Print

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

[guided]

Chess is several orders of magnitude more popular than Dominion

[Superdad]

It has also been around for approximately 1500 years longer.

[Personman]

Now... if a treasure-map based card was balanced so poorly that it was a must-buy high variance card... THEN I'd have a problem with it.

You mean like King's Court? :/

It has also been around for approximately 1500 years longer.

Isn't that a point in Chess's favor? Most games fade in popularity over time. Only the really popular ones endure like chess has.

That said, I don't disagree with you about the appeal of variance for more casual players. I just don't think it's reasonable to say that therefore Dominion would obviously be more popular than chess if it had been around for as long.

[Death to Sea Hags]

I actually really dislike sea-hag. On non-trashing boards, it's basically a race to see who can mess over their opponents deck the fastest. Then, while doing so, you are actually getting messed up yourself. And once the curses are gone, you both have insanely weak decks since your sea-hags are a blank now as well.

It's then up to the shuffle to see who can dig themselves out of the hole the fastest. You opponent just happened to draw $3 several turns in a row while you sat at $2 forever? Good game.


I tend to dislike cards which force a certain play-style (i.e. buy me or lose), AND when that specific playstyle leads to games heavily dominated by randomness. Sea Hag is such a card, and I hate it for that reason and that reason alone (this doesn't mean I don't buy it though! I just don't like being forced to buy it).

Yes.

[Amaranth]

It has also been around for approximately 1500 years longer.

It depends on what you mean by around for 1500 years. It certainly hasn't had its current ruleset for anything like that time, and I'm pretty sure there are historical variants where randomisers like dice were used.

[ackack]

Lol this is exactly what I was going to say.  I never accept a set with familiar unless there's ambassador (my favorite card in the game) to teach it a lesson

Start rewriting those text books. I've found that if you start silver/potion, then buy familiar and ambassador second time through, you are very competitive. http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201106/12/game-20110612-064914-7854a06c.html

Yeah, I once tried double Ambassador as a counter to Familiar and got wildly stomped. It could have just been bad luck, but I don't think so. The problem is that taking it up against Familiars AND Ambassadors is a losing proposition.

[KMueller]

Chess is several orders of magnitude more popular than Dominion

In the month of June, 2011, do you think more chess sets were sold, or boxes of Dominion?

[WanderingWinder]

Chess is several orders of magnitude more popular than Dominion

In the month of June, 2011, do you think more chess sets were sold, or boxes of Dominion?

Chess sets, and it's not even close.

[kn1tt3r]

On BSW I hate Golem, since it leads to endless turns.

In general I dislike cards that push the luck element of the game, like Swindler or such.

About Tournament... well, on the one hand its problem is that it often greatly benefits the player who already has a small lead anyway (and thus virtually desides the game in some cases), but on the other hand it's just a hell lot of fun.

Don't have a problem with possession though. It's game changing and brings a whole new element in, but that's fine for me. The only issue is that it might lead to really broke games when all players follow the strategy to just play with the opponent's deck and just go for green+cycling for their own one... but that's really rarely the case.

[kyumin133]

I really dislike Tournament, even when I win with it.  After a point it just gets depressing.  Also, I dislike Secret Chamber in Isotropic games because of how long people take to decide what to put back...especially maddening in Minion games.

 There was one terrible game that I was in where my opponent kept revealing Secret Chamber in response to Minion and putting it on top of his deck, so when I used the discard and draw 4 new cards option for Minion, he would draw the Secret Chamber, then reveal it, put it on his deck, etc.  I mean, it's a valid strategy, but it just made the game last forever. haha.

[jimjam]

Has to be hamlet.  Yes, the other cards actually make you lose the game, but hamlet spam is worse than even pawn AP. I even annoy myself when I use hamlet. Plus when my opponent so slowly cycles through his multiple hamlets every turn, I end up making decisions on the basis of ending the game as soon as possible, rather than the highest chance of victory.

[Young Nick]

I am surprised to see that no one (to my knowledge, for I have only skimmed the articles most recent comments) has mentioned the reasons I have for disliking Black Market and Tournament.
First off, don't get me wrong: I am not a huge fan of Possession or Torturer or some of the other cards mentioned. However, they are not game breakers for me.
Black Market and Tournament are because they break what seems like a fundamental rule of Dominion to me: That everyone has the same exposure to the same cards over the course of the game. While it is true that everyone theoretically can get Followers, the fact that there is only 1 copy prevents this from truly being the case. I enjoy Dominion over M:tG because everyone has equal access to cards and prefer it to other games (like Settlers) where you can get freezed out of cards/resources. However, these two cards allow for 1-of's to be bought, unfortunately. I still enjoy playing with them, but I feel a bit guilty doing so. They just don't feel like Dominion cards.

Just my thoughts.

[Superdad]

I think that's a personal thing. I actually *like* that aspect of settlers (for example), because I think it creates a strategical decision.

I like the ability to deny someone a vital resource. It adds a whole other layer of strategical decision making to the game. I.e. I can take the superior (overall) location for my last settlement, or I could take this slightly inferior position, but I may be able to monopolize Stone (for example). I could then leverage that monopoly into a superior trade advantage.

This additional strategical aspect introduces a new decision to make. Anytime you introduce new decisions to make, you increase the complexity and richness of the game (again, personal perspective only, not hard-facts).

/disclaimer, that being said, Dominion is 1000x less luck based than Settlers in my opinion. I am only commenting on that one aspect of the game - which is one that I actually enjoy.

For this reason, I actually enjoy cards like Black Market, because they give you access to a resource that you could solely obtain. The decision to go for that one key card (say, a kings court, or a cursing attack on a non-cursing attack board) in the black market deck is something that I really enjoy.

[jimjam]

It's not strategy to buy a good card from the BM.

[dan11295]

It's not strategy to buy a good card from the BM.

I have some distaste for BM for this reason. Just luck wrt what 3 cards you have the choice from when you play it. Certain cards can be game changers if grabbed from the BM deck:

1)Chapel/Forge: Chapel grabbed early from BM deck with no other good trashing options on the board=gg.
2)Tournament: Will go BM every time Tournament is in there. Free reign over prizes + free duchies late is usually a win.
3) Curse giver with none other on the board.

That said I dislike Sab the most in that it does nothing to improve the deck of the person playing it.

[Superdad]

It is strategy. Of course it is. Any decision you make is a strategical decision in this game.

You reveal X, Y, Z cards in the black market deck. Do you buy one of them, or do you buy something from the 10-kingdom cards available? That decision comes with a benefit and/or a consequence. The better players will make the correct choice more often than worse players.

Sure it's luck based on what is turned up, but that doesn't mean that it also isn't strategic on the decision to both buy Black Market and the decision to choose to buy the revealed cards or not.

This entire game has elements of luck in it, but that doesn't mean the game isn't strategic.

[joel88s]

I just played the most unspeakably unfun game with Possession. Now of course this was largely my own fault: I don't usually play with it, and thought I'd give it a try, and I did have some bad luck, drawing by all my gelt and the potion consecutively the first time around, thus getting jumped to it by opponent. But not having given a lot of thought to the card I also evidently forgot a seminal 'counter' post on theory's blog, Possession/Ambassador, and so the game became essentially a locus classicus for why those two don't mix. Oops.

But what really struck me about the game, as my opponent played three or four Possessions in one turn and sheepishly returned all my platinums - and ultimately my one unplayed Possession - to the supply, was how bad it felt for both of us. My opponent, obviously a very decent guy, seemed to feel almost as bad as I did. Doesn't that sound like the definition of a card to hate?

Of course it's all well and good to say the card can be defended against by a good player, that it's really not all that strong when countered correctly, etc. But the fact is almost by definition any game is not played only by experienced players, and while getting your butt whooped periodically is certainly a normal part of the learning process, it's hard to love a card that not only makes the loser never want to play again, but makes the winner feel like crap as well.

[Amaranth]

I can't say I agree that Possession is unfun, or at least that it's any more unfun than Minion, which has a rather stronger negative effect on you, and kills your original hand just as dead. It's very powerful when it works, but given the cost it'd want to be.

[jimjam]

Sure it's luck based on what is turned up, but that doesn't mean that it also isn't strategic on the decision to both buy Black Market and the decision to choose to buy the revealed cards or not.
This entire game has elements of luck in it, but that doesn't mean the game isn't strategic.

The more luck, the less strategy. If a mountebank comes up and I have enough money (which may be based on luck early game), it doesn't take an expert to see what to do, yet an expert will probably not be able to win against me, unless i mess things up royally.

Is it strategy to buy a card saying "Trash this card. Flip a coin, heads you win,tails you lose"? I had to make the decision to buy the card...

[Donald X.]

The more luck, the less strategy.

I don't really know what you mean by "strategy" there, but I suspect I disagree. You can certainly have games that are high luck high skill (poker), high luck low skill (snakes & ladders), low luck high skill (go), or low luck low skill (tic-tac-toe).

Richard Garfield uses the example of chess-with-dice. It's a chess variant. It's just like chess, except, at the start of your turn, roll 2d6. On a 12, you win! This game has a lot more luck than chess. Does it have less "strategy" than chess?

[Thisisnotasmile]

Sure it's luck based on what is turned up, but that doesn't mean that it also isn't strategic on the decision to both buy Black Market and the decision to choose to buy the revealed cards or not.
This entire game has elements of luck in it, but that doesn't mean the game isn't strategic.

The more luck, the less strategy. If a mountebank comes up and I have enough money (which may be based on luck early game), it doesn't take an expert to see what to do, yet an expert will probably not be able to win against me, unless i mess things up royally.

Is it strategy to buy a card saying "Trash this card. Flip a coin, heads you win,tails you lose"? I had to make the decision to buy the card...

I think the point is it's strategy to say "There are no cursing or trashing cards on the board, but there's Mountebank and Witch in the Black Market, therefore I'm going to buy a Black Market". It's luck to actually pull them out, but it was strategy to give yourself more than a 0% chance to pull them out in the first place.

[Superdad]

Yes exactly, and it's skill to be able to quantify the probabilities and formulate your decision based on that (even if "quantifying" it is not done with a calculator, but with your intuition).

For example (using the example above)...

Witch/Montebank are in the black market deck.

I probably have a 50% chance to win this game without black market.
If I buy a black market and get an early witch/montebank, I have a 70% chance to win.
If I buy a black market and get an mid witch/montebank, I have a 55% chance to win.
If I buy a black market and get an late (or no) witch/montebank, I have a 30% chance to win.

Then you guy-instinct the probabilities of each of those events happening. Of course, you could actually calculate it, if your opponent let you get out a calculator/spreadsheet, but likely you are going to have to gut-feel-it in a game.

Then you gut-feel the "randomness" factor, and decide if you are comfortable. I.e. making this decision will likely make the game more luck based than not making it. Do you feel you can outplay your opponent more if you play a less luck-based strategy? Do you feel you may get outplayed more if you don't?

For example, lets suppose the decision came down to 50-50, you were just as likely to win using this strategy as not using it, but using it means the chance of you winning is more based on luck (getting the W/M or not). If I was against the #1 ranked isotropic player, I'd likely go with it and roll the dice, since I'd likely get outplayed if I went for a less-luck based, but equally strong strategy. If I were against a weaker player, I would try to outplay him instead.


This is where skill/strategy comes into play and dances a tango with "luck". Good players will be able to assess this "luck" and make an informed strategical decision, and they'll make the correct decision more often than a lesser skilled opponent.

Anytime you introduce a new decision, you introduce the opportunity for one player to outplay the other - even if that new decision has a lot of "luck" associated with it.

[ackack]

The more luck, the less strategy.

I don't really know what you mean by "strategy" there, but I suspect I disagree. You can certainly have games that are high luck high skill (poker), high luck low skill (snakes & ladders), low luck high skill (go), or low luck low skill (tic-tac-toe).

Richard Garfield uses the example of chess-with-dice. It's a chess variant. It's just like chess, except, at the start of your turn, roll 2d6. On a 12, you win! This game has a lot more luck than chess. Does it have less "strategy" than chess?

I'm assuming he just means that the return on being the better player is less certain. That's definitely true, but it's also not necessarily a bad thing.

Black Market is occasionally frustrating, and sometimes the choices you get are no-brainers. I think the recent defenders are overstating the case quite a bit, in that regard. But I do think it often introduces pretty intriguing decisions when it offers up useful but less slam-dunk cards and you need to decide whether to concede something else you wanted to buy instead. And the Tactician combo is great. On balance, I think it's a nice card to have around.

[randomdragoon]

I mostly just dislike familiar, because drawing $3P on turns 3/4 is still somewhat unlikely even if you open silver/potion. Sea hag has that bad thing that happens where your opponent's sea hag discards your sea hag.

I actually think it's less an issue with luck than with fun factor. King's court is probably more swingy than either of the above but it's fun to play. Drawing $2P with familiar as the only potion card is just depressing.

[jimjam]

Yes, I agree with ackack. To elaborate some:

With regards to Garfield's example (I don't know what else he said about it) and in general:
Yes, luck and strategy are not mutually exclusive; games with luck have a lot to offer that games without luck don't. But sometimes the luck is just not constructive to the strategy, and takes away from it.

-To reiterate what ackack is saying, strategy is qualitatively similar for Chess/Dice to Chess, but it plays a lesser role than in Chess, because the game may not be determined based on strategy.
-I say similar because it encourages the less skilled player to adopt stalling tactics, which may take some consideration to figure out, but overall would not contribute much to the game-perfection of such a strategy yields a little less than 50% victory rate.
-It happens to give the first player an advantage, since he rolls first. This is a nitpick though, a similar example (a single dice is rolled before the game and 5-6 give the victory to one or the other) would solve this and the above criticism. Though then this example would not line up with BM as well.
-It's just kind of annoying when somebody has a lucky win (and for me sometimes unsatisfying, once I bought a possession with my first black market; at one point I had resolved to trash it with a bishop but I had to masquerade away my bishop or something). Especially if they act like it was some genius move to do so.

In any case I think BM can be fun if there are nice cards like caravan or hunting party that are handy but not dominating.