

Re "payload only" decks including things like Duchy/Duke: I agree but I'm not sure how to fit it into the article, and I'm worried it'll distract too much.
Agreed, there's no need to start mentioning specific decks like Duchy/Duke; all I would suggest is to use a different term instead of "Big Money". Maybe "payload only" or "cycling light" or "good stuff" - you do use all of those terms but then you keep coming back to Big Money and treasures being the payload.

1916
Secret Passage + Loan

In a game with no way to trash Estates and limited draw, Secret Passage and Loan were a big synergy.  I used the Secret Passages to make sure Loan hit a Copper and skipped over a bunch of green.  After a few turns, Loan was able to skip over all my green.  And once I ran out of Copper, I could bottom-deck all my green and skip past it when I played Loan.
Navigator + Loan
Back when Seaside was the latest and greatest, an opponent used the former to set up all victory cards to be closest to the top of the deck, while the copper would be on the behind them.
Wasn't Prosperity after Seaside? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "latest."

Yes, but he never said the opponent played a Loan after setting up the top of the deck as described.

Maybe he was using Adventurer to skip to the Copper. And maybe one of the victory cards was Harem, so it wouldn't have been guaranteed to skip them all anyway.
Or maybe Prosperity was released mid-turn, the adjoining table started a new game with Loan, someone on the other table played Masquerade and everyone got a little confused who was part of which game, so the original player we were talking about (remember him?) discovered a Loan in his hand and played it.
Apologies for a double-post, but I've been thinking on this and I reckon it can be done another way, without a Masquerading accident:
So this guy, he takes a long break in the middle of his turn, about 6 years, and when they resume their turn, it's late 2016 and it is noticed that the only cards remaining in the Black Market deck are obsolete first edition ones (and the owner of the game shredded them all as soon as they became obsolete; the BM deck is using blue-backed randomisers), so there's nothing for it but to generate a new Black Market deck, which happens to contain Young Witch, and Loan happens to be picked as the bane. So now this guy, they can Mine a Copper into a Loan and, well, play the Loan.
Anyway, this guy's opponents were all very patient during the game, but as they pack up they're thinking maybe they'd do better to find opponents on isotropic in future.

1917
Secret Passage + Loan

In a game with no way to trash Estates and limited draw, Secret Passage and Loan were a big synergy.  I used the Secret Passages to make sure Loan hit a Copper and skipped over a bunch of green.  After a few turns, Loan was able to skip over all my green.  And once I ran out of Copper, I could bottom-deck all my green and skip past it when I played Loan.
Navigator + Loan
Back when Seaside was the latest and greatest, an opponent used the former to set up all victory cards to be closest to the top of the deck, while the copper would be on the behind them.
Wasn't Prosperity after Seaside? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "latest."

Yes, but he never said the opponent played a Loan after setting up the top of the deck as described.

Maybe he was using Adventurer to skip to the Copper. And maybe one of the victory cards was Harem, so it wouldn't have been guaranteed to skip them all anyway.
Or maybe Prosperity was released mid-turn, the adjoining table started a new game with Loan, someone on the other table played Masquerade and everyone got a little confused who was part of which game, so the original player we were talking about (remember him?) discovered a Loan in his hand and played it.

1918
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: October 02, 2017, 01:41:50 am »
these days sometimes people use the word "actually" to exaggerate.

Wow, yes, people do use 'actually' that way. It hadn't really registered with me before.

Ah what a sorry state. Words' usages developing to include their opposite meanings. Nothing new, I know, but it does seem to be an one-way trend.

Someone once said 'let your yes be yes and your no be no'. That sounds like a more healthy way forward.

1919
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: October 01, 2017, 01:14:18 am »
These days sometimes people use "actually" to mean "literally," because no-one complains about that yet.

Or maybe because it still means what it's supposed to mean, unlike "literally"?
I don't follow you. It's the same. In "I ate a million pickles," "a million" means "a million," even though I did not eat a million pickles. In "I literally ate a million pickles," "literally" means "literally" (in the sense of "actually," not, "word-for-word"). In "I actually ate a million pickles," "actually" means "actually."

If you are saying "literally should only mean word-for-word," well that ship sailed even earlier.
I believe the use of "literal", to mean word-for-word, is still firmly in port, so I think it unlikely that the corresponding meaning of "literally" has quite rounded Cape Horn yet.
I don't know what you mean by this. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the corresponding meaning of literally," or how you are using your metaphors. My best guess is that you are saying that non-"word-for-word" uses of "literally" must be lacking legitimacy due to the continued use of "literally" in the "word-for-word" sense; that doesn't make any sense though, lots of words mean more than one thing with ease.

I don't mind if you don't wish to explain yourself, or if LF doesn't; I am just telling you, that is how the communication has gone so far. All I can do is try to interpret the words that appear on my monitor.
Ok, I get it now. I misunderstood you first time. I thought you were saying 'literally ceased to mean word-for-word long ago' whereas in fact you were saying 'literally ceased to only mean word-for-word long ago.' You used the word 'only' and everything, I just missed it, sorry.
I think LF's point, which I agree with, is that if (somehow) I ate a million pickles I would probably want to tell someone. But how? People would think I was exaggerating. Add 'literally' and people would still think I was exaggerating. Use 'actually' instead and well maybe I might start to convince people.
Anyway, time to eat some pickles and head over to the brag board.

1920
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 30, 2017, 02:41:41 am »
These days sometimes people use "actually" to mean "literally," because no-one complains about that yet.

Or maybe because it still means what it's supposed to mean, unlike "literally"?
I don't follow you. It's the same. In "I ate a million pickles," "a million" means "a million," even though I did not eat a million pickles. In "I literally ate a million pickles," "literally" means "literally" (in the sense of "actually," not, "word-for-word"). In "I actually ate a million pickles," "actually" means "actually."

If you are saying "literally should only mean word-for-word," well that ship sailed even earlier.
I believe the use of "literal", to mean word-for-word, is still firmly in port, so I think it unlikely that the corresponding meaning of "literally" has quite rounded Cape Horn yet.

1921
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 29, 2017, 11:27:27 am »
Yeah, this problem is literally the worst thing that has happened to me. I hope I don't have to deal with it before next Friday.

This post got more upvotes than I would have expected. Am I missing anything?
GendoIkari is making fun of Kuildeous' outrage about inaccurate use of words by jokingly referring to two other popular cases of inaccurate word use: One is the use of "literally" in its opposite meaning of figuratively - originally an ironic use that has become so commonplace that people think it's how it is meant to be used -, and the unclarity of "next [weekday]", which is used by some to mean "the next time that particular day comes around" and by others as "this day in the week after the current one".

I'm just glad both reference were caught!
And yet only one grammatical error in that post?

1922
Feedback / I just became obsolete
« on: September 29, 2017, 10:12:27 am »
The card name associated with my username just changed to 'Chancellor'.

I like the way users get associated with card name people, but maybe it's time to let the 1st edition folk retire.

While we're on the subject, is it a strict hierarchy, I mean at the very top once you've made thousands of posts do you get 'stuck' as the same guy forevermore?

1923
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 29, 2017, 08:56:53 am »
Yeah, this problem is literally the worst thing that has happened to me. I hope I don't have to deal with it before next Friday.

This post got more upvotes than I would have expected. Am I missing anything?
GendoIkari is making fun of Kuildeous' outrage about inaccurate use of words by jokingly referring to two other popular cases of inaccurate word use: One is the use of "literally" in its opposite meaning of figuratively - originally an ironic use that has become so commonplace that people think it's how it is meant to be used -, and the unclarity of "next [weekday]", which is used by some to mean "the next time that particular day comes around" and by others as "this day in the week after the current one".
I had better go and upvote GendoIkari's post now, because it has been explained, and is therefore funnier.

Of course, now that it is Friday, 'next Friday' only has one (literal) interpretation. So that means his post has become, err, less funny, or maybe more funny, I'm not sure.

1924
Nice article.
I like the way you leave it open-ended with the creativity side; some articles give the impression that the experts know all there is to know and all the newbie can do is just read and memorise what they've found out. But in this one we're encouraged to go and explore further.

1925
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Confessions
« on: September 28, 2017, 03:39:28 am »
1a. I haven't played IRL in the last year.
1b. IRL, I only own Dominion Base (1st ed).

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 19 queries.