Print

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

[liopoil]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

[markusin]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

Over half of the voters votes "No" though. Are some of the people who voted for stacked decks among them.

[popsofctown]

The Quick Claw ban is the only smogon ban I can think of that bans randomness that I know for sure isn't also a rule that balances the game (A hold item that randomly lets a pokemon go first from time to time, no matter how slow it is.  It's not very plausible it'd be more omnipresent or meta-skewing than Leftovers).  If you want an example.


Randomness is a slider you want to pull to a certain point, not something you either want to absolutely maximize or absolutely minimize.  I certainly disagree with Beyond Awesome saying "we should remove as much of the randomness from the game as possible for the sake of skill".  Some of it is good, and important.  Dominion has a bit more than is really necessary, it's safe to remove a little for those that prefer to.

If randomness was super awesome and always good we'd flip a coin every time we buy a Province to see if we actually gain it as a result of buying it. Or CCG designers would let everyone run 1 free cantrip with a small bonus per each deck to add some extra random pizzazz, improving the game. 

[eHalcyon]

My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Please keep your Smogon out of my Dominion. I really don't want to have to find another favorite game.

Genuinely curious, what did Smogon do to mitigate luck in Pokémon? Was it when they banned stuff like those 1-hit KO moves and attacks like Swagger?

They've done a lot more than that.  I don't keep up too much (not sure if Swagger is actually banned outright, though maybe with Prankster parafusion) but they've done some complex bans like no Baton Pass with certain boosting moves.  That's not so much luck though.  Some luck things include sleep clause, evasion clause, moody clause.  Here, I found this list.  A generation out of date, but it gives you an idea.

FWIW, in general I think Smogon does a good job.  I think most of the luck-based things they ban really are highly luck-based, and they are often all-or-nothing.  OHKO moves, for example -- if you succeed, you just win.  If you don't, you just lose.  There's no in-between, not really any room for counterplay or skill to show through.  In contrast, the randomization of starting hands in Dominion promotes counterplay and skill.  Having the "wrong" split is not at all an instant loss, and having the "right" one isn't an instant win.  (The other things they ban tend to be highly centralizing.  Some people complain that the bans remove diversity, except the actual intent and effect is the exact opposite.  The Baton Pass complex ban is one of those; apparently those teams were the only thing you could run at that point.)

I believe Smogon's bans are community driven too.  So hey, it's nice to have this discussion here about it.  I see in the poll that No has a solid majority.

A difference is that Smogon is an unofficial way to play the game while Dominion Online is official, so Donald has a lot more sway.  (Shuffle)Luckily, Donald's opinion aligns with the majority here.

The Quick Claw ban is the only smogon ban I can think of that bans randomness that I know for sure isn't also a rule that balances the game (A hold item that randomly lets a pokemon go first from time to time, no matter how slow it is.  It's not very plausible it'd be more omnipresent or meta-skewing than Leftovers).  If you want an example.

Quick Claw doesn't just let a Pokemon go first.  It's actually a bit weaker than that -- it moves the Pokemon to the top of their speed bracket.  So if I used a priority move like Quick Attack while you used a regular move like Tackle, Quick Attack would go first even if your Quick Claw triggers.

[jsh357]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

Over half of the voters votes "No" though. Are some of the people who voted for stacked decks among them.

I personally am in much higher favor of deck-stacking than just identical starting hands. That option wasn't on the poll. I think deck-stacking is an interesting variant. Naturally, I don't think it should be forced.

[ConMan]

Clearly we need to borrow a lesson from Hex - let the shuffles fall where they may, but after both players* have their first turn, the second player chooses whether to swap seats with the first player.

* Because all true Scotsmen Dominion players play two-player games only.

[Donald X.]

First, I don't have a problem if a 13-year old opens 5/2 and beats me and thinks he's better than me. Good for him. My main point I am raising here is that while I understand random luck is an element of Dominion, I would rather mitigate as much of that luck as possible and make it more skill intensive.

Playing lots of games totally evens out the luck. Look at the league.

It's a game with a significant luck element. I think playing more games is the only good approach for isolating skill. The online ones go fast. And they're fun, you're playing Dominion.

But, usually that's because of my opponent getting bad shuffle luck or not playing well. Assuming the opponent is of similar skill to me, pretty much they would have to get bad shuffle luck.

In conversations about luck and skill, it frequently comes up that someone says something like this, and then someone else steps up and says "if you and your opponent are of equal skill, what's left to determine who wins besides luck?" Sometimes I am that person.

Maybe you're thinking, you want it to be that, you are equally skilled, but you played better this game. But I mean. For the period of time we're interested in, you were more skilled (or luckier, or didn't win, or it was a draw).

I love your game, by the way. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even started this poll. I'm not trying to ruin or change your game, but make it more enjoyable for those who feel the same way about starting hands as I do. I know that you play Magic but remember, as well, that EDH/Commander was created by fans of the game that wanted to create their own variant. Now, EDH is insanely popular and makes a ton of money for Wizards of the Coast. Obviously, players  having whatever hands they want to start won't make more money for you, but it isn't as big of a change as creating EDH either.

Thanks, I am fond of it myself.

It's fair to say that providing popular options in the online version might increase its popularity and ultimately make me money. Money isn't really relevant; the money is unlikely to make a difference, so I would just be pushing for those options to be friendly.

And I do. I push for options that I think will improve the game for some people. Soon I will start yelling at them about the VP counter matchmaking business; so far I have just stated my opinion in a calm speaking voice. I don't need a VP counter personally, though I'd probably use it against bots. It's not for me. My feeling is though, that the VP counter makes some people have more fun, and is not a negative for them. They just totally come out ahead if it's provided, and have less fun when it isn't.

The identical starting hands thing, that makes the game worse, so I don't want it. If there are a few people who actually totally have more fun that way, well there will be more people who use the option but are actually having less fun. That's what Donald X. actually thinks.

I can see being friendly to people who want to run tournaments with it though, I know it's been a thing in the past. I wouldn't go any farther, because the more it's being used, the more joy it's removing.

Dominion actually had more luck day one. If you had to draw 3 cards and there were 2 left, you shuffled first, shuffling in those 2. It was a concern, when taking that out, that there be enough luck left. There was! It all worked out. So I mean, you dodged a bullet there.

[polot38]

These two things can't co-exist in the same ranking system. Ideally, people are playing others with similar skill levels to their own most of the time, but realistically this isn't the case: people on the ends of the spectrum of skill levels aren't going to play people at similar skill levels to them, and people can also simply choose not to play equal opponents. Having a system of identical starting hands drastically reduces variance between games, and thus favors better players. This, in turn, means that two people of equal skill with different preferences in this regard will likely not be ranked the same.

With this in mind, I think the only real options are either always yes or no. I like no for many of the reasons posted before me.

[liopoil]

Sounds like people are a bit more in favor of stacking your starting deck than identical starting hands. New poll time?

Over half of the voters votes "No" though. Are some of the people who voted for stacked decks among them.

Yes: I am.

[blueblimp]

I don't get why there's so much discussion of stacking your deck in this thread. That's not even comparable to identical starting hands because it'd feel like a completely different game, and would require a UI to be created especially for it. Realistically, I wouldn't expect it to ever be implemented by Making Fun. (Identical starting hands does not require UI aside from choosing whether to play with it.)

Identical starting hands is still pretty much the same game as standard Dominion, because you're still shuffling the deck. Even the opening hand is still randomized. The difference in a 2 player game is that you see 5/2 vs 5/2 more often than standard, never see 4/3 vs 5/2, and see 4/3 vs 4/3 a little more often. The stats:

• 4/3 vs 4/3 (standard 69.4%, ish 83.3%)
• 4/3 vs 5/2 (standard 27.8%, ish 0.0%)
• 5/2 vs 5/2 (standard 2.8%, ish 16.7%)

If you were to play a mix of standard Dominion and identical starting hands Dominion, you'd see more variety than if you only play standard Dominion, because of seeing the otherwise-rare 5/2 mirror more often.

I feel there are also a lot of strawmen being thrown around about trying to eliminate variance. Identical starting hands obviously does not eliminate variance, but it does reduce variance. It's not some wild idea to use rulesets that reduce variance in a tournament setting. (Isn't that even discussed in the "luck vs skill" video? It's been a while since I last watched it.)

Maybe it's the case that MF simply doesn't consider it worth putting resources towards implementing identical starting hands, and that's okay. I didn't use ISH on isotropic because of mostly finding games through automatch, so that wouldn't bother me particularly. I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

I suppose the real question is: do you want ISH enough to throw variable into the already sketchy matchmaking?

Based on my experience with the VP counter option, having the option to "prefer ISH" seems like it would just slightly increase the percentage of games with identical starting hands.

[blueblimp]

I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

I suppose the real question is: do you want ISH enough to throw variable into the already sketchy matchmaking?

Based on my experience with the VP counter option, having the option to "prefer ISH" seems like it would just slightly increase the percentage of games with identical starting hands.

I think the most natural way to implement it is how isotropic did, which is that automatch never uses ISH, but it's available as an option for manually arranged games. Same idea as how designed kingdoms are only available for manually arranged games.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I just can't get over how overblown some of these arguments against it seem, like having ISH available as an option somehow defiles the sanctity of Dominion as a game.

I suppose the real question is: do you want ISH enough to throw variable into the already sketchy matchmaking?

Based on my experience with the VP counter option, having the option to "prefer ISH" seems like it would just slightly increase the percentage of games with identical starting hands.

I think the most natural way to implement it is how isotropic did, which is that automatch never uses ISH, but it's available as an option for manually arranged games. Same idea as how designed kingdoms are only available for manually arranged games.

That makes a lot of sense. I can't see why anyone should object to it.

[Voltaire]

The players would play Real Dominion

I for one would love to play in this magical land of no VP counter.

[JW]

I think the most natural way to implement it is how isotropic did, which is that automatch never uses ISH, but it's available as an option for manually arranged games. Same idea as how designed kingdoms are only available for manually arranged games.

On a related note, being able to order your starting deck (for non-rated games) would also be great if you want to test a board while starting with a 5-2 split. Otherwise you need to hit "end turn" a lot with a human testing partner, or resign a bunch of games if against a bot.

I assume that there's no way to play solo games on the new client analogous to "Secret Chamber" from Goko, but if someone knows a method that works, would be interested to hear it.

[Elestan]

I think I started the "stacked starting deck" method for IRL tournaments.  I decided to run that way for a few reasons:

• I don't want to feel like I have to balance the 4/3 and 5/2 openings in every kingdom (I still often try, but sometimes it's hard).
• There isn't time for a lot of games the way there is in a league format, so we can't rely on repeated play to smooth out luck's effects.
• There are some kind of stakes on the line, so players are going to be more upset when luck spoils their chances.

Shuffle luck still comes into play, of course, but I bill my tournament primarily as an event for experienced players, and I think they end up happier if they're given a little more control over their fate.  That's really the deciding factor - I want happy players.

For other venues (like online), I think it would be nice to have as an option if both players want it.  It doesn't hurt anyone, and makes it easier to test out playing different openings.

Forced identical starting hands doesn't interest me...it seems unnecessarily constraining.

[mith]

Another option for two player games: Stack your opponent's starting deck. Still likely to end up with identical choices, but mixing it with stacking your own would reintroduce some variety (i.e. play boards with strong 5s with a 4/3 sometimes) without forcing them to be random and identical.

I think I prefer random these days, though, after preferring identical in the BGGDL days.