Print

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

[Awaclus]

Just because I conceded that optimal playing mitigates the weakness does not mean it eliminates the weakness completely
it just means it reduces the weakness to an extent. Still, if your opponent has a sprint strategy there is always the possibility that you are  (for example) drawing dead KC's in spite of the fact that you bought plenty of villages and before you "regress to the mean" to use a statistics term, the game ends, either by the opponent exhausting three piles or by depleting or almost depleting the VP piles so as to render any megaturn that you will ultimately have insufficient for a comeback.

If optimal playing includes buying King's Court, it's not weak.

Legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. Most of them require more than one specific card in the game except for Rebuild, and it's commonplace for KC engines to beat a Rebuild rush. An Ironworks/Gardens rush can beat a KC engine fairly often I'd imagine, but all three appearing in the same kingdom is already rare enough that I have to rely on my imagination more than actual experience. Acquiring over 50% of the available VP takes so long I don't think a KC engine has to care about that at all.

[GOON GARDEN]

Just because I conceded that optimal playing mitigates the weakness does not mean it eliminates the weakness completely
it just means it reduces the weakness to an extent. Still, if your opponent has a sprint strategy there is always the possibility that you are  (for example) drawing dead KC's in spite of the fact that you bought plenty of villages and before you "regress to the mean" to use a statistics term, the game ends, either by the opponent exhausting three piles or by depleting or almost depleting the VP piles so as to render any megaturn that you will ultimately have insufficient for a comeback.

If optimal playing includes buying King's Court, it's not weak.

Legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. Most of them require more than one specific card in the game except for Rebuild, and it's commonplace for KC engines to beat a Rebuild rush. An Ironworks/Gardens rush can beat a KC engine fairly often I'd imagine, but all three appearing in the same kingdom is already rare enough that I have to rely on my imagination more than actual experience. Acquiring over 50% of the available VP takes so long I don't think a KC engine has to care about that at all.

Yes, legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. But that is not the only situation in which KC engines might not be the best strategy. Furthermore, "rare" is good enough for the sake of my argument, since All I am saying is that there are rare cases in which KC is skippable. So "rare" is all I need to bolster my argument.

You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. It would take a lot of time for me to break this down for you and hash all this out since you stubbornly insist KC is a good choice in all games. It isn't. So instead of getting bogged down in minutiae I will simply add game logs that illustrate my point as I encounter them in the future.

[Roadrunner7671]

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

[GOON GARDEN]

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion

[Awaclus]

Yes, legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. But that is not the only situation in which KC engines might not be the best strategy. Furthermore, "rare" is good enough for the sake of my argument, since All I am saying is that there are rare cases in which KC is skippable. So "rare" is all I need to bolster my argument.

You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. It would take a lot of time for me to break this down for you and hash all this out since you stubbornly insist KC is a good choice in all games. It isn't. So instead of getting bogged down in minutiae I will simply add game logs that illustrate my point as I encounter them in the future.

I have already acknowledged that there are obviously cases where you should skip KC,

It just sounds like you're overestimating how common those cases are.

You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.

That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.

[Roadrunner7671]

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion

I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.

[Awaclus]

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion

I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.

If it's not the best choice, it's not a good choice.

[GOON GARDEN]

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion

I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.

If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.

[GOON GARDEN]

[
That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.

Why am I not surprised that you disagreed with my assertion that you disagree for the sake of disagreeing? 

There is productive disagreeing and there is disagreeing that is nothing more than petty diversions. You are of the latter category

[Awaclus]

There is productive disagreeing and there is disagreeing that is nothing more than petty diversions. You are of the latter category

If our disagreement is a petty diversion, you're just as much guilty of it as I am.

[Roadrunner7671]

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion

I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.

If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.

No, I mean about 99% of the time KC is equal to or greater than Gold. Only on boards with Junking AND no trashing would I think skipping King's Court was for sure the right play.

[faust]

That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.

This post illustrates the whole problem with your approach to discussions.

[Awaclus]

That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.

This post illustrates the whole problem with your approach to discussions.

The only problem is that not everyone has the same approach. Luckily, a lot of people do, too.

[AdamH]

I just gave you your first respect on the forums! I feel so special! I even gave you two respect! Man, I'm such a nice guy.

Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?

No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion

I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.

If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.

This statement is probably what this whole thread boils down to. So often on these forums people fall victim to making statements that are too strong or hyperbolic in some way, and they become misleading. The combination of that and the pedantry of these forums is sort of inconvenient, because there's two whole pages of discussion here and the most important statement in there (this one) is really tough to find and all of the respect goes towards the people who make little jokes. Oh well, it is what it is. In any case, I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson from this.

And I want to be clear, I'm not singling you out, goon garden -- if anything it's most of the other people on these forums that are guilty of this (myself included, though I try really hard to contain myself and properly qualify my statements and I think others should as well).

You make your own shuffle luck.

I would qualify that statement to: "You make your own shuffle luck most of the time" - If you play well, you will PROBABLY get good draws, and EVENTUALLY you are going to get good draws

My likeness was invoked here so I should respond. Let me begin here by stating my opinion on the game that was linked. Whether or not to go for King's Court here is a close call, in my opinion. There's no trashing, so it's tough to line up your business against a powerful junking attack. On the other hand, there's huge draw and huge potential for payload so if you manage to line up your business then there's a great reward -- the junking attack decreases your chances of lining things up on any given turn but it also makes the game take longer so you get more chances to line things up. The statement "junking attacks make KC less worth it" is just too simple to really be said about all kingdoms in Dominion and have it mean anything worthwhile at all; there are so many other things to consider.

On that note I should mention that one game log where both players probably played far from perfectly (this is almost every game, BTW. Playing anywhere close to perfectly is unbelievably hard for anyone, including all of the people around here) is not going to convince anyone of anything. Yeah you won by a lot, but if your opponent played KC even slightly wrong on this board, he's not going to accomplish anything at all. That's not to say your strategy isn't better, it just means this one game doesn't mean all that much. Money is a conservative strategy on this board, and as I said before, it's close between money and KC shenanigans -- so it's going to be high-variance, depending on whether or not your opponent can line up his cards before you've locked up the game on points.

"You make your own shuffle luck" doesn't literally mean that (we've all seen the jokes where that means you get to stack your deck, lolol). The point of that statement is that when you lose, don't blame your draws: always look at your (and your opponent's) play critically and try and find things to do better. The day you start blaming your draws for losses is the same day you stop getting better at Dominion, so don't do that. You can add your own interpretation, but when I say YMYOSL, that's what I mean, and it's taken me a long way since when I started playing.

Sure you're going to actually lose games because you actually got bad draws. Dominion is a high-variance game no matter which cards are in the kingdom; this is no excuse to stop trying to get better at Dominion.

[GOON GARDEN]

This statement is probably what this whole thread boils down to. So often on these forums people fall victim to making statements that are too strong or hyperbolic in some way, and they become misleading. The combination of that and the pedantry of these forums is sort of inconvenient, because there's two whole pages of discussion here and the most important statement in there (this one) is really tough to find and all of the respect goes towards the people who make little jokes. Oh well, it is what it is. In any case, I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson from this.

And I want to be clear, I'm not singling you out, goon garden -- if anything it's most of the other people on these forums that are guilty of this (myself included, though I try really hard to contain myself and properly qualify my statements and I think others should as well).

You make your own shuffle luck.

I would qualify that statement to: "You make your own shuffle luck most of the time" - If you play well, you will PROBABLY get good draws, and EVENTUALLY you are going to get good draws

My likeness was invoked here so I should respond. Let me begin here by stating my opinion on the game that was linked. Whether or not to go for King's Court here is a close call, in my opinion. There's no trashing, so it's tough to line up your business against a powerful junking attack. On the other hand, there's huge draw and huge potential for payload so if you manage to line up your business then there's a great reward -- the junking attack decreases your chances of lining things up on any given turn but it also makes the game take longer so you get more chances to line things up. The statement "junking attacks make KC less worth it" is just too simple to really be said about all kingdoms in Dominion and have it mean anything worthwhile at all; there are so many other things to consider.

On that note I should mention that one game log where both players probably played far from perfectly (this is almost every game, BTW. Playing anywhere close to perfectly is unbelievably hard for anyone, including all of the people around here) is not going to convince anyone of anything. Yeah you won by a lot, but if your opponent played KC even slightly wrong on this board, he's not going to accomplish anything at all. That's not to say your strategy isn't better, it just means this one game doesn't mean all that much. Money is a conservative strategy on this board, and as I said before, it's close between money and KC shenanigans -- so it's going to be high-variance, depending on whether or not your opponent can line up his cards before you've locked up the game on points.

"You make your own shuffle luck" doesn't literally mean that (we've all seen the jokes where that means you get to stack your deck, lolol). The point of that statement is that when you lose, don't blame your draws: always look at your (and your opponent's) play critically and try and find things to do better. The day you start blaming your draws for losses is the same day you stop getting better at Dominion, so don't do that. You can add your own interpretation, but when I say YMYOSL, that's what I mean, and it's taken me a long way since when I started playing.

Sure you're going to actually lose games because you actually got bad draws. Dominion is a high-variance game no matter which cards are in the kingdom; this is no excuse to stop trying to get better at Dominion.

AdamH, I appreciate your insights and constructive criticism. You are more judicious than most, we could all learn a lot from you.

I freely admit that I am prone to hyperbole, I did learn from this experience.

I agree that bad draws should not be blamed on bad luck. However I want to avoid anyone taking "YMYSL" so far as to delude oneself that Dominion is as exact as chess, when I view it as random to the extent that it sometimes takes a certain amount of turns for someone's draws to "regress toward the mean"....

And I can't go further into this subject without rambling on about statistics, and its really not important

I am grateful for your post, and you have won my respect

[Witherweaver]

Arguing with Awaclus is far more skippable than people think.

[Awaclus]

(we've all seen the jokes where that means you get to stack your deck, lolol)

I've played a game with Governor and Ghost Ship where it literally meant that.

EDIT: Does anyone want to play this board on MF? I don't have Hinterlands though.

[Kirian]

If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.

Okay, I see the problem.

"Far more skippable than people think" (what you said in the the title) is hyperbolic and vague.

"90-93% of the time" is much more specific and useful.  We can argue the difference between 93% and 97%, but that's not "far more."

[GendoIkari]

Sometimes you just completely crush your opponent and win by a margin of one point, and sometimes it's an extremely close game that ends 48-0.

This is absolutely true. I was just explaining this to a new player last week. Many, if not most, close games are decided 5 Provinces to 3. That's a 12 point difference, which can sound like a lot. If both players are going for a massive Goons engine, or a KC-Bridge or NV-Bridge engine, then the game could easily end 51-3, even though the winning player may have just been 1 turn faster, or gotten a luckier hand sooner.

On the other hand, a huge engine can make the potential to win at any time, while the other player is going no where at all. In this case, this huge engine may easily 3-pile while buying a single Estate to win by 1.

The key is to remember that the object is NOT to get the most points. It's to end the game when you have more points than your opponent.

[Drab Emordnilap]

We can argue the difference between 93% and 97%, but that's not "far more."

No? I think saying "King's Court is skippable more than twice as often as people think" counts as "far more".

[Accatitippi]

Welcome to Forum: dominionstrategy, the place where people will argue purely speculative percentages down to the first decimal.
 

[Deadlock39]

39% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[GendoIkari]

39% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Actually I think the actual number is far more than that. Probably 42%.

[Awaclus]

Turns out the engine really sucks on this board when your opponent isn't Lord Bottington. Against the bot, it's better to go for the engine though.

[Witherweaver]

39% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Actually I think the actual number is far more than that. Probably 42%.

3% of all statistics are far more made up than people think.