Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Destry

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
26
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 19, 2016, 06:25:45 pm »
I never made such an argument. Other posters dismissed a debt attack based on purely theoretical considerations wheras I argued that it is an empirical matter whether an attack with pin potential like Saboteur really is too nasty or not. ^^

tristan - it's a bit disingenuous to take one line out-of-context and argue against a misreading of that one line. You've argued multiple times against exclusion testing, stating that "decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy" and claiming Donald X only uses it rarely. If you have to mischaracterize my words to refute them, well, that says something as well.

As for your argument about Saboteur (and other trasher) pins... Apples and oranges. Whether or not a Saboteur pin is awful has no effect on whether or not a debt pin is awful. Or the likelihood your card will generate a debt pin.

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.

27
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 19, 2016, 04:10:23 pm »
About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.

Dude, I dislike using this argument, but as one of the playtesters with their name on the box, I know more about how much testing Donald X does than you do. Any card he suspects will be problem gets the exclusion testing thingy described in the quote above. Sometimes he'll test cards he thinks are fine, just to prove they don't need to be fixed. It's only one of his testing tools, but a crucial one to keeping the game balanced over the expansions.

No one is claiming Donald X's testing procedure is perfect and catches everything. He has only so much time and resources. But it catches more problems than "decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy."

This isn't about your card. If you and your friends have fun playing that card then it's a good card for youse guys, whether or not it's flawed. I can understand reasons for not playtesting. Playtesting takes time and isn't always fun. I just hate hate hate - King's Court hate - the attitude that off-the-cuff evaluation is an adequate substitute for testing.

28
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 15, 2016, 03:51:15 pm »
But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
I didn't. You can tell via merely looking at it that while Curses are not out yet Debt Peonage is weaker than Witch and Mountebank. It provides the defending player an out via the 2D and +1 Coin token is worse than 2 Cards or Mountebank's 2$ (Mountebank is of course better as it also copper-junks and worse as it doesn't always hit but if anything the copper-junking is stronger; i.e. I find it safe to say that Mountebank is superior to a hypothetical "+2$  Each other player gains a Curse." )

So you misread me. I was responding to your doubts about testing cards by limiting who could buy it in a game. Let me fill in the implied part of sentence quoted out of context. "But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically (when you comparison test Debt Peonage to other cards,) you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank."

My via-looking-at-it analysis is similar to yours - in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger. I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake. I could be wrong. We'll never know for sure because neither of us will playtest the card.

29
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 15, 2016, 02:59:05 pm »
But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.

30
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 15, 2016, 02:26:17 pm »
Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.
You can tell the power of a card when you play with it so I fail to see why one should exclude a player from buying a card. It could be a totally balanced village but if it is the only village in the Kingdom and you can play a much better deck with villages in them even a crappy village will kick ass.
So this excluding-method is highly dubous.

In that case, you set up a kingdom with <new village> and an existing village. One player is only allowed to buy <new village>; one player only existing village; and any other player can do what they want. That's only one data point, but is more likely to give you useful information than everyone buying <new village>. In the case of Villages and Throne Rooms, you've got to do comparative testing, since the strength of those cards is the cards it supports, rather than the card itself. I've never won a game by just getting Villages, no matter how many times I've tried.

So, yeah, you've got a point, cards that are enablers are bad candidates for exclusion testing. Still, Dominion is balanced enough that you can exclusion test, say, Witch, and see if it's balanced. There was a time when there were no other cursers to compare to it.

The downside of testing Debt Peonage with another curser on the board is anything that gives out Cusrses will boost the chance of Debt Peonage setting up a debt pin. But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.

31
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 14, 2016, 04:35:38 pm »
Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.

32
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 14, 2016, 03:57:13 pm »
Well, Debt Peonage is much stronger than Saboteur. Saboteur doesn't give you any benefit; this give you 1-2 coin tokens. Saboteur is frustrating, but you can stop it buy buying 3 coin cards. This just stops you from buying cards.

The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card. I'd bet money, or at least coin tokens, Debt Peonage will dominate.

33
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 14, 2016, 02:51:56 pm »
Hmm - this might be more interesting.


Debt Collector
Type: Action-Attack
Cost:
+3 Cards
Each other player either takes 2 or gains a Curse card, putting it in his hand.
Each player may discard a Curse card to pay off 1.

34
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 14, 2016, 02:47:11 pm »
You can still create a debt pin once the Curses run out. Should be the opposite.

Here's a crude version:

Debt Torturer
Type: Action-Attack
Cost:
+3 Cards
Each other player either takes a Curse or 2

Once the curses run out you can no longer pin them with debt.

35
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Cheap filterer with tokens
« on: June 27, 2016, 04:15:00 pm »
Good point.

<Card Name> - $2 - Action
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one: Put it in your hand, +1 Action and take a <Card Name> token; or discard it and a <Card Name> token. If you discarded a <Card Name> token, replay this card.
---
When you gain this card, gain a <Card Name> token.


I think this would fit in with Last Footnote's Enterprise expansion using Trade Tokens.

36
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Cheap filterer with tokens
« on: June 27, 2016, 02:54:07 pm »
This version plays the same as your original intent

<Card Name> - $2 - Action
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one: Take a <Card Name> token, +1 Action and put it in your hand; or discard it and a <Card Name> token, and if you did, replay this card.
---
When you gain this card, gain a <Card Name> token.

37
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Cheap filterer with tokens
« on: June 27, 2016, 02:05:59 pm »
"repeat this step" sounds too vague to me. Here's my fix.

<Card Name> - $2 - Action
Look at the top card of your deck.
Choose one: Take a <Card Name> token, +1 Action and put it in your hand; or discard it and spend a <Card Name> token, and if you did, replay this card.

It plays slightly different the first time you play it.

38
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Co0kieL0rd's other cards
« on: June 17, 2016, 02:38:42 pm »
Or how about instead of calling from Tavern Mat, it trashes itself. Hmm, then it functionally turns into a Distant Lands variant.

39
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:43:14 pm »
Debtor's Prison
Event -
Each Other Player with Debt gains
Each Other Player gains 1

40
Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Empires Rulebook
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:38:23 pm »
Sounds like a job for the Really Bad Card ideas!

41
Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« on: June 10, 2016, 03:41:18 pm »
The problem with grouping by cost is the cards have a literal cost different from its actual cost. For example, yesterday I played a game with Encampment/Plunder. The literal cost of Plunder is $5. The actual cost never dropped below buying/gaining 3-5 Encampments + the literal cost of Plunder.

If you're going by literal cost, then I'd just convert debt to coin cost. Playing debt off after buying the card is similar to saving up coin tokens before buying a card.

42
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Black Market Auction
« on: June 09, 2016, 05:02:01 pm »
Adding, "If this is your first buy" to prevent buying this an infinite number of times in a turn.

43
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Black Market Auction
« on: June 09, 2016, 04:57:35 pm »
With the release of Empires, debt seems like a natural fit for this card. I stole the wording from Mountain Pass. I changed it to an Event so it's always available to any player.

Quote
Black Market Auction
Cost:
Type: Event
+1 Buy
Reveal the top card of the Black Market deck. After this turn, each player bids once, up to 40, ending with you. If no one bids at least 1, put the card on the bottom of the Black Market deck. Highest bidder gains the card and takes the they bid.

44
Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Empires Bonus Preview #5: Castles
« on: May 13, 2016, 04:55:05 pm »
I can think of one (albeit very specific) scenario where Haunted Castle could cause a problem with you gaining it on your opponents turn. Your opponent plays Governer and selects the remodel option. They trash a Cultist to gain a 7 cost card. You trash a 5 cost card and gain Haunted Castle.

If your opponent has 5 or more cards in their hand they have two instructions that contradict each other.
- Draw 3 cards
- Put 2 cards from their hand on top of their deck.

The general rule is if multiple things happen at the same time, you can choose the order to do them. Either put the cards back first, then draw them, or draw then put cards back.

--edit--
Though thinking about it, Governor effects happen in turn order, so those effects don't happen at the same time.

45
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Slaves - a double-sided Event
« on: May 13, 2016, 04:18:50 pm »
I agree +1 Buy, +1 Action return to Action Phase is plenty powerful for the front.

46
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Online-Only Cards: can they happen?
« on: May 06, 2016, 02:27:00 pm »
This is the one I came up with a while back. It let's you to know if you're winning or not if you're bad at counting cards like I am.

Quote
Canary
Action -
+2 Action
If the game were to end immediately...
If any opponent has more victory points than you, +1 Card and you may trash one card
If all opponents have more victory points than you, +1 Card and you may trash one card

47
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Doom_Shark's Unnamed Set
« on: March 11, 2016, 06:35:08 pm »
Just because a card does everything and more (or less) than another card, the price point shouldn't automatically moves up or down one coin.

Consider the following three cards:

Quote
Village
Action $3
+1 Card; +2 actions

Lightly-Walled Village
Action $?
+1 Card; +2 actions
At the start of Clean-up, if you have this and no more than one other Action card in play, you may gain a Curse. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck.

Walled Village
Action $4
+1 Card; +2 Actions
At the start of Clean-up, if you have this and no more than one other Action card in play, you may put this on top of your deck.

Taking a Curse is a cost in all but a few edge cases, so Lightly-Walled Village should cost $3, even though, because it gives you a choice, it's strictly better than Village. I was being facetious earlier then I said Walled Village is strictly better than Secluded Township. Still, gaining a Curse is almost always bad, and you're likely to topdeck a Walled Village more often than Secluded Township. I'm confident Walled Village is better, and Walled Village is a weak 4.

Personally, if Secluded Township and Village were both out, I'd probably buy both. I don't think I'd topdeck it without a good trasher though.

48
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Doom_Shark's Unnamed Set
« on: March 11, 2016, 05:33:34 pm »
Secluded Township is strictly worse than Walled Village, so it cannot cost $4

49
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fixing Dominion – returns
« on: March 09, 2016, 11:34:57 pm »
Yeah, my love of symmetry has betrayed me.

A possibly better nerf would be

Mountebank $5
+2
Each other player may discard a Curse. If he doesn’t, he gains a Curse. If he gains a Curse, he gains a Copper.

Feels a little too wordy.

50
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Fixing Dominion – returns
« on: March 07, 2016, 01:46:40 pm »
If I were to change Mountebank, I'd make it

Mountebank $5
+$2
Each other player may discard a Curse or a Copper. If he doesn’t, he gains a Curse and a Copper.

Mostly because I'm a sucker for symmetry than anything else.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.