Print

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

[Donald X.]

No, I think Donald got it right. The point is basically that "favorites" is subjective, and "well-designed" is not, and I agree that strictly speaking, it should be titled "my favorite cards". If I tried to be objective, I'd have masquerade higher, because I know that very few people share my problems here, but I'd still have Spy really low, because I legitimately believe that there are flaws in its design that later cards fixed. I guess this is "my favorite designs". I don't really like just calling it my favorites, because for me that sounds like I don't really have reasons for it, I just like or don't like a card, and I don't think that's true.

Well there's something to be said for being clear. I mean you're even judging that here, you're being unclear while judging clarity.

We can all edit the subject ourselves, so there's that, but I mean, give us a good default why don't you.

[JW]

198. Pearl Diver
Pearldiver is, in many ways, even more useless than Scout or Adventurer. It's a little bit stronger, because it's a cantrip and you will usually buy it for 2$ if you don't want anything else, but that's really the only reason. The sad thing here is that even a cantrip without bonus would be bought more often than Scout. The actual pearl diving is extremely weak, and the only combo I know of that wouldn't also work with a plain cantrip is Pearl Diver/Mystic, which really is just a Conspirator variant. And yes, sometimes it will salvage a dead turn by getting you to the village one turn faster. But for the most part, this is another wasted slot.

There's a second combo in Seaside: Pearl Diver + Lookout. Though that's still not enough to be meaningful.

[Awaclus]

Duchess

Duchess was a key part of my strategy in this game because of its interaction with Native Village.

[Beyond Awesome]

I'm not sure Duchess is a poor designed card. I think the concept of gaining something for buying something else is a cool concept and when you start buying Duchies (especially in BM decks), getting that Duchess is a nice little bonus. It also works great for SR decks and Duke decks. And, sometimes, getting an extra $2 is nice. I mean considering 90% of the time, you are getting the card for free, I can hardly call it weak, nor poorly designed. I do think though the top-decking slightly benefits the opponent more.

[Donald X.]

I'm not sure Duchess is a poor designed card.

What does that have to do with this thread though, which is about how much silverspawn likes things but he doesn't want to call it that? Stick to the topic, Beyond Awesome.

Me, I think silverspawn likes Duchess even less than he lets on.

[pacovf]

I don't know if I should come in and say something sensible, or stay outside and go get me some popcorn.

[Awaclus]

I don't know if I should come in and say something sensible, or stay outside and go get me some popcorn.

Yes, you should.

[AndrewisFTTW]

Without getting into a whole thing, I agree with Donald that discussion on card design is one thing but this is very clearly a "favorites" list. Nothing wrong with a favorites list but let's call a spade a spade.

[Teproc]

I really like Duchess. It's a very cool effect and it often makes me go "huh, do I want this free thing" even when I didn't plan on it.

Sure, it's pretty weak, but it's cool and interesting.

And I love Pearl Diver but I can't really argue with it being a useless card. I think I just like the art.

[AJD]

I'll even say that including other Action cards into a Cultist deck is a very common mistake

Man, I know, right? But you know, somehow every Cultist game I play, I end up getting other Action cards anyway. It's like I can't help myself.

[liopoil]

I'll even say that including other Action cards into a Cultist deck is a very common mistake

Man, I know, right? But you know, somehow every Cultist game I play, I end up getting other Action cards anyway. It's like I can't help myself.

You mean like ruins?

[Donald X.]

No, I think Donald got it right. The point is basically that "favorites" is subjective, and "well-designed" is not, and I agree that strictly speaking, it should be titled "my favorite cards". If I tried to be objective, I'd have masquerade higher, because I know that very few people share my problems here, but I'd still have Spy really low, because I legitimately believe that there are flaws in its design that later cards fixed. I guess this is "my favorite designs". I don't really like just calling it my favorites, because for me that sounds like I don't really have reasons for it, I just like or don't like a card, and I don't think that's true.

You know I appreciate that you say this, and I appreciate that in the OP you say how it's all your opinion.

But when you cast how much you like a card as how well-designed it is, well it's pretty insulting to me. The epitome of good game design is not maximizing how much fun silverspawn has. It's probably more annoying on the low end, but I don't imagine I will like it on the high end either.

I don't mind people singling out hated/loved cards, and I've chimed in on some of those threads. I don't mind you talking about how well-designed you think things are, and I will try to stay out of such discussions. But pretending one is the other, well, yuck. I mean imagine we all discussed how much we liked you, yikes, but wait, we're going to pretend that what we're talking about is, how smart you are, objectively.

[blueblimp]

In defense of Masquerade, it's a much more fun card in IRL 3-4 player games. Passing cards around in a circle is inherently fun, so much so that there are entire games with only this mechanic (e.g. My Ship Sails). That made Masquerade an instant favourite when I was new to Dominion. A version without passing would have been much less fun. Also, ultra-thin-deck engines, where the passing is punitive, are not as common in 3-4 players.

In 2-player online games, I agree that the passing is a bit pointless and mostly leads to occasional frustration with passing a good card and some mildly interesting interaction with handsize reduction, the extreme example being pins. In this setting, a simple "draw 2 may-trash 1" may well be a better design.

[Awaclus]

Well, I like the fact that there's a card that can screw up my opponent's plan even when he has seven million Lighthouses in his deck. Might have something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly fond of Lighthouse. Maybe it doesn't have to be Masquerade, it could be another card instead, but it's certainly nice that it exists and it also fits well with the +2 cards and the trashing.

[markusin]

In regards to Duchess, I think silverspawn was only complaining about the friendly spy effect. The on-duchy-gain effect is much more relevant, I think.

[markusin]

Well, I like the fact that there's a card that can screw up my opponent's plan even when he has seven million Lighthouses in his deck. Might have something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly fond of Lighthouse. Maybe it doesn't have to be Masquerade, it could be another card instead, but it's certainly nice that it exists and it also fits well with the +2 cards and the trashing.

Awaclus's Design Rankings
206. Lighthouse
...

[jsh357]

I think Masquerade is fun in 2 player games too.  The only problem I have with it is that the pin exists, but it's pretty forgivable and requires a 3 card combo that's fairly rare.  Removing the passing removes some of the card's flavor.  Doesn't matter if it's pointless/annoying sometimes; the fact is it does something unique.

I also like Possession, but I realize I'm lonely in that camp and I recognize it has actual confusion issues.  Then again, I don't have a problem with most of the "bad" cards.

[markusin]

I'm thinking it's going to be very hard for anyone to objectively rank 200+ cards in order of well-designedness. There are going to be some standout awesome designs and standout unpopular designs. At best, you can do something like a top and bottom 30 card designs list that's still meaningful.

[Awaclus]

Well, I like the fact that there's a card that can screw up my opponent's plan even when he has seven million Lighthouses in his deck. Might have something to do with the fact that I'm not particularly fond of Lighthouse. Maybe it doesn't have to be Masquerade, it could be another card instead, but it's certainly nice that it exists and it also fits well with the +2 cards and the trashing.

Awaclus's Design Rankings
206. Lighthouse
...

What are the other cards? I'm dying to know!

[Aidan Millow]

No, I think Donald got it right. The point is basically that "favorites" is subjective, and "well-designed" is not, and I agree that strictly speaking, it should be titled "my favorite cards". If I tried to be objective, I'd have masquerade higher, because I know that very few people share my problems here, but I'd still have Spy really low, because I legitimately believe that there are flaws in its design that later cards fixed. I guess this is "my favorite designs". I don't really like just calling it my favorites, because for me that sounds like I don't really have reasons for it, I just like or don't like a card, and I don't think that's true.

You know I appreciate that you say this, and I appreciate that in the OP you say how it's all your opinion.

But when you cast how much you like a card as how well-designed it is, well it's pretty insulting to me. The epitome of good game design is not maximizing how much fun silverspawn has. It's probably more annoying on the low end, but I don't imagine I will like it on the high end either.

I don't mind people singling out hated/loved cards, and I've chimed in on some of those threads. I don't mind you talking about how well-designed you think things are, and I will try to stay out of such discussions. But pretending one is the other, well, yuck. I mean imagine we all discussed how much we liked you, yikes, but wait, we're going to pretend that what we're talking about is, how smart you are, objectively.

The thing is there's a difference between "Silverspawn's favourite cards" and "The cards Silverspawn thinks are the best designed" obviously the former will effect the later which can make it hard to tell but I believe that Silverspawn is at least attempting to write the later and that unless you're damn confident he's not or that he can't tell the difference you should give the list the benefit of the doubt.

[ThaddeusB]

There are four different attacks that are meant to mess with your opponent's draw pile in Dominion: Rabble, Oracle, Fortune Teller, and Spy (and Sea Hag, but let's forget about that for the moment). Four problems come to mind for these kinds of attacks: they could be swingy, they could be weak, they could be tedious, and they could become pointless upon repeated play.

Seems this is true to some degree with all times of attacks.  I fail to see how that is a problem - maybe even a plus.  An attack that utterly destroys the opponent (Cultist) is not much fun.  I do agree having to resolve the spying over and over again online is boring.  Not much of an issue live though as once you put a card back once you don't have to do it over and over again.

[ThaddeusB]

d) Possession and Outpost turn sequences are just too complicated.

Whoever said Outpost turns get confusing, I disagree. You only get 1 outpost turn and the card stays out, so I don't really see what is confusing about it.

He meant Outpost played on a Possessed hand, and it is certainly confusing in that case.  Just look at the FAQ - it has like 3 paragraphs explaining all the possibilities of the two interacting.

[ThaddeusB]

Scout is widely considered to be the weakest card in Dominion, and while this is kind of a boring conclusion, I think that's exactly what he is. I also think that being weak is his only problem - the idea of taking victory cards from your deck into your hand is something I really like - but fact is, a card that's ignored in approximately 98% of the times when it shows up is just a waste of space, good idea or not. We're out of cards that I dislike, so a 9-card Kingdom enabler is the next worst thing.

Considering Transmute handily won the worst card poll, I'm not so sure how wide that conclusion is.  If it weren't for the existence of the forum meme, I doubt there would be much consensus.  I mean Scout is obviously a weak card, but it's not obviously the weakest.  I certainly would take a free Scout over a free Thief on most boards - at minimum it can provide useful ordering ahead of a terminal draw and never helps the opponent.

Adventurer is the same as Scout, really. It costs 6$, even though it could easily cost 3$, making it probably the second weakest card in the game. Digging for Treasure cards as a concept is okay, but again, that doesn't help if the card is too weak to ever get bought.

There is no way Adventurer would be fairly priced at $3.  On average, it will be about a terminal Gold, so should probably cost 5.  It is actually a pretty good card in a money deck (if no strong terminal draw) even at 6.  Most people here (and most boards) favor engine to big money, and Adventurer is weak in an engine, so that is part of the reason for the reputation.  The only real problem is the opportunity cost of passing up Gold.  When you get a "free" Adventurer for some reason (perhaps a swindled Gold), it is normally helpful, albeit somewhat less so than Gold in most decks.  At $3, Adventurer would make big money crazy good, which I doubt many people want.

Talisman is the weakest version on a list of Workshop Variants, that is cards that can gain cards costing 4$ or less. Other than Talisman, this list consists of Workshop, Ironworks, Armory, and you could make a case for Hermit, but let's not.

So, even ignoring the Victory card restriction, when is this card ever better than Ironworks? Well, if you
a) draw it with 3$ and want two 4$'s, or
b) draw it with 4$, want a 5$, and either don't want a silver, or don't have Actions left.

I'm sure both cases have happened plenty of times, but still, there is no way I ever buy this card over Ironworks, because you can't plan ahead for either of those cases. The far more common and relevant case is that you draw it with 5$+ and want both a 5$ and a 4$, and here Ironworks is clearly better.

And then there is the restriction. Why is it there? I honestly have no idea. This card is clearly worse than Ironworks without it. I guess if it was there, a hand of multiple talismans could get one victory card each, which none of the other variants can, so maybe that's the reason. Whatever the case, the fact that it does have it means that it's not usable for garden/silk road rushes, which just cuts about half of its utility. There are still situations where you buy it, and on its own this wouldn't be that low, but the problem is really that it's being overshadowed.

The restriction is almost certainly there to block a multiple Garden gain.  Workshop+Gardens is already pretty good; Talisman+Gardens would be crazy good.  That is not necessarily a problem (see Beggar-Gardens), but allowing (easy) multiple garden gains could lead to a pretty devastating split in a mirror, which is probably not something you want.

3+Gainer is going to be fairly common in the early game, so if a 4-cost card split is highly important, Talisman will beat the others.  It also doesn't use an action, so there is a chance for terminal attack, which Armory and Workshop can't do.   There is also this sweet combo: http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20140920/log.53ae3072e4b024efbd4224b7.1411268187569.txt#2-6 which Ironworks & Workshop couldn't do.

[scott_pilgrim]

I like the bottom half of Duchess, that was good enough to make a card about.  But I don't think terminal silver on top makes it interesting, and then the everyone spies part doesn't feel like it belongs.  I think I've said this before but I think the bottom half of Duchess would have fit really well on Scout, since it's a card you might want late in the game but usually don't have time to buy.

[silverspawn]

You know I appreciate that you say this, and I appreciate that in the OP you say how it's all your opinion.

But when you cast how much you like a card as how well-designed it is, well it's pretty insulting to me. The epitome of good game design is not maximizing how much fun silverspawn has. It's probably more annoying on the low end, but I don't imagine I will like it on the high end either.

I don't mind people singling out hated/loved cards, and I've chimed in on some of those threads. I don't mind you talking about how well-designed you think things are, and I will try to stay out of such discussions. But pretending one is the other, well, yuck. I mean imagine we all discussed how much we liked you, yikes, but wait, we're going to pretend that what we're talking about is, how smart you are, objectively.

yikes. I think I need to take a step back. I had no idea this thread would bother you, or that you would even care, and it's the last thing I want.

So, if I'm reading this right, you agree that the difference of naming it "design ratings" as supposed to "favorites" is that the former claims to be objective, which is wrong because I'm not being objective. Well, I didn't think this through when I made it. I just thought, I have a lot to say about a lot of cards, so why not make a thread and say all of it, maybe some people will care. It's not bothering anyone else, but we are talking about something you created, so it's understandable that it bothers you. Even though this threads is clearly going to be mostly praise, I mean I'm only through 13 of 206 cards, and I'm barely negative anymore.

But that's not relevant, you got a point. If you want, I will edit the thread name and/or the OP. How about "silverspawn's card list" as the name, and

I will rate all official Kingdom cards by their design.

to

I will rate all official Kingdom cards by how much I like their design.

would that be okay? Or, if there's anything else you want me to change, say it. I mean, I already admitted in the thread that I'm not purely objective, specifically about Masquerade, so that's really the the only thing left to do. And, I'm really sorry if it was insulting, it wasn't on purpose. I'll also say that I used to have my doubts about this thread, but then jsh did his, and I really thought I was doing the exact same thing, only talking about mechanics instead of art.