Print

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

[eHalcyon]

I am not trying to convince you to enjoy these example games, enjoy whatever you like, I am trying to point out that they aren't as straightforward as your summaries indicate, and maybe there are some nice things to think about while playing these games. You say you don't like when winning a card split is important, but that's a LOT of Dominion games (if nothing else it's Province/Duchy split), the skill is in figuring out how to win the important splits and how to squeak out wins if you don't.

QFT.

A great deal of skill in Dominion lies in figuring out how to take advantage of your good luck, how to mitigate the chance of bad luck, and how to bounce back from the bad luck you may suffer.  "Winning the split" is rarely just a random luck thing that wins you the game.  The split is often won by skill, and many "key" cards (JoaT, Familiar, apparently Lab) aren't as ubiquitously important as some would believe.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Another thing is the importance of luck and skill for certain cards. for rebuild, I think that while it does take a lot of skill to play it perfectly, doing so still only amounts to a very small edge over playing it decently. in other words, even though rebuild is not low skill, you will lose a lot of matches against people that are significantly worse than you.

If your opponent is playing a game decently, then there's no real sense in which they are "significantly worse than you." There's no reason or need to feel resentment/frustration about losing those games. It's a wonderful thing that "better" players can lose whenever "weaker" players play an individual game well. We pick 10 kingdom cards, you don't get to use all your amazing Dominion knowledge in every single game, that's just how it works. The skill you are valuing so highly only appears in the aggregate. In this one game that's being played right now you just have to buck up and make good decisions and pray to the gods that your shuffles work out.

On most engine boards though, skill matters a lot more. Generally, I tend to appreciate decisions/skill more if it also has more impact, and I think a lot of people do.

I don't buy the first sentence, but I can't prove it one way or the other. I don't have a clue how to quantify skill/luck impact on the outcome, every game the winner needs skill and luck. Lots of engines have a breaking point (phase transition?) where they become super consistent/powerful and the first person to get there has a big advantage. The shuffles have a big impact on who reaches that point first.

I read a post of yours in the Random thread or something where you said you kept track of whether you thought the game was decided by skill/luck and whether you outplayed your opponent. Apparently your wins were mostly from skill and your losses were mostly due to bad luck. I lol'd. It tells you basically all you need to know about how people tend to judge these things.

[silverspawn]

I don't know how that fits in here, but yea i'm still doing that (writing two letters in the file after each dominion game that is). I'm not sure what your point is, I play about 95% of my games against players with a lower rating, so it's to be expected that there are more WS than LS, and more LL than WL respectively. everything else would be very weird. there are also just way more wins than losses period, because I won more games than I lost since I started making this list. your post kind of comes across as offensive, and I don't really get why. but I understand even less why you find the results weird.

[eHalcyon]

I don't know how that fits in here, but yea i'm still doing that (writing two letters in the file after each dominion game that is). I'm not sure what your point is, I play about 95% of my games against players with a lower rating, so it's to be expected that there are more WS than LS, and more LL than WL respectively. everything else would be very weird. there are also just way more wins than losses period, because I won more games than I lost since I started making this list. your post kind of comes across as offensive, and I don't really get why. but I understand even less why you find the results weird.

I think MQ was pointing out that your results are typical of human nature.  When we succeed (in any area, not just Dominion), we tend to attribute it more to our own skill and abilities rather than good fortune.  When we fail, we are more likely to blame bad luck and circumstance than note our own mistakes.  I think there is a name for this psychological effect, but I don't remember it.  This is also a reason why the most popular games tend to have both skill and luck -- so the winners can feel proud and the losers don't have to feel too bad about themselves (I think Richard Garfield discussed this somewhere in his Luck vs. Skill talk).

But playing mostly lower rated players could account for that too.

[theblankman]

You say you don't like when winning a card split is important, but that's a LOT of Dominion games (if nothing else it's Province/Duchy split), the skill is in figuring out how to win the important splits and how to squeak out wins if you don't.

Thanks for the analysis, not gonna derail the thread responding to your comments but I will say you've convinced me to play some of those kingdoms again. 

To be more specific about splits, it's not just that I don't like when winning a split is important, it's that I don't like when the important split is one over which I have very little control.  That's why I hate Cultist so much, especially when the possible openings for hitting $5 aren't much better than Silver/Silver (which is reasonably often).  The game just becomes all about who draws $5 more often, and whose Cultists chain more. 

The Herald game is admittedly nowhere near as bad as the Cultist game because I can influence the important split with Ironworks, but it seemed obvious to me how important Herald was on that board, and I think a stronger opponent would've bought an IW to gain Heralds.  And then it would've been right back to who draws IW when, or hits IW+$4, has IW miss a shuffle, etc.  (I doubt you buy more than one IW.)

[Mic Qsenoch]

I am just going to continue to derail this thread because this is a topic I like a lot. Oh and my analysis was supposed to be mostly rhetorical anyway, I don't expect a response. There were lots of question marks because I sure don't know the answers to many of those things just trying to highlight some possibilities.

The Herald game is admittedly nowhere near as bad as the Cultist game because I can influence the important split with Ironworks, but it seemed obvious to me how important Herald was on that board, and I think a stronger opponent would've bought an IW to gain Heralds.  And then it would've been right back to who draws IW when, or hits IW+$4, has IW miss a shuffle, etc.  (I doubt you buy more than one IW.)

Your last sentence describe generic things that can happen in literally every single game of Dominion with every single card and always always always have an impact on the shape of the game. I do not see how you luck haters are not just boiling after every game you play.

[silverspawn]

I don't know how that fits in here, but yea i'm still doing that (writing two letters in the file after each dominion game that is). I'm not sure what your point is, I play about 95% of my games against players with a lower rating, so it's to be expected that there are more WS than LS, and more LL than WL respectively. everything else would be very weird. there are also just way more wins than losses period, because I won more games than I lost since I started making this list. your post kind of comes across as offensive, and I don't really get why. but I understand even less why you find the results weird.

I think MQ was pointing out that your results are typical of human nature.  When we succeed (in any area, not just Dominion), we tend to attribute it more to our own skill and abilities rather than good fortune.  When we fail, we are more likely to blame bad luck and circumstance than note our own mistakes.  I think there is a name for this psychological effect, but I don't remember it.  This is also a reason why the most popular games tend to have both skill and luck -- so the winners can feel proud and the losers don't have to feel too bad about themselves (I think Richard Garfield discussed this somewhere in his Luck vs. Skill talk).

But playing mostly lower rated players could account for that too.

i think the best approach to this is to measure the (completely objective) win/loss ratio, then conclude an approximate ratio of games where you have to play better in order to achieve this (note that even a game where you get less than the required win % but more than 50%, it's still a game where you played better) and then compare that to the actual proportion (that is, the proportion between (WS+LL) and (WL+LS), because that's the games where I think I played better and the games where I think I played worse)

The win/loss ratio in the included games form the post was 1,5 - 1. This means that, for every 2 games you lose, you win 3. you win 3 out of 5. Let's say you play worse than your opponent in 1/3 of all games. that means you play better in 2/3. but you need to play significantly better on average in order to achieve a ratio of 3 -2. if you play worse in one game out of three, you need to play a hell of a lot better in the other two. I don't think I do that. I think something like, I play better in 3 out of 4 games is more realistic. that doesn't require me to play that much better anymore. and that would be a ratio of 3:1. well, maybe that's too much, maybe it should be somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1.

the actual ratio is 2,4 - 1. do with that what you want. I can't say that I was not subjective, that's not something you can say, but the results seem completely plausible to me.

[theblankman]

Your last sentence describe generic things that can happen in literally every single game of Dominion with every single card and always always always have an impact on the shape of the game.

Yes, it does.  But it seems, anecdotally, and could probably be shown empirically, that a few cards inflate the impact of those generic random events on the game a lot, compared to every other card.  Some people happen to dislike those cards for that reason.  I mildly dislike that effect. 

The effect I more strongly dislike is that of having a game mostly decided already, but still needing to play many more turns for the result.  On the winning side, it gets kind of boring.  On the losing side, I guess you can resign if you think it'd take a miracle to come back, but that's unpalatable if you care about rating, or it's a league match, or the result matters for any other reason.  Anyway it so happens that the some of worst offenders for this effect are also among the worst "luck inflaters," e.g. Cultist and Familiar.

[theblankman]

I am just going to continue to derail this thread because this is a topic I like a lot.

I meant that I didn't want to derail the thread with analysis of my own games.  This topic is imho quite relevant to the thread, because it talks to whether things like hatelists or vetoes are desirable.  Salvager could provide those formats in Casual/Unrated games, and even consider those games for Isotropish rating along with (or instead if) MF Pro games if people wanted that. 

[GeoLib]

I don't know how that fits in here, but yea i'm still doing that (writing two letters in the file after each dominion game that is). I'm not sure what your point is, I play about 95% of my games against players with a lower rating, so it's to be expected that there are more WS than LS, and more LL than WL respectively. everything else would be very weird. there are also just way more wins than losses period, because I won more games than I lost since I started making this list. your post kind of comes across as offensive, and I don't really get why. but I understand even less why you find the results weird.

I think MQ was pointing out that your results are typical of human nature.  When we succeed (in any area, not just Dominion), we tend to attribute it more to our own skill and abilities rather than good fortune.  When we fail, we are more likely to blame bad luck and circumstance than note our own mistakes.  I think there is a name for this psychological effect, but I don't remember it.  This is also a reason why the most popular games tend to have both skill and luck -- so the winners can feel proud and the losers don't have to feel too bad about themselves (I think Richard Garfield discussed this somewhere in his Luck vs. Skill talk).

But playing mostly lower rated players could account for that too.

It's a variation of the fundamental attribution error.

[Polk5440]

And for what? So the more-skilled player can win even more often?

"For what" is the easy part.  For games where you make more decisions that affect the outcome, because having your decisions matter is what makes the game fun.  The last several turns of a game in which you badly lost an important split are typically not fun; you just hope your opponent makes a mistake or gets some bad luck. 

I think Dominion can provide a great life lesson. Sometimes we do the right thing and get the bad outcome. That doesn't mean doing the right thing didn't make a difference.

The fact that there is this variance and luck to the outcome of any game forces you to learn to think more long term. Those strategic decisions do matter. Even though they didn't flip the bit this time -- in the long run, they do. It's almost like those who need to strip the luck out of Dominion need instant gratification in the form of a win NOW -- they can't see that their decisions DID matter, even if the outcome THIS TIME was bad.

Suppose you've lost a split. Because you've lost the split, your chances of winning go from 50-50 to 20-80. Bad luck. However, there could be opportunities for smart, strategic play throughout the midgame that move that probability to 30-70 and bad decisions move it to 1-99.  That's still interesting, because you are significantly affecting your win probability. Even though you probably will still lose THIS game, you may win, and making good decisions even when you are behind pays off in the long run.

I do agree that if losing a split 4-6 causes you to immediately drop to 0-100, then that's no fun. But that is not the case.

[blueblimp]

those who need to strip the luck out of Dominion

This is a strawman. I don't see anyone arguing that Dominion should play like Chess.

[theblankman]

I think Dominion can provide a great life lesson. Sometimes we do the right thing and get the bad outcome. That doesn't mean doing the right thing didn't make a difference.

At the risk of waxing philosophical, if your life outside Dominion doesn't provide enough of that lesson on its own, then I'd consider you pretty fortunate.  For my own part, playing Dominion is one of the things I do to generally get away from that kind of lesson and just have some fun.

[Polk5440]

I think Dominion can provide a great life lesson. Sometimes we do the right thing and get the bad outcome. That doesn't mean doing the right thing didn't make a difference.

At the risk of waxing philosophical, if your life outside Dominion doesn't provide enough of that lesson on its own, then I'd consider you pretty fortunate.  For my own part, playing Dominion is one of the things I do to generally get away from that kind of lesson and just have some fun.

I think it's a shame to need more wins to reflect your better decision making in order to have that fun.

It's not like Dominion is heavy on the luck, either. Well, compared to abstract strategy games, sure, because there is luck. But, on the forum we play tournament games in sets of 6 which can take just an hour or two of play (less time than many serious strategy games take to play just once) and if a player plays better, they usually win the match even in that short of time frame. And 6 games of variety? Lots of meaningful decisions, usually, too.

To make another point, being handicapped through bad luck (or going last) is a version of variety which can add fun to the game. Haven't you ever removed a piece from a chess board at the start for the challenge, not just to even things up? Ever gotten an extra thrill from hitting a great golf shot from an unlucky bad lie? You have to play differently from behind, not necessarily less strategically, and that different type of play can be fun, even if you don't win as many games from behind. Your decisions still matter -- they still affect your chances of winning even if you don't eventually win.

And as I mentioned above, it doesn't take that much time to balance out that bad luck or second player disadvantage over multiple games because Dominion plays so quickly. 

You say you don't like when winning a card split is important, but that's a LOT of Dominion games (if nothing else it's Province/Duchy split), the skill is in figuring out how to win the important splits and how to squeak out wins if you don't.

This is a great quote, Mic.

[theblankman]

I think it's a shame to need more wins to reflect your better decision making in order to have that fun.

Now we're talking past each other.  I said a few posts ago that I'm less a "luck hater" and hold more hate for games decided many turns before they actually end, i.e. games that take 20-30 minutes but after the first 5, my chance of losing (or winning) has already fallen below 20%.  That's why I dislike Cultist so much; in my experience it leads to a disproportionate number of games in which someone badly loses the ruin split in the first 7-9 turns, and because they're so hamstrung after that, their opponent has to do something like drive the entire Province pile himself, extending a mostly decided game. 

To make another point, being handicapped through bad luck (or going last) is a version of variety which can add fun to the game.

Comebacks can be exciting, but I find most of mine happen because after getting unlucky early, I get very lucky late.  Note: I don't think comebacks are all that common in Dominion.  Score doesn't indicate much during the game.  In a lot of games that might look like comebacks because I'm behind on the scoreboard, I really felt even or ahead much of the game. 

[jonts26]

I don't know how that fits in here, but yea i'm still doing that (writing two letters in the file after each dominion game that is). I'm not sure what your point is, I play about 95% of my games against players with a lower rating, so it's to be expected that there are more WS than LS, and more LL than WL respectively. everything else would be very weird. there are also just way more wins than losses period, because I won more games than I lost since I started making this list. your post kind of comes across as offensive, and I don't really get why. but I understand even less why you find the results weird.

I think MQ was pointing out that your results are typical of human nature.  When we succeed (in any area, not just Dominion), we tend to attribute it more to our own skill and abilities rather than good fortune.  When we fail, we are more likely to blame bad luck and circumstance than note our own mistakes.  I think there is a name for this psychological effect, but I don't remember it.  This is also a reason why the most popular games tend to have both skill and luck -- so the winners can feel proud and the losers don't have to feel too bad about themselves (I think Richard Garfield discussed this somewhere in his Luck vs. Skill talk).

But playing mostly lower rated players could account for that too.

It's a variation of the fundamental attribution error.

Specifically, it probably falls under self-serving bias.

[GeoLib]

I don't know how that fits in here, but yea i'm still doing that (writing two letters in the file after each dominion game that is). I'm not sure what your point is, I play about 95% of my games against players with a lower rating, so it's to be expected that there are more WS than LS, and more LL than WL respectively. everything else would be very weird. there are also just way more wins than losses period, because I won more games than I lost since I started making this list. your post kind of comes across as offensive, and I don't really get why. but I understand even less why you find the results weird.

I think MQ was pointing out that your results are typical of human nature.  When we succeed (in any area, not just Dominion), we tend to attribute it more to our own skill and abilities rather than good fortune.  When we fail, we are more likely to blame bad luck and circumstance than note our own mistakes.  I think there is a name for this psychological effect, but I don't remember it.  This is also a reason why the most popular games tend to have both skill and luck -- so the winners can feel proud and the losers don't have to feel too bad about themselves (I think Richard Garfield discussed this somewhere in his Luck vs. Skill talk).

But playing mostly lower rated players could account for that too.

It's a variation of the fundamental attribution error.

Specifically, it probably falls under self-serving bias.

I think that's actually the proper description, though they kind of seem like basically the same thing to me: external influences cause the bad things in your life while you cause the good things and vice versa for other people.

[theright555J]

So if one wins a game because of a gaffe by the opponent (as in the opponent had a theoretical better deck but didn't handle endgame tactics properly, for example), would that count as a "WS" or a "WL"? Could be either in my opinion...perhaps skill allowed one to eke out the win despite the inferior position, or perhaps one got lucky that the opponent flubbed his position?

[silverspawn]

So if one wins a game because of a gaffe by the opponent (as in the opponent had a theoretical better deck but didn't handle endgame tactics properly, for example), would that count as a "WS" or a "WL"? Could be either in my opinion...perhaps skill allowed one to eke out the win despite the inferior position, or perhaps one got lucky that the opponent flubbed his position?

uh... i guess it depends on why he got the better deck. if i played the worse strategy, and he fucked up so i won anyway, i'll definitely write a WL. if we did the exact same thing, he got a big advantage, screws up in the end and throws it, i'll write a WS

unless he throws via missclick, though that has never happened before. then it's probably WL

[GendoIkari]

Any sort of non-mental tracking, including both point counting and deck contents tracking, is not allowed by the rules, because anything the rules do not explicitly allow is implicitly forbidden. (This is the opinion of Donald X himself, so it's not really up for argument.) As such, playing with any tracking is playing a variant of the game. If all players in a match consent to playing the variant, then that is fine. If any of them doesn't, then the variant should not be used, and if one player goes ahead and tracks anyway, then that is cheating. (Notice how, in the current implementation of the point counter, it's implemented so that it's only used if all the players consent to its use, either by joining a game with "#vpon" in the title or by choosing not to disable the counter once in the game.)

The problem is that by this definition, Dominion Online is always only a variant to the game, because it provides a full log.

Which, as I have mentioned before, is one of the reasons that I have not, and will not, play on Goko.

[soulnet]

Which, as I have mentioned before, is one of the reasons that I have not, and will not, play on Goko.

I think this kind of argument is moot. Any online Dominion is a variant: Iso was also a variant because it provided facilities for you not to forget to play some Treasure card and also not to automatically play Treasures that may hurt you (like Copper when GM is out, or Venture that can skip good cards and/or cause unwanted reshuffles). IRL you need to think about those kinds of things yourself. Moreover, providing counters of the number of actions, buys and money you have is also against the rules. It is just way more comfortable than having to count it yourself. Same thing about the size of piles, you may miscount if you do it by hand, just as you can miscount the VP or the number of Golds left in your draw deck.

[GendoIkari]

Which, as I have mentioned before, is one of the reasons that I have not, and will not, play on Goko.

I think this kind of argument is moot. Any online Dominion is a variant: Iso was also a variant because it provided facilities for you not to forget to play some Treasure card and also not to automatically play Treasures that may hurt you (like Copper when GM is out, or Venture that can skip good cards and/or cause unwanted reshuffles). IRL you need to think about those kinds of things yourself. Moreover, providing counters of the number of actions, buys and money you have is also against the rules. It is just way more comfortable than having to count it yourself. Same thing about the size of piles, you may miscount if you do it by hand, just as you can miscount the VP or the number of Golds left in your draw deck.

Most of the things that Iso provided that you mention was to solve problems that Iso itself created... the problems of misclicking, for example. Misclicking doesn't exist IRL. You do have a valid point about online Dominion necessarily having some differences and changes from IRL Dominion. But providing a full log of the game at all times is not one of those necessities.

Providing your current money total and action total only shows you information that is open knowledge in IRL Dominion as well. The only difference is that in IRL Dominion, you need to add up information that's on the cards in front of you manually. But a log of the entire game is information that is NOT available in IRL Dominion, and has been discussed at great length about how playing with such a log is a variant. It completely takes away all memory component of the game. There is no longer any need to mentally track how many of what each player has bought, because Goko provides that information to you at all times (albeit in a format that requires you to spend a minute going through and gleaning the information).

[soulnet]

Which, as I have mentioned before, is one of the reasons that I have not, and will not, play on Goko.

I think this kind of argument is moot. Any online Dominion is a variant: Iso was also a variant because it provided facilities for you not to forget to play some Treasure card and also not to automatically play Treasures that may hurt you (like Copper when GM is out, or Venture that can skip good cards and/or cause unwanted reshuffles). IRL you need to think about those kinds of things yourself. Moreover, providing counters of the number of actions, buys and money you have is also against the rules. It is just way more comfortable than having to count it yourself. Same thing about the size of piles, you may miscount if you do it by hand, just as you can miscount the VP or the number of Golds left in your draw deck.

Most of the things that Iso provided that you mention was to solve problems that Iso itself created... the problems of misclicking, for example. Misclicking doesn't exist IRL. You do have a valid point about online Dominion necessarily having some differences and changes from IRL Dominion. But providing a full log of the game at all times is not one of those necessities.

Providing your current money total and action total only shows you information that is open knowledge in IRL Dominion as well. The only difference is that in IRL Dominion, you need to add up information that's on the cards in front of you manually. But a log of the entire game is information that is NOT available in IRL Dominion, and has been discussed at great length about how playing with such a log is a variant. It completely takes away all memory component of the game. There is no longer any need to mentally track how many of what each player has bought, because Goko provides that information to you at all times (albeit in a format that requires you to spend a minute going through and gleaning the information).

I am fine with people disliking the whole log. I am not fine with people citing the rulebook or Donald's words to argue their disliking, because providing a money counter is the same type of illegal thing. IRL, you need to remember actions trashed with Procession, the number of Spoils played, Treasures played with Counterfeit, choices made with Steward, Count and Minion, whether Durations were played for the first time this turn, etc. Since AFAIK nobody ever had a problem with the money counter, I find the complains about the legality of a complete log silly. Of course, I understand both are not the same and I think liking the money counter but not the whole log or the VP counter is a reasonable position, but I think all of those are the same from a rulebook point of view.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with the whole log being available, but I rarely look at it other than the last couple of turns. Having it available makes play more relaxed, though, and I think that's a good thing. Same for the VP counter.

[GendoIkari]

Which, as I have mentioned before, is one of the reasons that I have not, and will not, play on Goko.

I think this kind of argument is moot. Any online Dominion is a variant: Iso was also a variant because it provided facilities for you not to forget to play some Treasure card and also not to automatically play Treasures that may hurt you (like Copper when GM is out, or Venture that can skip good cards and/or cause unwanted reshuffles). IRL you need to think about those kinds of things yourself. Moreover, providing counters of the number of actions, buys and money you have is also against the rules. It is just way more comfortable than having to count it yourself. Same thing about the size of piles, you may miscount if you do it by hand, just as you can miscount the VP or the number of Golds left in your draw deck.

Most of the things that Iso provided that you mention was to solve problems that Iso itself created... the problems of misclicking, for example. Misclicking doesn't exist IRL. You do have a valid point about online Dominion necessarily having some differences and changes from IRL Dominion. But providing a full log of the game at all times is not one of those necessities.

Providing your current money total and action total only shows you information that is open knowledge in IRL Dominion as well. The only difference is that in IRL Dominion, you need to add up information that's on the cards in front of you manually. But a log of the entire game is information that is NOT available in IRL Dominion, and has been discussed at great length about how playing with such a log is a variant. It completely takes away all memory component of the game. There is no longer any need to mentally track how many of what each player has bought, because Goko provides that information to you at all times (albeit in a format that requires you to spend a minute going through and gleaning the information).

I am fine with people disliking the whole log. I am not fine with people citing the rulebook or Donald's words to argue their disliking, because providing a money counter is the same type of illegal thing. IRL, you need to remember actions trashed with Procession, the number of Spoils played, Treasures played with Counterfeit, choices made with Steward, Count and Minion, whether Durations were played for the first time this turn, etc. Since AFAIK nobody ever had a problem with the money counter, I find the complains about the legality of a complete log silly. Of course, I understand both are not the same and I think liking the money counter but not the whole log or the VP counter is a reasonable position, but I think all of those are the same from a rulebook point of view.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with the whole log being available, but I rarely look at it other than the last couple of turns. Having it available makes play more relaxed, though, and I think that's a good thing. Same for the VP counter.

I dunno, the thing is that the rules require you to remember all the things you just listed. It's not a skill of Dominion to be able to remember what choices you made with Steward... it's something that has to be done in order to play the game by the rules. For that reason, in a real-life situation, open discussion would generally be allowed among players to determine that information. If I try to buy a card for more money than I have, because I misremembered and thought my Steward was for money, then my opponent will speak up and correct me. (Or he won't notice, and I will have accidentally cheated).

But information about the contents of each deck is a different category of information... it's something that the game of Dominion rewards you for learning the skill of tracking such things. You can improve at Dominion by improving at tracking how many of what cards each player bought. Getting better at remembering if your Pawn gave you another buy or not isn't getting better at Dominion, it just allows you to play Dominion by the rules.

[blueblimp]

Any sort of non-mental tracking, including both point counting and deck contents tracking, is not allowed by the rules, because anything the rules do not explicitly allow is implicitly forbidden. (This is the opinion of Donald X himself, so it's not really up for argument.) As such, playing with any tracking is playing a variant of the game. If all players in a match consent to playing the variant, then that is fine. If any of them doesn't, then the variant should not be used, and if one player goes ahead and tracks anyway, then that is cheating. (Notice how, in the current implementation of the point counter, it's implemented so that it's only used if all the players consent to its use, either by joining a game with "#vpon" in the title or by choosing not to disable the counter once in the game.)

The problem is that by this definition, Dominion Online is always only a variant to the game, because it provides a full log.

Which, as I have mentioned before, is one of the reasons that I have not, and will not, play on Goko.

You're of course free to do whatever you want, but in practice, I have almost never experienced a problem with games being delayed by slow opponents, which among other things suggests that my opponent is probably not re-counting their entire deck each turn.