Archive > Dominion: Nocturne Previews
Don't be fooled, nothing for you here
jonaskoelker:
--- Quote from: Gherald on November 11, 2017, 01:52:26 am ---
--- Quote from: cascadestyler on November 11, 2017, 12:42:40 am ---The definition of synergy being floated by many here is being called arbitrary by many others. It is not. A good definition of synergy is:
X and Y have synergy iff Strength of (X + Y) > Strength of X + Strength of Y.
--- End quote ---
The problem here is one of clarifying scope.
"Strength of X" all by itself? Strength of X on a typical board where you'd use X?
The latter is the one I'm interested in when I look for synergy. X typically brings a certain strength to the table, Y typically brings a certain strength. Those are fast priors I know from all my previous play experience. But here we have X+Y, so is that better or worse than what I typically use X and Y for?
--- End quote ---
If I usually use X and Y for different things than you use them for, could their interaction be synergy for you but not me (or vice versa)? Is 'synergy' defined subjectively?
If you usually use X and Y for their interaction with commonly occurring functions, e.g. you're using villages for their interactions with terminal draw and terminal draw for its interaction with payload, do those interactions fail to qualify as synergies merely because you've used them often? If we don't have the same amount of experience, could an interaction be synergy for you but not for me (or vice versa)?
If I typically use Herbalist to topdeck Philosopher's Stone (and only that), is Herbalist+PhilStone not a synergy? Abstracted and generalized, if X+Y is the thing you use X (and maybe also Y) for, is it synergy?
For clarity's sake: your board analysis process is probably fine; that's not what I'm commenting on. But your board analysis process and everything you bring to it is a bad place to start an attempt at defining synergy. Maybe the thing you care about is "strategically important synergy" or "[other adjective] synergy", which is different from synergy proper.
You old farts had a thing that collected play data and calculated "win rate with" certain cards, I understand. Maybe win-rate-with-x-and-y > win-rate-with-x + win-rate-with-y is evidence that the player in question is exploiting some kind of synergy? (I think this is a bad definition of synergy, but plausible evidence for its existence.)
Maybe something like this could serve as a first draft of a rigorous definition of synergy: the impact on the probability of you winning one game when adding x and y to your deck is greater than the sum of the impacts of just adding x or y by themselves, assuming otherwise optimal play from everyone.
jonaskoelker:
--- Quote from: Gherald on November 15, 2017, 07:00:30 pm ---Synergy is [...] generally defined as [...] "greater than the sum of its parts".
[...] The very reason I am objecting to people's use of synergy with regard to things like Village+Smithy
--- End quote ---
I hope I'm not misrepresenting what you take synergy to mean. I certainly don't intend to.
I think Village+Smithy has synergy by the quoted definition.
As a baseline, imagine a deck with some treasures, including Counterfeit or Charm or some other treasure with +buy.
Then, add a bunch of Villages. With no other action cards, they do nothing.
If instead of Villages you add Smithies, you have your typical Smithy/BM deck.
If you add enough Smithies that you're quite overterminaled, adding the Villages (which did nothing on their own) will do more than nothing.
If Smithy/Village/"BM" is greater than just Smithy/BM but Village/BM is the same as BMU, I think that's "greater than the sum of their parts".
Maybe the disagreement here is over which baseline to use?
(I don't think the +buy is necessary for my example to work: Village/Smithy/treasures can hit $8 more reliably than Smithy/treasures and be better in that way.)
Gherald:
Village+Smithy offer complementary effects that are useful independently on many other kingdoms with different villages and terminals, so they have no particular synergy according to my definition. They just do useful additive things that harmonize well, but are not "synergetic" in a way that distinguishes them from what they already bring to the table in other kingdoms.
Festival+Library do synergize, because together they offset negatives/deficiencies of each other in a way that makes them behave in a way that's greater than the sum of what you can normally use them for.
josh56:
--- Quote from: JThorne on November 15, 2017, 12:02:19 pm ---Example: Tactician/treasure. There is some synergy, because Tac sets up large hands and a +buy, and treasure gives you lots of non-terminal cash to spend. There is some anti-synergy, because Tac makes you discard treasure on the turn you play it. The only possible debate is the degree to which those terms apply, not whether they apply.
--- End quote ---
I don't think that this is particularly helpful as it is like saying that a Conspirator deck has some synergy with Treasures as "treasure gives you lots of non-terminal cash to spend" which MIGHT be useful.
Tactician wants virtual coins. Of course the card is not totally useless in a deck which generates coins via Treasures but it is usually better if you generate coins via Action cards. And in some Coonspirator or Tactician decks extra Silvers or even Golds could hurt.
Witherweaver:
--- Quote from: Cuzz on November 15, 2017, 07:05:42 pm ---This thread is modern art at this point.
--- End quote ---
Do you consider the thread to exhibit synergy?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version