Print

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

[Awaclus]

As I now use percentages I can compare cards from different lists. This is the rating currently (missing the cards costing $5 and $6):

Marauder 72.1%
Squire 70.9%
Ironmonger 66.2%
Market Square 62.1%
Hermit 60.5%
Deatch Cart 58.9%
Forager 56.8%
Procession 52.6%
Wandering Minstrel 52.3%
Fortress 52.2%
Urchin/Mercenary 51.0%
Storeroom 51.0%
Scavenger 48.3%
Sage 46.5%
Feodum 45.5%
Poor House 46.3%
Beggar 34.8%
Vagrant 26.7%
Armory 25.5%
Rats 18.7%

Forager should definitely be above Death Cart.

[ipofanes]

Little love for Procession here.

The other day my son and I played a Prosperity/Dark Ages fun game involving Procession, Bishop, Worker's Village, Graverobber, Catacombs, and Grand Market.

[werothegreat]

How could I forget Ironmonger?  Ironmonger is awesome!

[LastFootnote]

How could I forget Ironmonger?  Ironmonger is awesome!

Ironmonger is the definition of a filler card. It seems to serve no strategic purpose. It's something you'll almost always buy over Silver at $4 unless you're being cursed heavily. I wouldn't say it's one of the strongest cards relative to its cost.

This is all just my opinion, of course. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[werothegreat]

How could I forget Ironmonger?  Ironmonger is awesome!

Ironmonger is the definition of a filler card. It seems to serve no strategic purpose. It's something you'll almost always buy over Silver at $4 unless you're being cursed heavily. I wouldn't say it's one of the strongest cards relative to its cost.

This is all just my opinion, of course. I'd love to be proven wrong.

It can be either a Village, a Lab, or a Peddler, depending on context (ignoring Curses), AND it cycles.  I would not call that filler.

[flies]

How could I forget Ironmonger?  Ironmonger is awesome!

Ironmonger is the definition of a filler card. It seems to serve no strategic purpose. It's something you'll almost always buy over Silver at $4 unless you're being cursed heavily. I wouldn't say it's one of the strongest cards relative to its cost.

This is all just my opinion, of course. I'd love to be proven wrong.

It can be either a Village, a Lab, or a Peddler, depending on context (ignoring Curses), AND it cycles.  I would not call that filler.

The randomness of the choice makes it considerably less strategically useful.  For my money, it's a strong buy in the absence of trashing (turning over coppers) or in the presence of dual type cards.   Otherwise it's so-so.  It's better than silver for an engine (or non-draw BM).

[ehunt]

i dont have much experience with dark ages since i only play it IRL, but death cart seems like it should be up there, as does catacombs.

[Stealth Tomato]

That's interesting and worth looking at, but not necessarily that accurate. I'd say on average $3 and $5 cards are more powerful for their cost than $4 cards.

It's not about straight cost per dollar. $3 and $4 can be treated as the same cost, where the primary difference is the ability (or lack thereof) to open 2 copies of X. $5 is an entirely different level.

[werothegreat]

As I now use percentages I can compare cards from different lists. This is the rating currently (missing the cards costing $5 and $6):

Marauder 72.1%
Squire 70.9%
Ironmonger 66.2%
Market Square 62.1%
Hermit 60.5%
Deatch Cart 58.9%
Forager 56.8%
Procession 52.6%
Wandering Minstrel 52.3%
Fortress 52.2%
Urchin/Mercenary 51.0%
Storeroom 51.0%
Scavenger 48.3%
Sage 46.5%
Feodum 45.5%
Poor House 46.3%
Beggar 34.8%
Vagrant 26.7%
Armory 25.5%
Rats 18.7%

Also, comparing via percentages isn't quite fair, as the groups have different sample sizes.

[SirPeebles]

Sometimes a filler card is what you need when you hit $4.  Also, I've successfully used it as a village in high action density decks.

[ycz6]

Also, comparing via percentages isn't quite fair, as the groups have different sample sizes.

Erm, I believe that is the entire point of comparing via percentages.

[sandstorm]

Also, comparing via percentages isn't quite fair, as the groups have different sample sizes.

Erm, I believe that is the entire point of comparing via percentages.

As I recall the reason for using percentages was so that the card lists for this year could be compared to the same lists of last year since the integer ranks would be misleading due to the greater number of cards this year.  It still isn't a perfect system but it really doesn't work when you compare the lists with different costs to one another.  To understand why this is, consider a hypothetical Dominion universe where Donald decided to release 1000 different cards that cost 4 coins and were all worse than Scout.  This would cause Rats, Ironmonger, etc. to all have a ranking of 98% or higher.

I think that is what wero was trying to say.

EDIT: Actually come to think of it this is also the same reason you can't really compare this years lists to last year using the % metric.  Oh well the lists are still cool.

[Qvist]

It does work - as limited as those lists work anyway.
The question was how good the cards are - relative to their cost. So if we ask this in a different way: Given this card in a kingdom - how often will it affect the game taking into account that there might be other cards at the same price level. Therefore you have to know how good each card compares to cards to the same price level.

The percentage thing was a method to compare to last time, yes. Especially it was needed to let people vote without having to vote for Dark Ages, that was the main reason. But this is also a good approximation for the question asked. Forager for example is sure a good card, but the competion is quite high for cards costing $3 with Masquerade, Ambassador, Fishing Village, Swindler, Warehouse and such. And Hermit and Market Square are good cards too. So Forager is a good card which you will buy quite often, but it's still none of the best 5 DA cards, I think there is no doubt about it. Then it should be at a power level of Swindler and Warehouse.

[sandstorm]

It does work - as limited as those lists work anyway.
The question was how good the cards are - relative to their cost. So if we ask this in a different way: Given this card in a kingdom - how often will it affect the game taking into account that there might be other cards at the same price level. Therefore you have to know how good each card compares to cards to the same price level.

This is not completely true.  The OP asks which cards are best relative to their cost but your lists (thanks again for all the work you do on them) compare how strong a card is relative to other cards of the same cost.  These two things are different but related.  For example, consider hypothetical dominion land once again.  Donald has released 1000 cards that cost 4 coins and are worse than Scout.  You could then say that Scout is very strong compared to most other cards that cost 4.  However, it is still weak compared to its cost because a lot of cards, such as Silver, are usually better and cost less.

[Qvist]

It does work - as limited as those lists work anyway.
The question was how good the cards are - relative to their cost. So if we ask this in a different way: Given this card in a kingdom - how often will it affect the game taking into account that there might be other cards at the same price level. Therefore you have to know how good each card compares to cards to the same price level.

This is not completely true.  The OP asks which cards are best relative to their cost but your lists (thanks again for all the work you do on them) compare how strong a card is relative to other cards of the same cost.  These two things are different but related.  For example, consider hypothetical dominion land once again.  Donald has released 1000 cards that cost 4 coins and are worse than Scout.  You could then say that Scout is very strong compared to most other cards that cost 4.  However, it is still weak compared to its cost because a lot of cards, such as Silver, are usually better and cost less.

I agree: But if all (or most) cards costing $4 are worse than Silver or most cards costing $3, this scenario is hypothetical and would prove bad game design. We know that this isn't true. I think we could ignore that.

[enfynet]

Wasn't it determined that the difference between 3 and 4 was the ability to open with two of them? In that case they're stronger than 3, but after the first few turns that difference is minimal.

[ipofanes]

That's interesting and worth looking at, but not necessarily that accurate. I'd say on average $3 and $5 cards are more powerful for their cost than $4 cards.

It's not about straight cost per dollar. $3 and $4 can be treated as the same cost, where the primary difference is the ability (or lack thereof) to open 2 copies of X. $5 is an entirely different level.

So why does Throne Room not cost $3 then?

[Qvist]

Yeah, but still cards costing $4 are generally more powerful. Just compare Village with Worker's Village, Fortress or any other village variant costing $4 or Nomad Camp in comparism to Woodcutter or Ironworks in comparism to Workshop. As you know this isn't because of opening strength, just because of them being (strictly) better. And that a card costs $4 that you can't double open with it, often shows that this card is strong for $3. If we look at weak cards costing $4 like Pirate Ship, Talisman, Spy, etc. I think they would be pretty solid - or even strong - cards costing $3. It's also about the opportunity cost. If you have 2 buys and $6 you often pick up 2 cards costing $3, but if you have $8 you often rather pick up a Province than 2 cards costing $4.

[RTT]

That's interesting and worth looking at, but not necessarily that accurate. I'd say on average $3 and $5 cards are more powerful for their cost than $4 cards.

It's not about straight cost per dollar. $3 and $4 can be treated as the same cost, where the primary difference is the ability (or lack thereof) to open 2 copies of X. $5 is an entirely different level.

So why does Throne Room not cost $3 then?

A Quote from the secret History of Dominion

Throne Room: For most of its life this card cost 3. My feeling was that you didn't want to buy two on turns 1 and 2, and probably didn't want to buy one on either of those turns (except with the Feast combo). Later in the game it doesn't matter as much whether it costs 3 or 4. So why not 3? In general, if a card can be cheaper, I make it cheaper. I want the cards as cheap as possible without breaking the game, rather than as expensive as possible without going unplayed. So, I knew Throne Room was good, but it seemed like 3 was okay.

Well late in development there was a game where no-one fought me for the Throne Rooms and I had a turn where I chained 6 of them. "I play Throne Room. First I Throne Room a Throne Room; for that one first I Throne Room a Smithy, then a Throne Room; for that one first I Throne Room a Throne Room..." I had a big cloud of actions on the table (we use a binary tree in these ridiculous situations). It's not just powerful; it's messy. I thought, hmm, maybe this could stand being 4 after all. It makes it just a bit harder to get a million of them; you don't go, "Market, buy two Throne Rooms" nearly as often. There was some worry that now there weren't enough 3's, but we decided we could live with just having four. There's Silver at 3, so it's fine to sometimes deal out a random 10 and not get a 3.

[ipofanes]

Yes, I must admit that I was too lazy myself to look it up. +respect for you. A bit iffy decision in retrospect. After I played a round of 4P involving my 9yo and his two friends, I figured few things can be more confusing than King's courted Possessions which cause the possessed player to themselve play (Golem-triggered) Possessions which would have to be resolved before the next King's Courted Possession was carried out, but themselves causing Golem-triggered Possessions in a chain reaction that went around the table. A $3 Throne Room looks tame in comparison.

[RTT]

but Possesoin and Kings court are not in the Base game. The most Players who buy expansions are allready more experienced than beginners who usually just start with the basegame. (Or Intrigue like I did  )

[sandstorm]

I agree: But if all (or most) cards costing $4 are worse than Silver or most cards costing $3, this scenario is hypothetical and would prove bad game design. We know that this isn't true. I think we could ignore that.

Yes my scenario was absurd and would be bad game design but I am simply using it to try and illustrate my point.  My point is that the power level "gradient" is different for each one of the card cost lists.  My hypothetical Dominion was an extreme example of a skewed power level "gradient".  The actual game of Dominion does not have lists that are that skewed but they are all still significantly different from one another.  The different tiers within each cost vary in size and magnitude relative to the total amount of cards in the list.

This is not a perfect example but another way to think about this is, imagine you create two giant lists that rank all of the cards.
1) The first list is made by taking the % rankings of all the cards from all of your lists and ordering them on one giant mega list.
2) The second list is assembled by asking everyone who provided data for the smaller lists to send in their rankings for every single card on one giant list.  Assume that everyone still has the exact same opinion of every card as they did when they sent in the smaller lists. You then take all of these lists and average them out to make the final second mega list.

Lists 1 and 2 are going to look similar for some parts but I expect there to also be some significant differences.  One such difference that immediately comes to mind is that List 1) will likely have Chapel rated at the top while I would expect List 2) to have Goons.  Bigger differences will be noticed once you compare the middle of both lists.

List 2 is the true ranking for power level of cards relative to their cost.  This is why you can't simply rank the Dark Ages cards by the % rank they got on their smaller lists.

[Qvist]

I know what you mean, but I might rank Chapel at #1 of the best card relative of its cost, actually.
And yeah, there would be a difference. The question is if it would be reasonable or not. I'm not sure if the manually compiled list would be better, maybe it would be even more subjective.

Let's have a look at Forge. It was mostly at the bottom in the $6+ list. So, it's a bad card in relation to its cost. But still it's very powerful, especially if you get it early. The real question is: If you have $7 and there are good cards costing $5 would you prefer Forge over them!? How often? And I think that you'll agree now that Forge deserves to be in the bottom half of this theoretical big list. So a list compiled of all lists with percentages would show very well IMO how good a card is in relationship to its cost.