Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All

Author Topic: Dominion: Greed (1.0)  (Read 32770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

qazzquimby

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2015, 06:39:32 pm »
+2

You would get more playtesting if you posted all your cards.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2015, 06:18:22 pm »
0

You would get more playtesting if you posted all your cards.
Certainly.  I was waiting until some excitement died down regarding Adventures (especially with the previews).  I also expected Adventures to be released earlier in the month, but what can you do?

I have updated Greed's Tavern card to be named Alehouse because of Adventure's Tavern mat.

Quote
Blacksmith
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Reveal any number of Treasures from your hand and discard them. +2 Cards per card discarded.
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, gain a Copper instead, putting it into your hand.
Quote
Slave Trade
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +2 Actions. Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand. Each other player gains a Copper.
In games using this, at the start of your Clean-Up, you may trash a Copper from your hand for every 2 differently named cards you have in play (rounded down).

Like Storyteller, Blacksmith lets you toss out your Treasures, but for 2 cards apiece instead of the value they produce (It is also terminal, which makes a world of difference).  Discarding 1 or 2 Treasures is pretty weak, but if you can discard 3 or more it starts looking pretty nice... until you remember you just put your entire economy into the discard pile, that is.  Blacksmith is tricky to use since it affords such a powerful draw, but only especially so when you are already increasing your hand size (since that draw gets better the more Treasures you can discard)-- but it cannot be a payload since you have to discard your Treasures to get that draw. Maybe having 2 would be good since that is a big draw, but maybe then you just will be left with nothing to discard.
Its Reaction has obvious synergy with itself and helps in Greed heavy Kingdoms.  For example, in Kingdoms using Slave Trade!

Slave Trade approaches Copper junking in a novel way because of Greed's "In games using this effects."  Copper junking is problematic for two primary reasons.  The first reason is because the Copper pile is not bound by the number of players.  In 2-player games it is effectively bottomless, while in 4-player games with desirable Coppers the pile can empty.  The second problem though is because Copper junking makes games a slog in a pretty uninteresting way.  Playing with decks filled with Coppers is not a whole lot of fun.  Slave Trade is designed in an attempt to avoid (or at least mitigate) these two problems.
Slave Trade first gives everyone Coppers including the player of it, which helps it scale (4-player is giving out twice as many Coppers rather than three times). Secondly, its "in games using this" enables all players to remove Coppers from their decks without ever having to buy a trasher.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:32:06 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

qazzquimby

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2015, 04:41:48 pm »
+2

I've been playing with these as they come out, and I really like the "in games using this" effects. Two buys per turn changes the whole game in a really interesting way. Is there some kind of release schedule, so I don't need to keep checking back here?
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2015, 08:24:47 pm »
0

I've been playing with these as they come out, and I really like the "in games using this" effects. Two buys per turn changes the whole game in a really interesting way.
Care to let me know how any of your games have been going? I am glad to hear someone is enjoying them.

Is there some kind of release schedule, so I don't need to keep checking back here?
Off the forum, I have been moving from one location to another. I am just getting settled, so I can release cards more evenly. I offer my apologies. How about Thursday\Sunday? Sounds fun.

See you tomorrow.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

qazzquimby

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2015, 03:36:12 am »
+2

Street is the only one we've spent much time on, since we have them in rotation with all other cards, and that's how the randomizers were drawn.
Street's constant effect, as I said, is a very interesting addition, and something I like having in rotation. The active effect of +2 cards, cards cost 1 less, was rarely seen as worth it.
That was probably partially because, being given the excitement of two buys every turn, people didn't want to lose that, and partly because -1 cost antisynergizes with fewer buys.
I'm not saying it's underpowered, that's just how it played. Also, given your "in games using this" effect, it still benefits the game even when no one is buying it.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2015, 07:34:06 am »
0

Quote
Countess
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. At the start of Clean-Up, if you did not buy any cards this turn, gain a Duchy.
In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more.
Quote
Inquisitor
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
Choose one: Discard a card and each other player gains a Curse; or trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
In games using this, when you gain a Victory card costing $6 or more, put it on top of your deck.

Countess will let you weasel your way into Duchies so long as you give up the rest of your turn. Sounds pretty bad initially, but those Victory cards are more expensive now, so maybe it is your best bet to take that $6 Duchy.

Inquisitor is a $3 Curser, but that attack of course comes with a cost. Inquisitor can only give out Curses if you have a card to discard... and that is sort of interesting. See, despite how immediately available Inquisitor is, games with Inquisitor as the only Curser will very rarely end with an emptied Curse pile.
Inquisitor's "in games using this" can be problematic to remember (and has proven the only effect so difficult to remember in Greed), so I recommend placing the Inquisitor randomizer on top of the Province pile to remind players of its effect. The effect is actually quite helpful to the card since players are forced to take the hit for Victory cards immediately rather than later, slowing the game down so that Inquisitor has more time to hand out Curses.

EDIT: Countess changed from "In games using this, Victory cards that don't cost $4 cost $1 more." Inquisitor changed from "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card costing $6 or more, put it on top of your deck."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:32:16 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7085
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9838
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2015, 09:56:02 am »
+6

If it helps, there is now a pseudo-official ruling on how cost increases and cost reductions interact due to our playtesting of a cost-increasing card in Adventures. First you apply all the cost changes, then you apply limits (e.g. not less than $0).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7085
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9838
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2015, 10:00:16 am »
+2

I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8123
  • Respect: +8898
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2015, 10:40:16 am »
+1

If it helps, there is now a pseudo-official ruling on how cost increases and cost reductions interact due to our playtesting of a cost-increasing card in Adventures. First you apply all the cost changes, then you apply limits (e.g. not less than $0).

Interesting! While I wouldn't consider it official, it's good to know how Donald would have done it if he'd done it.

Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8123
  • Respect: +8898
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2015, 10:41:51 am »
+3

I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.

Absolutely. Especially since most boards don't have a $4 victory card, and most boards don't have a $6 or more victory card except Province.

If you don't want it to apply to all victory cards, then just specify Provinces. I wouldn't refer to a set of cards that most often won't be around.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

faust

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2568
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3543
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2015, 11:19:09 am »
+2

Those cards seem quite interesting. I want to take a look back at Idol:

Quote
Idol
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. Each other player gains a Curse.
In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck instead of -1VP.

As a Treasure that deals out Curses, I think this needs to be compared to IGG. IGG costs the same, has a worse on-play ability, and only deals out a single Curse. Sure, the opponent gains the Curse immediately with IGG, whereas it is delayed with Idol, but I still think Idol is stronger, and IGG is not such a bad card. I would think Idol could get away with just yielding $1.

I'm not sure I like the concept of the card. In games with trashing, you either ignore this (with strong trashing) or get lots of these to win the split (you don't care about the negative points from Curses, since you'll have trashed most of them when the game ends). So here I don't think changing the Curse -VPs has much of an impact.

In games without trashing, this will most likely create a horrible slog. It's a junker, it's a treasure in your deck, so it discourages engines. But it also discourages buying Golds. So you'll play a game where each of you just gets Silvers and some Action cards, hoping to spike $8. That doesn't spell fun to me.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2015, 03:21:23 pm »
0

Street is the only one we've spent much time on, since we have them in rotation with all other cards, and that's how the randomizers were drawn.
Street's constant effect, as I said, is a very interesting addition, and something I like having in rotation. The active effect of +2 cards, cards cost 1 less, was rarely seen as worth it.
That was probably partially because, being given the excitement of two buys every turn, people didn't want to lose that, and partly because -1 cost antisynergizes with fewer buys.
I'm not saying it's underpowered, that's just how it played. Also, given your "in games using this" effect, it still benefits the game even when no one is buying it.
I am happy for any of Greed to be included among the other cards with which you are playing.
Your report is similar to how I have seen other players use it. Most players seem reluctant to give up their second free buy despite not using it every turn. I am not sure if there is any benefit that could be reasonably afforded to wrest players of this loss aversion.


I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.
I will cover these two suggestions individually.

Countess has not been tested with a simpler "in games using this." I am remorse to see fun $4 alternate Victory cards become useless on boards with Countess, even if there are a limited number of them. I do not believe that it is hard to remember, but for the simplicity garnered from the rules of the card (namely in the event that a $4 Victory\Attack card is created), it may be worth making Feodum, Gardens, Island, and Silk Road useless in those rare events that they appear with Countess.

Inquisitor on the other hand originally had the suggested simpler "in games using this." The problem was that playing from behind became completely impossible with it, especially because gaining Estates was such a losing proposition. Also, Ambassador games were hell. Seeing as the effect was mostly changed so that it would not top-deck Estates, would it be sufficiently semantically simpler if Inquisitor's effect read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card that is not an Estate, put it on top of your deck"?


As a Treasure that deals out Curses, I think [Idol] needs to be compared to IGG. IGG costs the same, has a worse on-play ability, and only deals out a single Curse. Sure, the opponent gains the Curse immediately with IGG, whereas it is delayed with Idol, but I still think Idol is stronger, and IGG is not such a bad card. I would think Idol could get away with just yielding $1.
I appreciate this analysis and have considered it myself. While Idol certainly has a stronger on-play than Ill-Gotten Gains, you analysis omits what makes Ill-Gotten Gains a top 10 card: Ill-Gotten Gains is a rush card. Emptying the Ill-Gotten Gains pile necessarily empties two piles (Trader or Blacksmith aside). While Idol might end up being stronger than Ill-Gotten Gains (seeing as Witch, being an unconditional $5 Curser, is considered stronger), these two Treasures do not compare to one another. Comparisons to Witch and Mountebank are much more apt, but still hard to make because of how Idol makes Curses more painful for the owner of it, which brings up:

I'm not sure I like the concept of the card. In games with trashing, you either ignore this (with strong trashing) or get lots of these to win the split (you don't care about the negative points from Curses, since you'll have trashed most of them when the game ends). So here I don't think changing the Curse -VPs has much of an impact.
Strong trashing does not equate to ignoring a Curser (possibly unless that strong trashing is Hermit). Fast trashing to the point that Curses can be fully removed from players' decks is actually fairly rare. Rat Catcher and Hermit are probably the safest bets to give the precision necessary to trash all Curses. Feel free to grab 4 or 5 Idols and lose more than a Duchy's worth of points from that one lingering Curse though. 2 Idols have proven sufficient in most games to win the Curse split and come out ahead in points, though we have not seen anyone think rushing Idols would be particularly effective in playing with it.

In games without trashing, this will most likely create a horrible slog. It's a junker, it's a treasure in your deck, so it discourages engines. But it also discourages buying Golds. So you'll play a game where each of you just gets Silvers and some Action cards, hoping to spike $8. That doesn't spell fun to me.
I am confused by this argument. Idol is a junker\treasure, so it discourages engines? The way Idol has played, it has been even better in engines because players don't have to have +Actions to play them. If you decide to ignore an engine or whatever combination of Actions are available then you are just buying Silvers and hoping to spike $8, which is why Big Money is so awful in Idol games and you have to play an Action centric deck and (in the case of slow trashing) likely work to toss out Idols and Golds before the game ends.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1853
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2015, 05:41:42 pm »
+1

Why not just change Countess's text below the line to "in games using this, Victory cards that cost more than this cost $1 more?"
Logged

Flip5ide

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
  • Highest Rank/Rating: 58/5600
  • Respect: +135
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2015, 12:36:48 am »
+1

Idol's under-script is super confusing.
Logged
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything." - William Lyon Phelps

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7085
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9838
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2015, 12:41:43 am »
+2

I like some of your ideas (Countess's on-play effect is cool), but your implementations are plagued with all these little exceptions. I would strongly prefer Countess's bottom to just read "In games using this, Victory cards cost $1 more" and Inquisitor's bottom to read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, put it on top of your deck". Much simpler to remember.

Countess has not been tested with a simpler "in games using this." I am remorse to see fun $4 alternate Victory cards become useless on boards with Countess, even if there are a limited number of them. I do not believe that it is hard to remember, but for the simplicity garnered from the rules of the card (namely in the event that a $4 Victory\Attack card is created), it may be worth making Feodum, Gardens, Island, and Silk Road useless in those rare events that they appear with Countess.

I really don't see how the $4 Victory cards specifically are made "useless" by costing $5. Yes it's a big price hike, but Duchies costing $6 and Provinces costing $9 is big, too. Why should the $4 cards get special treatment?

The other problem with singling them out is that it creates rules confusion. Let's say you played Bridge, so Island costs $3. That means it doesn't cost $4, so it costs $1 more. But now it costs $4! Even if you have a clear ruling on this, I don't see the "benefit" of this exception being worth it.

Inquisitor on the other hand originally had the suggested simpler "in games using this." The problem was that playing from behind became completely impossible with it, especially because gaining Estates was such a losing proposition. Also, Ambassador games were hell. Seeing as the effect was mostly changed so that it would not top-deck Estates, would it be sufficiently semantically simpler if Inquisitor's effect read "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card that is not an Estate, put it on top of your deck"?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that playing from behind became impossible. How so?

I do think the Ambassador interaction is worth fixing, along with the similar Messenger interaction. How about, "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card during your turn, put it on top of your deck"?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8123
  • Respect: +8898
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2015, 09:06:44 am »
+1

But now it costs $4!

Same cost as 3 Provinces.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2015, 09:18:47 am »
0

Why not just change Countess's text below the line to "in games using this, Victory cards that cost more than this cost $1 more?"
I would argue that takes more processing than its current form, since you have to read it and then ask how much Countess itself costs. It also plays strangely with Ferry. Finally, it loses fun interactions with trash-for-benefits on your starting Estates.

Idol's under-script is super confusing.
How so? It replaces the VP worth of Curse (which is normally -1VP) with something else.

The other problem with singling [$4 Victory cards] out is that it creates rules confusion. Let's say you played Bridge, so Island costs $3. That means it doesn't cost $4, so it costs $1 more. But now it costs $4! Even if you have a clear ruling on this, I don't see the "benefit" of this exception being worth it.
As for the rules confusion, "In Games Using This" effects are state based effects so they always apply before any other effect due to cards being played or being in play-- which is not an exception, only an explicit declaration of timing. The only time this gets confusing is if the order in which the "in games using this" effects apply matters (which is why Countess\Fletcher is problematic for $4 or $5 Victory-Attack cards like Dame Valerie Josephine [ugh, this is what I get for posting tired]). In your example, Countess has already applied (because it always applies before other effects like Bridge or Highway), so Island costs $3.

I really don't see how the $4 Victory cards specifically are made "useless" by costing $5. Yes it's a big price hike, but Duchies costing $6 and Provinces costing $9 is big, too. Why should the $4 cards get special treatment?
The difficulty of getting $6 and $9 are incrementally harder than $5 or $8, but getting to $5 is much more difficult than getting to $4 because of players' hand sizes. I wrote up about a paragraph of text arguing why the exception was necessary on top of the previous sentence, but halfway through agreed with you. The cost of complexity here on Countess is greater than the benefit. Away goes the exception.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that playing from behind became impossible. How so?
Often a player overcomes a leading player by building a deck to acquire more than 6VP per turn. Even gaining 7VP per turn can be enough to overtake a player. However, if Victory cards go on top of your deck, when you gain multiple Victory cards in a turn then you next turn is likely forfeit, meaning Estates are now totally unviable. Slowing down after a 12VP+ turn is probably not as big a deal. The way Inquisitor is worded now, a Province\Duchy purchase will (usually) only result in 1 Victory card going to the top of your deck.

I do think the Ambassador interaction is worth fixing, along with the similar Messenger interaction.
Nice catch on Messenger, though I am not as bothered by its interaction since every player has to be hit by it.

How about, "In games using this, when you gain a Victory card during your turn, put it on top of your deck"?
Now that you give that lovely suggestion, the answer seems to be staring me straight in the face. How about "In games using this, put the first Victory card you gain during each of your turns on top of your deck"? Solves the problem of gaining multiple Victory cards per turn destroying your next turn, the problems with gaining Victory cards off turn, while maintaining blanket applicability to the effect.


I did a bit more testing with cards that were slated to be released today, but they have reared some problems that I did not anticipate, so I am reordering the release schedule. Inventor and Tanner will come another day.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 07:28:24 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1853
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2015, 06:37:08 pm »
+1

I would argue that takes more processing than its current form, since you have to read it and then ask how much Countess itself costs. It also plays strangely with Ferry. Finally, it loses fun interactions with trash-for-benefits on your starting Estates.

But that's not a problem; Border Village and Band of Misfits both use this type of wording.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2015, 11:58:51 pm »
+1

But that's not a problem; Border Village and Band of Misfits both use this type of wording.
Border Village and Band of Misfits are evaluated at distinct times while Countess is always in effect. If Countess alters cards with respect to its own cost and applies those changes before any other changes (by my ruling regarding the timing of "in games using this" effects), then a Ferried $2 Countess will still only alter cards that cost more than $4 (its original cost)... I think.


Sorry for the late post. Family stuff. It is still technically Sunday.

Quote
Architect
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one revealed card that doesn't cost $5. Trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
In games using this, Copper costs $1 more.
Quote
Prospector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. Trash a card from your hand. If you have no Treasures in your hand, you may reveal it and gain a Gold.
In games using this, when you gain a Gold, each other player may gain a Prospector, putting it into his hand.

Architect is the Advisor version of Remodel. Its "in games using this" exists by necessity to diversify the play patterns of this fun card, but rarely will have some funny side effects (especially that +Buys are not sufficient to buy Coppers). In most cases, when you play Architect players toss out your Coppers, letting you step them up into Silvers or, if you would rather upgrade your deck faster, into more Architects where they will eventually cannibalize each other. Since there are not usually good targets into which $5 cards can be remodeled, targeting $5 cards is a trivial choice, thus prohibited for the player to your left.

Prospector is a simple trasher with a thematic twist. Whenever players pick up Golds in any way in games using Prospector, everyone gets the chance to take a Prospector to try to get a bite of that sweet Gold rush. Maybe gaining multiple Golds would be a bad idea because of it.

EDIT: Prospector's Gold gaining ability reworded, but remains the same.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:32:33 am by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3407
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3750
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #44 on: May 11, 2015, 12:39:34 am »
+2

Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward. I would also make coppers cost 1$ more only during your action phase, just in case a player reaches a degenerate gamestate where s/he can't produce coins anymore.

The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 01:08:41 am by pacovf »
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7085
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9838
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2015, 01:39:33 am »
+1

Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward.

Strongly agree.

I would also make coppers cost 1$ more only during your action phase, just in case a player reaches a degenerate gamestate where s/he can't produce coins anymore.

I don't think this is really necessary. If you've reached a degenerate game state where you can't even afford $1 each turn, the game sucks for you anyway.

The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.

Strongly agree on both counts.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2015, 07:29:23 am »
0

Architect: I would make it reveal x cards from your hand (3?) and drop the 5$ condition, which is just super awkward.
Strongly agree.

Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.

The Prospector "in games using this" effect is just what is this I don't even. Gaining to hand might be too much? Anyway, I would make the revealing compulsory. There really isn't much difference, and it makes the card text shorter, which it needs.

Strongly agree on both counts.

Would you please elaborate more? I considered making the reveal compulsory, but it saves all of 5 words (19 characters) and 0 lines of text, so I went with what made the card more fun.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

qazzquimby

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2015, 07:29:00 pm »
+1

While I agreed with most of the comments on previous cards, these don't look problematic to me. Thanks for sharing  :)
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3407
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3750
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2015, 09:33:23 pm »
+2

Are you guys allergic to costs? This check is not complicated, does not create any rules ambiguity, improves the play patterns of the card, and makes play of the card simpler since it reduces decision making for the player of it as the player to his left has to only make one decision instead of X decisions (and is making decisions with full information which makes the choice easier). Allowing the Architect player to reveal X cards from hand makes Architect significantly stronger because with a little bit of hand-size increasing one can basically choose which card he trashes which is not the point of Architect. Architect is played because you want to Remodel something, anything, and it hardly matters what.

Well, it's new tech, so we are naturally wary. If it's not strictly necessary to get the card to do what you want, I would do without it. What would you say is the point of preventing 5$ cards from being remodeled?



Quote
Would you please elaborate more? I considered making the reveal compulsory, but it saves all of 5 words (19 characters) and 0 lines of text, so I went with what made the card more fun.

5 words is quite a bit. It removes one "if", which makes the card easier to parse. It's not a huge deal, but it's there.

Gaining a 4$ card to hand is crazy strong. Making all other players gain a 4$ card to hand for free is a crazy strong penalty. Sure, maybe they won't want to, but it's still crazy. The card would have to be playtested a lot to see if it works or not. Maybe people will simply avoid buying Gold or Prospectors in games using the latter, whether that happens to be the right decision or not? It's sort of a game of chicken here. Hard to predict.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 11:54:45 pm by pacovf »
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

DLloyd09

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion: Greed (beta)
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2015, 10:58:35 pm »
+2

I think a lot of these cards are very neat; thanks for sharing them.

I guess my concern with things is more logistical than anything else, and you can probably speak best to this having playtested these cards quite a bit: How do you find it is to manage all of the "In games using this" effects? A couple of people earlier posted suggestions about tokens or a new card color. I suppose that could be helpful but even so, with just nine of the cards you've revealed so far, if I'm playing with all of them in the same Kingdom I have to remember:

  • Trashed Curses return to the Supply (Arcanum)
  • Victory cards cost $1 more (Countess)
  • Curses are of variable penalty based on how many valuable treasures are in your deck (Idol)
  • The first Victory card you buy each turn is top-decked (Inquisitor)
  • Attack cards cost $1 less (Fletcher)
  • Coppers can be trashed from hand before Clean-up (Slave Trade)
  • You have 2 buys per turn (Street)
  • Copper costs $1 more (Architect)
  • When you gain Gold, other plays may gain Prospector in hand (Prospector)

I could imagine that playing with all of these at the same time (which I haven't tried, admittedly), it would be really tough to keep all of these new effects in mind. Over time, much like official cards doing weird stuff, some of that probably just becomes ingrained.

I suppose it's just that unlike with "while this is in play" cards, you don't have the text right there in your play area, but rather you have to survey the Kingdom each time you need a reminder.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All
 

Page created in 0.099 seconds with 21 queries.