Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Minotaur on November 28, 2018, 02:32:14 am
-
I posted this in RBCI a while back, but really, Pearl Diver 1e is the true RBCI, when it comes down to it...
Useful Pearl Diver
Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the bottom card of your deck. Put it on top of your deck or discard it.
Or as an even stronger buff, you could throw a "you may" into the last sentence, but it wouldn't necessarily need it.
I think Donald is opposed to actually changing what cards do, and would rather introduce a brand new card. And so far, they've always been full reworks, and not anything like what I posted here. The only exceptions I know of are making things explicitly optional if they would lead to "or prove you cannot" situations.
Aside from that, I could see actually paying $3 for this card some of the time, and for $2 I would get them often.
-
Pearl Diver is good and fine as is.
-
Great Hall was fine as-is, but now we have Mill.
-
I think Donald is opposed to actually changing what cards do, and would rather introduce a brand new card. And so far, they've always been full reworks, and not anything like what I posted here. The only exceptions I know of are making things explicitly optional if they would lead to "or prove you cannot" situations.
It would have been great if I could have just changed cards for the 2E versions. I would have changed lots of cards.
The problem is that the players hate us then. You bought the inferior Seaside, now we're selling the fixed version, you can't get the fixes unless you buy the whole box. Well look at how we're trying to bleed our fans and sell them the same thing twice. We're the worst, for fixing up this expansion. We can sell just the new cards separately... except, that product is awful. Here's the product to buy to get "you may" added to Throne Room and Moneylender; any takers? In some cases the card gets worse, e.g. Fool's Gold losing the reaction; it can be hard to see the merit of the change. But if you want everything you have to buy this awful product, we're still the worst.
Aside from that, it's bad to change cards because it leads to people being used to one version and then playing someone else's and arguing about which way the card should work. This doesn't prevent changes but pulls the other way.
So what happened was replacing cards, except for a few cases where the change was very mild and I thought I could slip it through, and Possession dealing with the existence of debt. And I mean there are still people mad that they can't buy a box with just the cards from Guilds that say "Coffers" on them.
Finally, this isn't the place! There's a forum for posting homemade cards; take it there bub.
-
Finally, this isn't the place! There's a forum for posting homemade cards; take it there bub.
This is really about fixing Pearl Diver. (Ok, so a lot of the time it's a pure Cantrip and that's sometimes worth $2, but again, see Mill. That was a nice change.)
Anyway, I'm going to go back to pretending that the card doesn't exist until I randomly roll it online anyway. If there's ever a Seaside update, I'm sure you already have this on the radar for the same reasons as Great Hall, but then again, maybe Seaside doesn't need enough changes. I guess I can only hope that whatever would replace Pearl Diver is really cool, and this suggested change in particular is too close to the original to actually be a different card in that sense.
-
This is really about fixing Pearl Diver. (Ok, so a lot of the time it's a pure Cantrip and that's sometimes worth $2, but again, see Mill. That was a nice change.)
There's nothing about fixing Pearl Diver that doesn't belong in the variants forum.
Anyway, I'm going to go back to pretending that the card doesn't exist until I randomly roll it online anyway. If there's ever a Seaside update, I'm sure you already have this on the radar for the same reasons as Great Hall, but then again, maybe Seaside doesn't need enough changes. I guess I can only hope that whatever would replace Pearl Diver is really cool, and this suggested change in particular is too close to the original to actually be a different card in that sense.
This story has made the rounds, but Seaside didn't get an update pack in part because I couldn't replace Navigator, Pearl Diver, or Embargo. The first two depict real people and for whatever reason Jay didn't want to ask them "so would you be okay with being on a new card with much better art." And then, he had a bunch of Embargo tokens and wanted to use them up.
The hypothetical update would replace those, plus Pirate Ship, Sea Hag, Lookout, and the blanks. If Jay changes his mind it could still happen someday.
-
Sea Hag was fine, but kind of mean and had no positive effect. Lookout was fine, but random stuff can feel bad. Navigator was sort of ok, but didn't feel too good as a terminal. But the other updates have been much better than the originals so far, so I hope it happens.
There's nothing about fixing Pearl Diver that doesn't belong in the variants forum.
Ok, I'll remember that.
-
Sea Hag was fine, but kind of mean and had no positive effect. Lookout was fine, but random stuff can feel bad. Navigator was sort of ok, but didn't feel too good as a terminal. But the other updates have been much better than the originals so far, so I hope it happens.
Some people don't like that Sea Hag doesn't produce resources, but a bigger thing is just that it's bad to have two Witches for less than $5 in one set. You get endless games with junking.
Lookout is fine but lots of people don't like it. Navigator contributes very little.
-
There was nothing wrong with Great Hall at all, and while it's nice to have Mill I'm sad that GH is outtaken in Dominion Online. The difference between 3 and 4 might be small but is significant not too seldom. Hermit likes GH but not Mill, in a slog you might not even be able to hit 4 regularly and so forth. I don't know, but I miss the damned thing :(
Pearl Diver is awesome, don't "fix" it and have to have it cost 3, it's main strength is it's ability to come in bulk.
-
... two Witches for less than $5 in one set. You get endless games with junking.
After I had to look up what the other Witch might be, I must say that Ambassador rather than Sea Hag causes games with endless junking, while Sea Hag may account for some endless games with junking.
-
After I had to look up what the other Witch might be, I must say that Ambassador rather than Sea Hag causes games with endless junking, while Sea Hag may account for some endless games with junking.
Sea Hag has a better power level, but people would miss Ambassador in a way they wouldn't miss Sea Hag.
-
I prefer the 'fixed cards' approach, like Bandit for Noble Brigand for Thief, Miser for Pirate Ship, Messenger for Woodcutter/Chancellor, Hireling for Alchemist. Maybe Exorcist for Transmute? Basically, new cards in expansions that have the same flavour as older, 'bad' cards, but are more fun and balanced.
I like the Pearl Diver bottom-of-deck mechanic, but the card by itself is just an almost-never-buy for me. It could be great on something else.
-
... two Witches for less than $5 in one set. You get endless games with junking.
After I had to look up what the other Witch might be, I must say that Ambassador rather than Sea Hag causes games with endless junking, while Sea Hag may account for some endless games with junking.
Ambassador causes games with flinging the same Copper back and forth between two thin and functional decks, and games with an early resignation.
-
... two Witches for less than $5 in one set. You get endless games with junking.
After I had to look up what the other Witch might be, I must say that Ambassador rather than Sea Hag causes games with endless junking, while Sea Hag may account for some endless games with junking.
Ambassador causes games with flinging the same Copper back and forth between two thin and functional decks, and games with an early resignation.
For me almost every online game of Dominion is either between two thin and functional decks or someone resigns, but I digress. DXV's description of Ambassador as a sub-5 "Witch" got me wondering if it might be good for a hypothetical update to get rid of the potentially endless junking. Like what if it said, "Trash up to two copies of the same card from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse." The Curse pile would run out about as fast as with any other curser, no copper tennis, less chance to get buried in copper, etc.
Edit: I guess you'd lose the fancy uses of Ambassador to empty piles for a win but maybe that's acceptable?
-
A long time ago a 4P game with Sea Hag and Ambassador convinced me that Dominion is better suited for 2 and 3 players.
-
A long time ago a 3P game convinced me that Dominion is better suited for 2 players.
-
A long time ago a 3P game convinced me that Dominion is better suited for 2 players.
I don't know the technical term for that, is it online-only-delusion?
On a more serious note, the game scales best at 3. Ambassador is an obvious example, instead of net-thinning like with 2 respectively net-junking like with 4 at 3 there is a nice balance. Self-synergizing cards which are bonkers at 2 like Fool's Gold, Minion or Sauna/Avanto are more moderate at 3 yet unlike with 4 you can still build a decent engine.
-
A long time ago a 3P game convinced me that Dominion is better suited for 2 players.
I don't know the technical term for that, is it online-only-delusion?
On a more serious note, the game scales best at 3. Ambassador is an obvious example, instead of net-thinning like with 2 respectively net-junking like with 4 at 3 there is a nice balance. Self-synergizing cards which are bonkers at 2 like Fool's Gold, Minion or Sauna/Avanto are more moderate at 3 yet unlike with 4 you can still build a decent engine.
Thank you, I have been wondering how Sauna/Avanto even could pass the bar, but it's not too hard too see that it could be actually fun in 3-player and reasonable difficult to play correctly as well..
-
fun in 3-player and reasonable difficult to play correctly as well..
Lots of fun. You play it correctly, the player to your left doesn't and the player to your right wins as a result.
-
fun in 3-player and reasonable difficult to play correctly as well..
Lots of fun. You play it correctly, the player to your left doesn't and the player to your right wins as a result.
Looks like the dude or dudette to your right was better than you then ... and won? What the hell, this 3P Dominion totally sucks!
Seriously, given that the game is actually playtested as multiplayer game, people who sell their online-only-delusion preference for two-player-only games as objective truth is utterly preposterous.
-
fun in 3-player and reasonable difficult to play correctly as well..
Lots of fun. You play it correctly, the player to your left doesn't and the player to your right wins as a result.
Sounds like a really cool steampunk Old West card shark adventure.
*cocks gun* Hold on there, "winner". I think y'all already know each other. But y'all haven't been properly introduced to Ol' Shooty yet...
-
Looks like the dude or dudette to your right was better than you then ... and won?
Better at sitting next to the player who buys the last Sauna, sure.
-
Looks like the dude or dudette to your right was better than you then ... and won?
Better at sitting next to the player who buys the last Sauna, sure.
Last time I checked five divided by two yields as much of an integer as five divded by three.
Try again.
-
Last time I checked five divided by two yields as much of an integer as five divded by three.
Try again.
Yes, and in a two-player game, if the player sitting to my left makes the mistake of buying the last Sauna at the wrong time, I'm the one who benefits from that, not the player to my right.
-
Last time I checked five divided by two yields as much of an integer as five divded by three.
Try again.
Yes, and in a two-player game, if the player sitting to my left makes the mistake of buying the last Sauna at the wrong time, I'm the one who benefits from that, not the player to my right.
Not that would know it as you don't play 3P games ... but given the scarcity of Saunas in a 3P game buying a Sauna is rarely a mistake.
Try again.
I gotta admit, it is kind of entertaining to read rationalizations for one's dislike of 3P games. Like e.g. Dominion, the way it is playtested and designed.
-
Not that would know it as you don't play 3P games ... but given the scarcity of Saunas in a 3P game buying a Sauna is rarely a mistake.
I'll sit to your left if we ever play one.
-
Thank you, I have been wondering how Sauna/Avanto even could pass the bar, but it's not too hard too see that it could be actually fun in 3-player and reasonable difficult to play correctly as well..
Sauna/Avanto seems harder to ignore in 3-player than 2-player. In 2-player if one player goes for Sauna/Avanto and the other doesn't, the person who goes for it has to slog through 5 Saunas of decreasing usefulness before getting to the more-exciting Avantos. In 3-player, if two players go for Sauna and the last player doesn't, those two players still get to the Avantos quickly.
-
Can we all agree that Awaclus hates 3P games and move forward with our lives?
Side note: I just got a new phone and Awaclus is now officially the first word I've added to its dictionary.
-
3P has a lot of potential for political playing, but the bigger issue in this example is that Sauna/Avanto is cancer (http://"http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17142.msg686581").
-
3P has a lot of potential for political playing, but the bigger issue in this example is that Sauna/Avanto is cancer (http://"http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17142.msg686581").
I always wondered why split piles aren't 6/6. Port can be 12. Rats can be 20.
-
I always wondered why split piles aren't 6/6. Port can be 12. Rats can be 20.
I don't think it came up at the time. If it had or did though, well with 5 split piles (so few as to be just barely doing it as a mechanic) it's 10 more cards which is one card slot - 23 kingdom cards instead of 24. It's a much easier sell devoting a card slot to that in a large set like oh Adventures or Dark Ages, than in a regular-sized set that can't go to 400 cards because it already costs more due to all the metal, like Empires.
-
3P has a lot of potential for political playing, but the bigger issue in this example is that Sauna/Avanto is cancer (http://"http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17142.msg686581").
I always wondered why split piles aren't 6/6. Port can be 12. Rats can be 20.
I think in 2p, Catapult in particular would suffer from being 6/6.
-
You could make a special rule for "This split pile is (3+X)/(3+X)" like with Curses or Victory cards, but man, we've already got enough rules like that, and the super-serious players only believe in X=2 games anyway...
-
You could make a special rule for "This split pile is (3+X)/(3+X)" like with Curses or Victory cards, but man, we've already got enough rules like that, and the super-serious players only believe in X=2 games anyway...
I think the super-serious players believe in Castles. That's a split pile that is 2/1/2/1/2/1/1/2. I also think you can think that a split pile could be X/Y. The sum of these could be 10, but if they wanted something else, they're not bound by that number. Keeping it easy (With 10 Cards in total) I can see a 2/8 split pile working, or even a 6/4 split pile, both in 2P and 3P+ games. Or why not 3/1/6? Don't think too narrow. It's not like Castles are very difficult to grasp. Neither are Knights.
-
You could make a special rule for "This split pile is (3+X)/(3+X)" like with Curses or Victory cards, but man, we've already got enough rules like that, and the super-serious players only believe in X=2 games anyway...
I think the super-serious players believe in Castles. That's a split pile that is 2/1/2/1/2/1/1/2. I also think you can think that a split pile could be X/Y. The sum of these could be 10, but if they wanted something else, they're not bound by that number. Keeping it easy (With 10 Cards in total) I can see a 2/8 split pile working, or even a 6/4 split pile, both in 2P and 3P+ games. Or why not 3/1/6? Don't think too narrow. It's not like Castles are very difficult to grasp. Neither are Knights.
Serious Players see Castles as a stack of 8. Making the piles bigger for 3P or 4P can help with making crucial combos more fair, but then you buff the "force them to slog through the pile unless Player 3 spoils it for everyone" strategy as a side effect. idk...
-
I think Donald is opposed to actually changing what cards do, and would rather introduce a brand new card. And so far, they've always been full reworks, and not anything like what I posted here. The only exceptions I know of are making things explicitly optional if they would lead to "or prove you cannot" situations.
The problem is that the players hate us then. You bought the inferior Seaside, now we're selling the fixed version, you can't get the fixes unless you buy the whole box. Well look at how we're trying to bleed our fans...
...And I mean there are still people mad that they can't buy a box with just the cards from Guilds that say "Coffers" on them.
can't win either way hahaha