Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhombus on July 04, 2012, 02:02:50 pm
-
Why or why not? Has this been discussed before? It seems like it'd make many of the power 5/2 openings more balanced and have almost no other effect.
-
No, probably not. See Donald X's opinion here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=85.0
-
I agree that $2 is probably best. But, if I had to raise the price, I think $4 is better than $3. At $3, it hurts 5/2 openings way too much, where at $4 it hurts, but not quite as much.
-
The thing is that cards you only want one copy of--like Chapel--don't actually matter too much what they cost. You only want one Chapel, and you want it on Turns 1/2. So then it's just a matter of how available it should be to everyone, based on opening hands. At $2, it's available to everybody.
-
I agree that $2 is probably best. But, if I had to raise the price, I think $4 is better than $3. At $3, it hurts 5/2 openings way too much, where at $4 it hurts, but not quite as much.
I don't get this. Is it because with 5/2, you feel better about spending 5 on something that costs 4 instead of 3? If you're going to want Chapel anyway seems like they hurt the same amount.
-
It's because the person that opened $4/3 can no longer use their $4 on whatever they want and the $3 on chapel, but have to settle for chapel as their $4 and have fewer choices for the second card.
If both players open $5/2, it doesn't matter whether chapel is 3 or 4, because they both have the choice between opening chapel/nothing or (any card 5 or under)/nothing. But if one person opens 5/2 and the other player opens 4/3, then it's a smaller disadvantage for the 5/2 player if chapel is 4 instead of 3.
-
I think the answer used to be that it should cost 2, because it was always a mandatory opening all the time. But as the game moved forward Chapel has grown a bit weaker and it's possible to win games without it, and it's much more plausible now that a 5/2 player could beat a 4/3 player who paid 4 for a Chapel.
We also have better 2's now to compensate the 5/2 player that feels obligated to buy a 4$ trasher (hey, like Jack), like Lighthouse and Courtyard.
I mean, is Remake so strong it should be 2$? Heck no. And it's often more powerful than Chapel. But Remake/Lighthouse is an ok opening, and Trading Post/nothing or Hunting Party/Duchess or Merchant Ship/nothing stays competitive with 4/3 Remake openings.
-
It's because the person that opened $4/3 can no longer use their $4 on whatever they want and the $3 on chapel, but have to settle for chapel as their $4 and have fewer choices for the second card.
D'oh! Seems obvious now :P
-
Chapel at 4 and change it to trash any number of cards in hand?
-
I agree that $2 is probably best. But, if I had to raise the price, I think $4 is better than $3. At $3, it hurts 5/2 openings way too much, where at $4 it hurts, but not quite as much.
I don't get this. Is it because with 5/2, you feel better about spending 5 on something that costs 4 instead of 3? If you're going to want Chapel anyway seems like they hurt the same amount.
Yeah, sorry, I was unclear, but ftl explained it better than I did. It's not so much the difference for someone who gets 5/2, but that 4/3 is too strong compared to 5/2 if Chapel costs $3.
-
The sad thing is, now that I see it again, I'm pretty sure I have seen the reasoning before :P This isn't the first thread ever to talk about Chapel costing more, and I've read what Donald X has said about it, but apparently it didn't all stick.
-
Most two-player games of Dominion pit a 3/4 opening (or 4/3 obv.) vs. another 3/4 opening. In those games, Chapel costing less than $4 rather than $4 increases the number of possible openings, which makes the game more interesting.
-
Most two-player games of Dominion pit a 3/4 opening (or 4/3 obv.) vs. another 3/4 opening. In those games, Chapel costing less than $4 rather than $4 increases the number of possible openings, which makes the game more interesting.
Yes, but why not $3? I understand that increasing the cost to $3 makes it less powerful in most 5/2 games, but then it just takes it down a few notches, right? Doesn't it feel a bit off that it's found in so many of the top openings?
-
It's because the difference between Chapel/- and Chapel/Silver is much bigger than Chapel/$5 card and Chapel/Silver. The 5/2 vs 3/4 game is inherently unfair for one player, but a $2 cost Chapel makes the difference a bit smaller. This is especially true when you consider that there weren't many good alternative $2 cards in Base, which would make the 5/2 opening especially bad if Chapel were $3.
I suspect that the same argument does not work for Ambassador because Ambassador is weaker in 3p, which is what Dominion was playtested on if I remember correctly. So if you open 5/2, you do not necessarily have to open Amb/nothing. Also, multiple Chapels are generally useless in any deck, whereas multiple Ambassadors are very good in engine decks, so you need to make them harder to pick up with +Buy.
-
I suspect that the same argument does not work for Ambassador because Ambassador is weaker in 3p, which is what Dominion was playtested on if I remember correctly.
Are you saying this from experience? Because when we play a 3-player game, and two people buy Ambassadors and the third doesn't, we call that guy "the Ambassador bitch."
-
Yes, but why not $3? I understand that increasing the cost to $3 makes it less powerful in most 5/2 games, but then it just takes it down a few notches, right? Doesn't it feel a bit off that it's found in so many of the top openings?
It's $2 so you can buy it more easily when you're choking on Curses (whether or not that's a good play). A lot of new players see that as the only point to Chapel. Deciding if having 2/5 should be especially good or especially bad was not as relevant to me.
The linked post covers more of this.
-
I suspect that the same argument does not work for Ambassador because Ambassador is weaker in 3p, which is what Dominion was playtested on if I remember correctly.
Are you saying this from experience? Because when we play a 3-player game, and two people buy Ambassadors and the third doesn't, we call that guy "the Ambassador bitch."
Yeah, I've seen that too. If everyone picks it up, it's weaker since it becomes much harder to get a smaller deck. It's still strong; everyone has to pick it up even if just as a defense against 2 other players. That actually says bupkis about why its cost is $3 over $2, if everyone needs to pick it up anyways. Wooooooops.
I'm not very good at Ambassador, but my feeling is that a good $5 could be enough to overcome a T1/T2 ambassador. Whereas with Chapel getting it after turn 1 or 2 is terrible.
Edit: Okay I'm just going to justify Ambassador being $3 over $2 to myself as limiting the ability to easily get multiples and move on
-
It's because the difference between Chapel/- and Chapel/Silver is much bigger than Chapel/$5 card and Chapel/Silver. The 5/2 vs 3/4 game is inherently unfair for one player, but a $2 cost Chapel makes the difference a bit smaller. This is especially true when you consider that there weren't many good alternative $2 cards in Base, which would make the 5/2 opening especially bad if Chapel were $3.
Having a $5 card available as early as turn 3 is the counterbalance to missing a second buy. You also have more chance to draw your $5 card in $5/nothing than an opponent who plays $4/anything has to draw his $4 card. Chapel at $2 only compounds that; a turn 3 Chapel doesn't guarantee your $5 play on turn 4, but it gives you a much bigger chance of getting it on both turn 4 and turn 5 - and depending what you buy, maybe even on turn 6 too.
-
Edit: Okay I'm just going to justify Ambassador being $3 over $2 to myself as limiting the ability to easily get multiples and move on
There's no good reason really. Ambassador seemed like a silly card. Then it seemed like a good card. Then it seemed like a strong card. The whole time it cost $3 and I never considered, should this cost $2. I changed it from giving N cards, N = the number of players, to giving 2 cards, so you wouldn't get to give 3 cards out at once in 4-player games, and there it is.
Perception would be a reason to charge $3. $2's want to look weaker than $3's, even though they mostly have to be worth buying with $3. At the same time Ambassador does look silly at first, so there's that. I don't think it looks weird at $3 though.
-
Yes, but why not $3? I understand that increasing the cost to $3 makes it less powerful in most 5/2 games, but then it just takes it down a few notches, right? Doesn't it feel a bit off that it's found in so many of the top openings?
It's $2 so you can buy it more easily when you're choking on Curses (whether or not that's a good play). A lot of new players see that as the only point to Chapel. Deciding if having 2/5 should be especially good or especially bad was not as relevant to me.
The linked post covers more of this.
I suppose this makes sense for games with newbs, but we all know here that you really need to open chapel for it to be effective in 99% of situations.
I read the post and understand the reasoning, it just feels overwhelmingly powerful (again pointing to the council room openings list). I'm tempted to say that I agree with all the cards' costs except for this one, the more I think about it. Not a game breaker for sure, just really not balanced for openings here. Should you really be able to open Governor-Mountebank-Witch/Chapel?
-
Are you saying that you should buy Chapel 99% of the time it appears? Because that's definitely not true! It's probably in the 70-80% range (just a guess).
-
149 perfectly priced cards and people are still complaining about Chapel?
Let it go, guys. :)
-
Are you saying that you should buy Chapel 99% of the time it appears? Because that's definitely not true! It's probably in the 70-80% range (just a guess).
I think Rhombus is saying that 99 percent of the time that you buy Chapel, you should do so on Turns 1/2. Which is something else entirely.
-
Are you saying that you should buy Chapel 99% of the time it appears? Because that's definitely not true! It's probably in the 70-80% range (just a guess).
I think Rhombus is saying that 99 percent of the time that you buy Chapel, you should do so on Turns 1/2. Which is something else entirely.
Ah, yes. That is definitely true.
-
149 perfectly priced cards and people are still complaining about Chapel?
Let it go, guys. :)
So, which eight cards do you think are less than perfectly priced? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
The only card I consider wrongly priced is Courtyard. It should cost $3. The difference there is quite negligible, though.
Adventurer and Scout would be un-workable as written at any price.
Every other card is exquisitely priced.
-
The only card I consider wrongly priced is Courtyard. It should cost $3. The difference there is quite negligible, though.
Adventurer and Scout would be un-workable as written at any price.
Every other card is exquisitely priced.
I don't think Courtyard is a problem at $2, but yeah it could easily cost $3.
I think Scout would be a perfectly fine $1 card as written. You could probably stretch it to $2 as well. :P But yes, it wants a buff that's not just "make this card cheaper".
What Adventurer needs is not a price change, but a +Buy. It doesn't need to be strong, but that tweak would probably make it strong enough.
Counting House could conceivably be $4, I think, unless I'm underestimating the early-game potential of a $4 Counting House somehow.
Also, I want the official record to note that you have now called Tournament "exquisitely priced". Just saying.
-
I personally don't think Counting House is bad at all. $4 would make it way too strong IMO. But adding a +Buy to Adventurer would probably be perfect.
-
What do people think of Mine for $4? I think I remember Donald even hinting at this one before too...
-
Wouldn't 5 of those cards be prizes? So shouldn't the question be what 3 cards aren't perfectly priced?
-
The only card I consider wrongly priced is Courtyard. It should cost $3. The difference there is quite negligible, though.
Adventurer and Scout would be un-workable as written at any price.
Every other card is exquisitely priced.
I don't think Courtyard is a problem at $2, but yeah it could easily cost $3.
I think Scout would be a perfectly fine $1 card as written. You could probably stretch it to $2 as well. :P But yes, it wants a buff that's not just "make this card cheaper".
What Adventurer needs is not a price change, but a +Buy. It doesn't need to be strong, but that tweak would probably make it strong enough.
Counting House could conceivably be $4, I think, unless I'm underestimating the early-game potential of a $4 Counting House somehow.
Also, I want the official record to note that you have now called Tournament "exquisitely priced". Just saying.
Tournament should be a Prize, instead of a supply card :D
-
Are you saying that you should buy Chapel 99% of the time it appears? Because that's definitely not true! It's probably in the 70-80% range (just a guess).
I think Rhombus is saying that 99 percent of the time that you buy Chapel, you should do so on Turns 1/2. Which is something else entirely.
Exactly. You definitely don't purchase Chapel 99% of the time.
-
The only card I consider wrongly priced is Courtyard. It should cost $3. The difference there is quite negligible, though.
Adventurer and Scout would be un-workable as written at any price.
Every other card is exquisitely priced.
I don't think Courtyard is a problem at $2, but yeah it could easily cost $3.
I think Scout would be a perfectly fine $1 card as written. You could probably stretch it to $2 as well. :P But yes, it wants a buff that's not just "make this card cheaper".
What Adventurer needs is not a price change, but a +Buy. It doesn't need to be strong, but that tweak would probably make it strong enough.
Counting House could conceivably be $4, I think, unless I'm underestimating the early-game potential of a $4 Counting House somehow.
Also, I want the official record to note that you have now called Tournament "exquisitely priced". Just saying.
The biggest reason scout has to cost 4 is clearly to make scout-scout open less of a game changer.
-
The biggest reason scout has to cost 4 is clearly to make scout-scout open less of a game changer.
Cripes double Scout open would be so strong.
-
149 perfectly priced cards and people are still complaining about Chapel?
Let it go, guys. :)
So, which eight cards do you think are less than perfectly priced? Inquiring minds want to know!
Didn't know the exact number of course, but I think Followers is too cheap.
I mean, $0 for a Torturer that chooses both actions. That should at least be a $6.
-
A Torturer that chooses both actions, only draws 2 cards and dilutes your deck with an Estate on the way.
-
A Torturer that chooses both actions, only draws 2 cards and dilutes your deck with an Estate on the way.
Still, the fact that there's only one copy in the game should make it pretty costly.
-
Having a lower cost actually makes prizes weaker cards than they would be with a printed cost of, say $7 or $8. At $0 they can't be trashed for points or be upgraded, remodeled, expanded, developed, or remade into anything useful. They salvage for +1 buy and they can be swindled into curses or coppers. It's true that they can't be hit by Saboteur, but otherwise the $0 cost is actually a weakness.
-
What do people think of Mine for $4? I think I remember Donald even hinting at this one before too...
What he said was that there was one $5 card in the base set that he might try at $4. People just assumed it was Mine. Granted, it's hard to see it being any of the other $5 cards in that set. A $4 Council Room might be interesting, though.
EDIT: I think Mine at $4 would be a great opener in most games without really good deck thinning. Although, it does have a lot of competition, even at $4 (Militia, I'm looking at you).
-
A Torturer that chooses both actions, only draws 2 cards and dilutes your deck with an Estate on the way.
Still, the fact that there's only one copy in the game should make it pretty costly.
More costly than $12 and two buys, followed by having to hook up your Tournament with a Province?