Can we have variants to the "3 piles empty=game over" rule?

Previous topic - Next topic

Pizzaelemblast

Some games are just fast-ending non-games due to the 3-pile rule. Particularly games with both ruins and curses. They would play out as much more interesting proper games if they didn't end by the 3-pile rule.


So that's why it would be great if this rule could be adjusted in the advanced options, or even better in the autoplay options. There could be multiple options: extend to 4-pile or 5-pile instead of 3-pile, end only by provinces running out, or just give an exact number of turns and then the game ends at that point (I'll bet experts would have fun crafting challenge games with that option). I can think of some more cool options but I think I'll leave it at that now for brevity.


I surmise that the 3-pile rule was originally made to accommodate the base game, which didn't have so many powerful cards, and on top of that to accommodate the game as experienced by new players. Because, for new players, they could reasonably both build dysfunctional decks, and no one's deck would have been strong enough to buy provinces often, except through the occasional lucky hand. And so in that case the game would have just dragged on and on, so it needed an alternate end condition in the 3-pile rule. If new players experienced the game dragging on and on while failing to be able to buy provinces, it would've seemed like the game didn't "work", which could be a thing to cause bad reviews, so I surmise that the 3-pile rule was important when Dominion was still a new game.


But today, Dominion is very established and popular, and the conditions of playing online are different from playing with cards in so many ways. We have tons of expansion sets with more powerful cards on average than the early sets, and this makes it much more rare that the board is so weak that tedium occurs before all 8 provinces get bought.


Do people agree with my assessment? Even if you don't agree perfectly with it, would you still prefer if there was a way to turn off the 3-pile rule or select other options that cause the game to end?

dane

I think the 3-pile rule adds greatly to the variability of games.  Without it every game would be about building an engine (or accumulating sufficient treasure if that's not possible) to buy Provinces.  With it there's scope in some kingdoms to get into an early lead and then clear three piles before your opponent's engine is working.

Pizzaelemblast

#2
Wow, I disagree greatly. Every engine is wildly different, wherein the game's variability lies. A game ending by 3 piles always has the same essential formula for it to come into play: curses and cards that gain cards, like ironworks for instance. Just because you can get an early lead and then pull the same trick as every other time it was pulled, does not mean you're increasing the game's variability. And this is all assuming the trick was pulled intentionally, which it so often isn't. I see so many game in which people don't even realize they could end the game by 3-pile rule, and I'm rated 51.7, so I'm not largely playing new players. Every time the 3-pile rule happens it's very similar to the last game in which it happened. Had the 3-pile rule not existed and the game was played out fully, it would have been a far more dissimilar game to the last full game, compared to whatever slight variation there is between this curse/ironworks situation and the last one.

Plus: how are you even talking from a point of view of "variability", when I'm the one talking about increasing options, and I'm not talking about ending the 3-pile rule as the main option, assuming you like it. It's like if you said: "We can't add extra flavors to the ice cream shop, because vanilla can taste a bit different at the top of the container vs. the bottom."

Pizzaelemblast

It's like maybe one fifth of the time when there's a 3-pile rule ending that it's because someone actually strategized to make it happen as fast as possible. Four fifths of the time it's more like an incidental and premature event. It's especially bad in 3 player games.

Ingix

Well, maybe most players don't start their strategy to go for a 3-pile ending, escpecially as their seem to be few cards geared to that (maybe Ill-Gotten Gains). But in the course of the game, when contested piles run out/low, it may be possible to pivot to that.

Or rather, players can anticipate that certain piles will be contested, so they build their deck around gaining multiple cards per turn to take advantage of that. Of course, if opponent does not contest those piles, then they can build a very strong engine with it and win by buying Province/Colony.

As you noted, piles are much more contested in 3/4-player games, so one could argue that not being prepared for a 3-pile ending in those games just means you are overlooking an option to win the game.

Of course, I can still understand your wish to have an optinal game mode to remove 3-pile endings, it just means some slogs will take forever.

Pizzaelemblast

#5
I'd rather have some games that go longer (take forever is a huge exaggeration) than have the very common scenario we now have:

All three players are building decks (what a deckbuilding game is supposed to be about). Incidentally the piles get low. Whoever was lucky enough to receive the least curses and keep the most estates (even though it's actually smart to trash them, but hey, luck turned that into an advantage) decides to deplete the 3rd pile. Whoops, game over!

Honestly, think back to all the times the 3-pile rule meant "Whoops, game over!" and notice each time it happens from now on. It's nearly all the times the rule happens. Yeah, you can pivot to exploiting the 3-pile rule, but it's mainly chance that put you at having a bit more VP than the opponent(s) so that you happen to be the one who can use that pivot. The 'deckbuilding' element of the game gets diminished when a tiny differential in VP early on becomes the more important thing.

One of the important things about trashers is that they can offset the luck involved in how many curses people get early and how much those curses hinder their hands. But that balance plays little role when the game just ends early from the 3-pile rule.

Pizzaelemblast

I really just think having an option to extend the 3-pile rule to a 4-pile rule would be so huge. A mode that ended only from provinces disappearing would be nice also, but I 'd be satisfied with just a 4-pile rule. At 4 piles the winner would definitely be who built the better deck, it would rarely be "whoever has the vp edge at the fortunate moment".

Accatitippi

#7
You make it sound like the depletion of piles is an event that is not in the players'control, but it very much is, and in fact is one of the main fields of player interaction in Dominion.
Knowing when you can afford to lower the piles to dangerous levels and when you can't is an important skill in Dominion, just like knowing when you should go for piles and when you should go for points. Then there is the whole topic of finding the tricky 3-pile endings, which is often a very satisfying puzzle onto itself.
That said, a 4-pile game would be an interesting change in pace once in a while (eg, at about the same frequency as colony games happen), but I'll leave it to Donald to introduce that to official Dominion if and when he sees fit.

GoDliKe

Play with 5 people then four piles need to be empty. Those are the rules of Dominion. You can also make the game much more interesting with the extension bloom time
God save the screen

Pizzaelemblast

#9
In SOME games piles being aware of pile depletion is an interesting skill. In just as many or more, it turns what would have been a skill game into "who draws a big hand first at the key moment". Of course it's not completely devoid of skill, but who has a small vp edge when piles get low is objectively less skill-driven than the factors that would have determined a game that played out longer.


It's SO common to be in a situation where you go "I'm ahead in VP and so I'll buy the second to last card in the final pile, allowing me to end the game the turn after, but then whoops, my opponent draws a big combo hand with additional buys to barely pull in front AND take the final card. Damned if I did, damned if I didn't."


Most replies on this thread have just amounted to "These are the games rules, therefore I will call them good".

So inevitably I'll get just as uninspiring replies saying "You coulda bought a duchy, you coulda bought something else!"


Of course, it's a game with many options, each has possible upside and possible downside, and that's the nature of any complex game. If you had bought a duchy maybe you would have won, or maybe the opponent would've used his big combo hand to buy provinces, and then the game goes longer and your duchy weighs down your deck for less value, you just don't know.


Of course you can't perfectly predict the opponent's hand and your upcoming hands. But the shorter the game is, the more it will tend to turn on what randomly comes up at the right time and the less it will be balanced by good hands and bad hands. THAT is undeniable.

Pizzaelemblast

#10
And I do like the puzzles that pile endings can add sometimes, so some generic praise of them does not really refute what I'm saying. I just think 3-pile is too fast for today's game with all expansions, sucking skill out of the game more than putting it in. 4-pile would certainly be more of a skill game.

So I'm not denying that if the game had been originally designed with provinces as the only way to end things, then yes it would've been less good than the way it actually was designed.

But just think back to how the game played out when it was only the base game.

Compare the impact that the 3-pile rule had on the game back then, vs the impact it has now.

Now, just for instance, you have ruins, you have ironworks, which you can play one after another without the aid of a village like you'd need with workshop, you have a random cheap things that will deplete or be depleted fast like magpie, lackeys, and lurker. You have more cards that work with multiples from its own pile like cultist and sauna.

What were the most fast-ending things from the base game? Witch? Workshop and gardens? You've got to be kidding if you think that's comparable to the way the game is now.

The 3-pile rule was in the sweet spot to make a workshop-gardens strategy fun, but when you look at the current game with all expansions and tons of powerful cards, 4-pile would absolutely make for a better game. It would not hurt to have a bit more time to build your deck and piece together card interactions before you get the conundrum of how to play around the last 1 or 2 cards in the last pile. For most boards 4-pile would improve the level of strategy compared to 3-pile, it would feel a lot more like how the base game felt.

jeebus

I think you make very good points, but I doubt you'll get anybody to agree with you here. Most people are too invested in the way it works now to consider that the game could be improved in any way. Even if you're just talking about giving more options, most people don't want to hear it. This is also because most people who reply here are fairly high-level players who have learned to play the game as it is and take advantage of the exact thing you're describing.

But in any case, there are so many features missing from the implementation, that Stef for sure will not include this option any time soon (and rightly so, because many things are more important). And furthermore, I highly doubt Donald would agree to significant variants such is this.


Accatitippi

I for one think that the Dominion base game 1st edition had a pretty unfortunate (slow, weak, clunky) mix of cards, and am very happy with how the game has sped up a fair bit since seaside or so.

Pizza, I've been discussing (and criticizing) Dominion cards and rules - and coming up with my own - for a few years now. I'm not defending 3-piles due to lack of imagination, I defend that rule because it works and I like it.

jeebus