Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]  All

Author Topic: my cards  (Read 30772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2850
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #150 on: October 16, 2015, 05:08:18 pm »
0

I'd say that your version is better than Walled Village, and by that I mean that it's both stronger and probably a more fun/balanced card. But since Walled Village already exists, your new improved Walled Village shouldn't have the same cost.
Well, it can hardly cost 3 as it is superior to Village and it can hardly cost 5 as it is definitely not that strong. So it has to remain at 4 and if it is thus a unintentional quasi-substitute for Walled Village I do not consider the violation of the "do not design cards which are superior to existing cards at the same price" as a serious crime in the case of Walled Village.
Despite not being mechanically as similar to Walled Village as Settlement Port is also virtually always superior to Walled Village.
You should never design a card that is strictly better than another card at the same price point. Even though Settlement isn't strictly better than Walled Village, there would be little reason to pick up a Walled Village over a Settlement.
I know the design principle and I happily violate it in this case as Walled Village is such a weak card. Despite lacking mechanical similarities I cannot imagine a board in which a player would pick Walled Village instead of Port and yet I think it is fine that DXV made Port after Walled Village.
Any board with no trashing and a junking attack, yet an engine seems better. Walled Village makes you actually reliable. Or, you can do Smithy/BM but have 3-4 Smithies and 1-2 Walled Villages. You can keep top decking your Walled Villages until you connect them with your Smithies. Also, if you don't want someone to three pile, Walled Village would be a better buy than Port. With lots of discard attacks you want less cantrips, which Port is. In a slog it would be better, as it would let you wait until you had a turn with Workshop/Trader/Ironworks collision. There are probably more, but I think you get the idea.

Those are all things that indeed harm Walled Village more than Port, but I'm pretty sure none of them amount to enough to make Walled Village a better buy than Port.  Except maybe the two card kingdom Walled Village/Smithy.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9006
  • Respect: +9815
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #151 on: October 16, 2015, 05:53:47 pm »
0

See this seems weird to me. Someone makes a fan card that's very similar to an existing card. It's strictly better, but just barely. Then they say 1 of 2 things about it:

1. "This is a replacement for X" - Respond is "hey, this is a better version of that, neat idea."

2. "Here's my card. I know it's similar to X, but what do you think?" - Response is "You can't do this; it's strictly better than X."

It's the exact same card in both situations. It proposes the same idea. It will get played in the same way. It's a legitimate complaint that X will not get bought if the fan card is available also, but so what? Use the fan card as a replacement for X then. It just seems like it's more up to the player, not the designer, if they are going to replace X with the fan card, or use them both. Just because the creator says it's a replacement doesn't stop anyone from using both. And just because he fails to say it doesn't stop anyone from refraining from using both.

I just thought it was a bit odd to basically see replies along the lines of "this card is bad design, because Walled Village works. Now if it were a replacement for Walled Village, then that would be ok."
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

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #152 on: October 17, 2015, 03:42:25 am »
0

I just thought it was a bit odd to basically see replies along the lines of "this card is bad design, because Walled Village works. Now if it were a replacement for Walled Village, then that would be ok."
Like you I do not worry much about cards being too similar to existing ones (just like I do not worry about fan cards with bold new ideas). But I failed to see the similarity of my card with Walled Village which is always bad so I think the criticism is justified.

I will probably stick with the Mediator-like version as it provides more interesting choices, namely how long to wait until you reveal your card. For example if you want a Coin token, which is probably often better than the Action token, you wanna wait until another player buys a Treasure card but you risk waiting until the turn of a player who has a bad hand and gains nothing during his tirn.
It might slow down play a bit though as every player has to pause for a moment after gaining a card.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4983
  • Respect: +5295
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #153 on: October 17, 2015, 11:33:30 am »
+3

See this seems weird to me. Someone makes a fan card that's very similar to an existing card. It's strictly better, but just barely. Then they say 1 of 2 things about it:

1. "This is a replacement for X" - Respond is "hey, this is a better version of that, neat idea."

2. "Here's my card. I know it's similar to X, but what do you think?" - Response is "You can't do this; it's strictly better than X."

It's the exact same card in both situations. It proposes the same idea. It will get played in the same way. It's a legitimate complaint that X will not get bought if the fan card is available also, but so what? Use the fan card as a replacement for X then. It just seems like it's more up to the player, not the designer, if they are going to replace X with the fan card, or use them both. Just because the creator says it's a replacement doesn't stop anyone from using both. And just because he fails to say it doesn't stop anyone from refraining from using both.

I just thought it was a bit odd to basically see replies along the lines of "this card is bad design, because Walled Village works. Now if it were a replacement for Walled Village, then that would be ok."

The difference is in what you announce as your goal, and whether what you deliver lines up with it or not. If i make a card to replace another, people will rightfully expect it to be similar, and in fact claiming you made up a replacement when they have nothing in common would be weird. It's part of the idea to have only one of them, that they should be similar, and that the new one is stronger/more balanced/more fun than the other. On the other hand, if i say i made a new card, people will expect something... well, new.

I mean, let's turn your point around: I assume you would also react differently to a suggested card (which is totally different from Scout) depending on whether i claim it to be all new or a replacement for Scout, wouldn't you? I mean, if i suggest Counterfeit as a replacement, wouldn't you say that's a nice idea but doesn't make sense as a replacement? It's still the same card, right?

So yeah, it's basically that you announce something different than you serve, without claiming that either thing was generally better. You'd be surprised if a friend announces that now there will be cake just to pull out a pot with fish soup, too.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #154 on: November 11, 2015, 08:10:44 am »
+1

- Ironsmelter - Action

Trash 2 cards from your hand.
For each...
Action card, +1 Action
Treasure card, +
Victory card, +1 Card.


A fairly straightforward trasher in the IronXYZ family.
Thematically Smelter implies that the card should work similar to Forge but I am not sure about this. "Trash Estate and Copper/Curse, gain 2$ card/Estate" depends on the Kingdom cards, "trash 2 Estates, gain 4$ card" is stronger whereas "Trash 2 Coppers/Curses, gain a Copper" is weaker than the pure trash version of the card. In decks with Shelters, Looters and Cursers the trash for benefit version is weaker.
It might be more interesting game-play wise though as it is a slow trasher in the early and a mini-Forge in the later part of the game. The card might be overpowered for 4 as it a trasher which enables you to nonetheless buy something on the turn, as opposed to early trashing with cards like e.g. Chapel or Steward. I am also not sure whether it is exciting enough.


Some ideas for a set of alternative Shelters:


- Townstreet (I scrapped my initial stupid Townstreet idea after having realized that DXV nixed a similiar card) - Action-Reserve-Shelter

+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat
覧覧覧覧覧
At the start of your Buy phase you may call this for +1 Buy.


This is just a modification of Co0kieL0rd's Forest Hut. Forest Hut changes the openings (5/3 and 4/4; note that this is more balanced than Alms which leads to 5/4 and 4/4) and is specifically designed by Co0kieL0rd to kickstart an opening with 2 or 3 self-synergizing trashers.
My card doesn't change the opening that much (2+3or2+2/2 and 2+2/3) and reserv-ifies the Buy. It is fairly deck-dependent; with other cards that provide Buys you will most likely never call it except for your last turn whereas in decks without cards that provide buys it might be a degenerate card that you wanna use a few times.
In the presence of Peddler and Pawn or Candlestick Maker both versions are pretty strong for Shelters but I do not think that this is a big issue.


- Lost Garden - Victory-Shelter

Worth 1 VP for every Shelter, Ruins and Curse in your deck.

Not sure about the ratio value yet. The idea of the card is to create a 'to trash or not to trash' decision. In the presence of good trashers you will never not trash but if there are some crappy trashers or expensive trashers which you can only buy fairly late in the game you might not wanna go for them. Or you might trash Curses/Ruins but stick to Lost Garden if you are only able to start trashing fairly late in the game.
I am not sure though and the card would probably work better for a normal Kingdom card (with a ratio of 2 or 3). Here it would also influence the decision of the attack card buying player and there would be the usual rush for this card in heavy junking games.


- Crypt - Action-Reaction-Shelter

At the end of your Buy phase, trash a card you have in play.
覧覧覧覧覧覧
When you trash this, gain a village (that costs no more than 3/4).
(Necropolis and any Kingdom card that does provide 2 or more Actions is considered to be a village.)


Shelters should be weak so like Bonfire Crypt only trashes cards in play (i.e. mainly Coppers, Action-Shelters and Ruins). Its on-trash ability might be too strong in the presence of good villages, hence the potential price cap. The definition of village is ambiguous (what about Tribute or Ironmonger) so the playing group has to decide before the game in the case of amiguous villages how they wanna handle Crypt.
In case there is no village in the kingdom you can swap Crypt for Necropolis.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 04:18:42 pm by tristan »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4983
  • Respect: +5295
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #155 on: November 11, 2015, 09:17:24 am »
+2

Ironsmelter looks balanced. It's hard to make it nonterminal, so cantrip trasher comparisons don't really apply. It's arguably better than Moneylender, but not strictly - it basically improves flexibility. It looks quite a bit better than Stewart for early trashing, allthough unlike Stewart you can't really hold onto it forever. So, seems fine.

Lost Gardens basically reads "If you still own this at the end of the game, each Curse is worth 1 instead of -1 VP." Also Hovel, but only if Hovel isn't itself replaced. I think this would be more interesting as a whole-game-modifier, similarly to Events.

You can never gain Necropolis, so mentioning it on Crypt is moot.
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1792
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #156 on: November 11, 2015, 09:26:07 am »
0

I had written a longish post ebout these cards, then my mobile farted and I lost it.
Short version:
Ironsmelter is cute, powerful, you could get rid of the +action effect since it's largely irrelevant, but I guess it's cute. I really can't see the comparison with Forge though.
The Shelters:
townstreet won't ever leave the Tavern during most games.
Hidden Garden should call a spade a spade and stop all that "The-cards-that-shall-not-be-Named" nonsense. Unless you change the ratio to 2vp/curse (net +1vp/curse), it won't do much. Even if you do, it won't do much most of the time, except, hey, free estates.
Crypt won't trash coppers unless you combo it with Storyteller or Black Market. I can't say I like how it uses an open definition to tell you what card to gain.
So overall the shelters would need to change a lot before I'd use them.
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1792
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #157 on: November 11, 2015, 09:35:27 am »
0

I interpreted "1vp every 1/2 curses" as "I'm not sure if it should be one or two" since 1vp every half a curse would have been written as 2/curse. I might have interpreted this wrong though.
On rereading, I was a bit harsh with townstreet. It's ok, but in many games it would disappear turn 1 or 2 and never come back.
Logged

Mr Anderson

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #158 on: November 11, 2015, 01:47:29 pm »
+1

You would just need 6 cards that you could gain with Crypt, so making a village to replace the Crypt instead of using the vague "gain a village" (you pointed out the problems with that phrase yourself) doesn't seem unreasonable.
Couldn't you always trash the Crypt itself when you play it? And if your new Shelters replace the old ones, you could use Necropolis to replace the Crypt when you trash it.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #159 on: November 11, 2015, 03:49:31 pm »
0

Lost Gardens basically reads "If you still own this at the end of the game, each Curse is worth 1 instead of -1 VP." Also Hovel, but only if Hovel isn't itself replaced. I think this would be more interesting as a whole-game-modifier, similarly to Events.
About Lost Garden, sorry about the 1/2. It was not meant to stand for "one half" but for "either 1 or 2".
Now the card should read "Worth 1 VP for every non-Action, non-Treasure, non-Victory card in your deck." (I think that the "1 VP for every 2 ... cards" version is too weak for a Shelter and should only be an option for a normal Victory card) So Curses become just dead cards while Ruins and Shelters become Estates. Initially the card has the same worth as a Duchy so you would normally trash it (together with the other Shelters) if you could. But if there are junking attacks and no or bad trashers you might wanna stick with it (and perhaps even the other Shelters). It is not a situation which happens often but  in 3 and 4 player games it sometimes occurs.
If playtesting shows that the decision is often easy to make and rarely agonizing the card is obviously pointless. It's kinda like with Hovel. If it would always make sense to trash Hovel with 2$ and no good 2$ cards Hovel would be boring.


Couldn't you always trash the Crypt itself when you play it? And if your new Shelters replace the old ones, you could use Necropolis to replace the Crypt when you trash it.
That is indeed the idea of the card, be able to exchange it for Necro (or a stronger village?).

You can never gain Necropolis, so mentioning it on Crypt is moot.
In normal games you can indeed not gain a Necropolis but with Crypt you gain. Hell, if the village-conversion ability turns out to be too strong or too automatic (I think the price caps that make sense to test are 3 and 4) the only thing that Crypt will be able to exchange itself for will be Necropolis.


Crypt won't trash coppers unless you combo it with Storyteller or Black Market.
Thanks for pointing that out. Kinda embarassing to mix up Action and Buy phase. I changed the phrasing to "At the end of your Buy phase, trash a card you have in play." I do not want a Shelter to be able to trash Estates or Curses.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 03:52:47 pm by tristan »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4983
  • Respect: +5295
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #160 on: November 11, 2015, 04:03:45 pm »
0

Lost Gardens basically reads "If you still own this at the end of the game, each Curse is worth 1 instead of -1 VP." Also Hovel, but only if Hovel isn't itself replaced. I think this would be more interesting as a whole-game-modifier, similarly to Events.
About Lost Garden, sorry about the 1/2. It was not meant to stand for "one half" but for "either 1 or 2".
Now the card should read "Worth 1 VP for every non-Action, non-Treasure, non-Victory card in your deck." (I think that the "1 VP for every 2 ... cards" version is too weak for a Shelter and should only be an option for a normal Victory card) So Curses become just dead cards while Ruins and Shelters become Estates. Initially the card has the same worth as a Duchy so you would normally trash it (together with the other Shelters) if you could. But if there are junking attacks and no or bad trashers you might wanna stick with it (and perhaps even the other Shelters). It is not a situation which happens often but  in 3 and 4 player games it sometimes occurs.
If playtesting shows that the decision is often easy to make and rarely agonizing the card is obviously pointless. It's kinda like with Hovel. If it would always make sense to trash Hovel with 2$ and no good 2$ cards Hovel would be boring.

Ruins are Actions. All Shelters except Hovel (including yours) are Action or Victory cards.

About Crypt, there are only a handfull of Villages for $3. Village, Shanty Town, Fishing Village, Hamlet (?), Amulet (?), Native Village, probably a few more, but still $4 seems fine. I mean, it's a single chance to get an additional card, it's not thaaat strong. Necropolis isn't in the supply, but i guess naming it specifically does make clear you are supposed to be able to gain it. As you can only gain one and there is no way to get Crypt out of the trash, it should work. So, i think it's fine after all.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #161 on: November 11, 2015, 04:16:36 pm »
0

Ruins are Actions. All Shelters except Hovel (including yours) are Action or Victory cards.
Thanks for pointing out another elementary mistake. So the card should read "Shelters, Ruins and Curse" instead of "non-...".

I think that it is too weak if it does not start out with a VP value of 3 and that the other idea which has been suggested (or misread because of the 1/2 thingy) of 2 VP per Curse, converting them into Estates might be too strong. Not too strong in terms of preventing players from buying Cursers (if there would be a card which handed out Estates it would probably be a weak junker but still a junker unless there is Silk Road or Gardens) but too strong in terms of making the decision of whether to trash Lost Garden or not easier.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9177
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #162 on: November 11, 2015, 04:27:59 pm »
0

Shelters are meant to be weak, hardly better than Estates (and sometimes worse).  I think Lost Garden would be OK as "1 VP for every 2 Curses, Shelters and Ruins in the deck".  As Asper pointed out, the current wording would exclude everything except Curses and Hovels... although it is actually ambiguous, in that you can read them as separate categories (e.g. Copper and Province count because they are non-Actions, Village counts because it is a non-Treasure).

Not sure about Townstreet.  Consider this background on Hovel:

Quote from: Donald X.
Hovel is the only one that changed. Originally it was an action you could trash by discarding your hand. It turned out that trashing it turn 1-2 usually seemed like the correct play, even if you drew it with four Coppers. So that was no good. Hovel as printed has nice flavor going for it; you move out of your old Hovel and into a nice Duchy.

Townstreet is a card that essentially auto-trashes itself every time.  It might still be OK in that it doesn't just remove one of your first two buys, and the single +Buy does tempt you into calling it once in a while.  Still, something to be wary of.

Crypt -- Only trashing cards in play doesn't weaken it that much.  In fact, it makes it a stronger Copper trasher than other options (now that it triggers at the end of your Buy phase) because you already got the +$1 from playing Copper.  This is actually really strong for a Shelter and it changes the game a lot more than any other Shelter, even compared to your other ones.  That said, I think it's still OK as long as you don't mind the Shelter having that much impact.  Being terminal helps temper it as well.

The on-trash effect feels superfluous to me.  The Copper trashing is already very significant, and the fact that it can trash itself afterwards is icing on the cake.  Gaining a useful card afterwards is way overkill for a Shelter. 

It doesn't help that the effect needs some awkward wording.  Note that specifying Necropolis doesn't actually work as you intend.  When a card says "gain", it means from the Supply by default.  Otherwise, it has to specify -- e.g. Urchin says "from the Mercenary pile", Marauder says "from the Spoils pile".  So how do you reference gaining a Necropolis?  It's not in the Supply and it doesn't have a pile to reference.  Either you'll have to be inconsistent with official wording or you'll have to do something awkward.  The ambiguous definition of "village" doesn't help either.

Overall, the card is plenty interesting (maybe even too interesting!) without the on-trash effect.  Just trim the fat.

For something similar to the on-trash effect that is more clearly worded, you could have another Shelter like this:

Decrepit Village
$1 - Action-Shelter
If this is not your first or second turn,
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.

(or some other weak village effect.)

PPE:

Ruins are Actions. All Shelters except Hovel (including yours) are Action or Victory cards.
Thanks for pointing out another elementary mistake. So the card should read "Shelters, Ruins and Curse" instead of "non-...".

I think that it is too weak if it does not start out with a VP value of 3 and that the other idea which has been suggested (or misread because of the 1/2 thingy) of 2 VP per Curse, converting them into Estates might be too strong. Not too strong in terms of preventing players from buying Cursers (if there would be a card which handed out Estates it would probably be a weak junker but still a junker unless there is Silk Road or Gardens) but too strong in terms of making the decision of whether to trash Lost Garden or not easier.

It's really not too strong.  Again, Shelter should be compared to Estate, so a VP value of 3 is already too high.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #163 on: November 11, 2015, 04:47:01 pm »
0

It doesn't help that the effect needs some awkward wording.  Note that specifying Necropolis doesn't actually work as you intend.  When a card says "gain", it means from the Supply by default.  Otherwise, it has to specify -- e.g. Urchin says "from the Mercenary pile", Marauder says "from the Spoils pile".  So how do you reference gaining a Necropolis?  It's not in the Supply and it doesn't have a pile to reference.  Either you'll have to be inconsistent with official wording or you'll have to do something awkward.  The ambiguous definition of "village" doesn't help either.
Totally right, I should add a line about a Necro pile and write "gain a Necro from the Necro pile", not clarify whether Throne Room counts as "village" (IMO it does not; other cards like Golem or Tribute are already excluded by the price cap at 4).
But in practical terms this is totally irrelevant as I could explain this card to my gaming group in less than a minute without any rule ambiguities remaining. As I lack the graphic talents to really design the cards and just play with mockups there is no "risk" that anybody here will actually use the card (as opposed to the really good fan card designers in here who actually provide fully designed, printable cards).

It's really not too strong.  Again, Shelter should be compared to Estate, so a VP value of 3 is already too high.
First of all, the card is only worth 3VP if the other Shelters are not trashed, i.e. each Shelter does actually indirectly provide 1VP.
Second, this argument is too static. In the beginning of the game you would virtually always (again Silk Road and Gardens are the obvious exception) trash a Duchy if you could. In the presence of decent trashers you would not really want to stick with a card which is only worth 3 VP if you do not trash the other two Shelters. Now in the presence of heavy junking and / or bad / no trashing it (should) become(s) more tricky.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 04:51:27 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9177
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #164 on: November 11, 2015, 06:36:39 pm »
0

It doesn't help that the effect needs some awkward wording.  Note that specifying Necropolis doesn't actually work as you intend.  When a card says "gain", it means from the Supply by default.  Otherwise, it has to specify -- e.g. Urchin says "from the Mercenary pile", Marauder says "from the Spoils pile".  So how do you reference gaining a Necropolis?  It's not in the Supply and it doesn't have a pile to reference.  Either you'll have to be inconsistent with official wording or you'll have to do something awkward.  The ambiguous definition of "village" doesn't help either.
Totally right, I should add a line about a Necro pile and write "gain a Necro from the Necro pile", not clarify whether Throne Room counts as "village" (IMO it does not; other cards like Golem or Tribute are already excluded by the price cap at 4).
But in practical terms this is totally irrelevant as I could explain this card to my gaming group in less than a minute without any rule ambiguities remaining. As I lack the graphic talents to really design the cards and just play with mockups there is no "risk" that anybody here will actually use the card (as opposed to the really good fan card designers in here who actually provide fully designed, printable cards).

Suit yourself, but I think it's poor design philosophy to not design as if it would be official.  If it's just going to be for your own group where you can personally explain away all the ambiguities, why share it publicly at all?

But that wasn't even my main argument against it.  As I said, the on-trash effect is just superfluous power and complexity on a card that is already interesting without it.

It's really not too strong.  Again, Shelter should be compared to Estate, so a VP value of 3 is already too high.
First of all, the card is only worth 3VP if the other Shelters are not trashed, i.e. each Shelter does actually indirectly provide 1VP.
Second, this argument is too static. In the beginning of the game you would virtually always (again Silk Road and Gardens are the obvious exception) trash a Duchy if you could. In the presence of decent trashers you would not really want to stick with a card which is only worth 3 VP if you do not trash the other two Shelters. Now in the presence of heavy junking and / or bad / no trashing it (should) become(s) more tricky.

Each other shelter already has some minor benefit which it provides instead of 1VP.  If you have 1VP more on top of that, it's extra power.  That's my point -- as it is now, your Shelters are actually significantly stronger than the official ones.  It's fine if that's what you're going for, but it's something to keep in mind.  You keep talking about an effect being too weak for a Shelter, but Shelters are supposed to be weak.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #165 on: November 11, 2015, 06:59:22 pm »
0

Suit yourself, but I think it's poor design philosophy to not design as if it would be official.
It is not official so I will not design it as if it were. This would entail a totally unnecessary FAQ, super-precise definition of "village" and the Necro pile nonsense. As I already said, I think pragmatically and as I a) suck compared to other fan card designers and b) do not provide fully designed cards with images the chance that anybody else will use my card is virtually zero.
So only my playing group will play with this card and I can explain it to them in a minute. Extensive rule-lawyering that covers all border cases is thus irrelevant. I mean, gee, this is not Possession or whatever, the card is pretty simple: when you trash it you can gain a Necro or anything else with "+2 actions" printed on it that doesn't cost more than 4.


Quote
If it's just going to be for your own group where you can personally explain away all the ambiguities, why share it publicly at all?
To get feedback but certainly not in the vain hope that anybody but me will ever use it. There are technically and graphic-wise better and more experienced fan card designers here whose cards are probably used by some folks.


1VP more on top of that
Lost Garden does not provide any benefits but VPs.

The point of Lost Garden is not to make it strong just for the sake of it but to make it strong enough such that it will provide an agonizing decision in the MINORITY of games in which there is no/bad/late trashing and/or heavy junking. If I make the card too weak it will be a totally boring card which you will always want to trash. If the card doesn't do something interesting in at least some games it is pointless to have it in the first place. It is after all a substitute for Hovel and Hovel also provides a tricky "to trash or not to trash" decision when you hit 2$ early in the game.
Note that even with the current version you wanna trash Curses as they are dead cards. Even with the strong version which I do not like (2 VPs per Curse) you would trash a Curse in the middlegame as it is a virtual Estate.

So would you mind to explain how Lost Garden can be too strong? Did I miss something and is the card to good to be trashed in more instances than I think?

About your point that my Shelters are being stronger than the official ones, yes, they obviously are. But I think that a degenerate market and a post-buy copper trasher are far more useful than something which is only a Duchy or something better if you keep a lot of crap in your deck.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 07:25:46 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9177
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #166 on: November 11, 2015, 07:26:29 pm »
0

The point of Lost Garden is not to make it strong just for the sake of it but to make it strong enough such that it will provide an agonizing decision in the MINORITY of games in which there is no/bad/late trashing and/or heavy junking. If I make the card too weak it will be a totally boring card which you will always want to trash. If the card doesn't do something interesting in at least some games it is pointless to have it in the first place. It is after all a substitute for Hovel and Hovel also provides a tricky "to trash or not to trash" decision when you hit 2$ early in the game.

Note that even with the current version you wanna trash Curses as they are dead cards. Even with the strong version which I do not like (2 VPs per Curse) you would trash a Curse in the middlegame as it is a virtual Estate.

So would you mind to explain how Lost Garden can be too strong? Did I miss something and is the card to good to be trashed in more instances than I think?

Hovel does not provide the tricky decision you mention.  It is pretty much never a good idea to trash it to an Estate.  Overall, the 3 official shelters rarely make a big difference.

The strength of Lost Garden isn't in making you not want to trash something, whether you make it a 1:2 or a 1:1 ratio.  If strong trashing is available, you'll probably trash either way, just as you'd trash Estates.  If no trashing is available, then it's moot.  To that end, the "agonizing decision" you talk about doesn't really exist.

The actual strength of Lost Garden is in how much it weakens junking attacks, especially in the absence of sufficient trashing.  At a 1:1 ratio, it does have a significant impact on cursers and looters.  At 1:2, it's still something to consider even though it matters less.

As I've said repeatedly, I think it could still work with the 1:1 ratio.  However, it's impact would be much bigger than any of the official shelters.  If you are OK with that, great.  But a 1:2 ratio is absolutely in line with the official shelters, power-wise, which is why I disagree when you say that it would be too weak.  You may be overestimating how often the official Shelters make a difference.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #167 on: November 11, 2015, 07:34:15 pm »
0

Hovel does not provide the tricky decision you mention.  It is pretty much never a good idea to trash it to an Estate.
I disagree as this decision is deck-dependent.


Quote
If strong trashing is available, you'll probably trash either way, just as you'd trash Estates.  If no trashing is available, then it's moot.  To that end, the "agonizing decision" you talk about doesn't really exist.
Black and white? There is something between strong trashing and no trashing and there is also a second dimension, junking.
You might very well be right and the decision will always be simple and straightforward. But unlike you I gotta playtest the card to find it out.


Quote
The actual strength of Lost Garden is in how much it weakens junking attacks, especially in the absence of sufficient trashing.  At a 1:1 ratio, it does have a significant impact on cursers and looters.
Ruins become Estates and Curses become plain dead cards. The latter is still junk and the former is only something you want in the endgame, in the presence of Silk Road / Gardens or if the deck leads to such heavy junking that nobody will be able to aim for Provinces. So in this case players now wonder whether they should buy all those junkers as they might backfire.
Is this impact too large? I seriously doubt it, not to mention that it occurs (too) rarely anyway.


Quote
You may be overestimating how often the official Shelters make a difference.
Not at all. The absence of Estates matters in some cases (Doctor, Ambassador and Baron come to mind) to a significant degree whereas the presence of Hovel or Overgrown Estate is negligible. Only Necro has a small effect upon the early game and in the absence of villages an effect upon the entire game.
I totally realize that my alternative Shelters have a larger impact. And yes, in some decks Lost Garden can have a non-trivial impact upon the entire game, on how you evaluate trashing and junking. This is the very idea of the card.

You are totally right that they might have an impact which is too large. Not too large because of some stupid "Shelters must be super-weak" dogmatism (hell, many fan cards, including msot of mine, are just straightforward variations of stuff that exists so I am glad when I can come up with something mildly new) but too large in terms of being too swingy or changing the opening too much. I'll happily get rid of them if they turn out to do that.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 07:52:07 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9177
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #168 on: November 11, 2015, 07:59:47 pm »
0

Hovel does not provide the tricky decision you mention.  It is pretty much never a good idea to trash it to an Estate.
I disagree as this decision is deck-dependent.

It's really not.  There was a thread or two on this which I'll try to find, but the basic explanation is that it's almost always better to keep the Hovel around until you would normally green.  Then you can trash it to a Province or maybe an early Duchy, which lets you start greening without adding an extra junk card to your deck.  Trashing Hovel early to an Estate is as good an idea as buying an early Estate in general, i.e. not a good idea at all.

Maybe this thread, but I think there was one with more math in it.

Quote
Black and white? There is something between strong trashing and no trashing and there is also a second dimension, junking.
You might very well be right and the decision will always be simple and straightforward. But unlike you I gotta playtest the card to find it out.

Huh??  I didn't say anything you didn't say yourself.  Right here:

Note that even with the current version you wanna trash Curses as they are dead cards. Even with the strong version which I do not like (2 VPs per Curse) you would trash a Curse in the middlegame as it is a virtual Estate.




Quote
Ruins become Estates and Curses become plain dead cards. The latter is still junk and the former is only something you want in the endgame, in the presence of Silk Road / Gardens or if the deck leads to such heavy junking that nobody will be able to aim for Provinces. So players now wonder whether they should buy all those junkers as they might backfire. Sounds interesting to me.

...

Not at all. The absence of Estates matters in some cases (Doctor, Ambassador and Baron come to mind) to a significant degree whereas the presence of Hovel or Overgrown Estate is negligible. Only Necro has a small effect upon the early game and in the absence of villages an effect upon the entire game.
I totally realize that my alternative Shelters have a larger impact. And yes, in some decks Lost Garden can have a non-trivial impact upon the entire game, on how you evaluate trashing and junking. This is the very idea of the card.

I never said it wasn't interesting.  I repeat AGAIN, it could still work fine.  My ONLY point was that the 1:1 ratio is stronger than the official Shelters and it has a much bigger impact than them.  That's all.  You are reading harsh criticism when I'm only giving a mild warning!

It still sounds like you are overstimating the impact of Shelters.  Yes, of course they matter in some cases.  Sometimes they matter a lot (Fairgrounds is the biggest one, IMO), but by and large they make very little difference.

A 1:2 ratio Lost Garden would still have non-trivial impact.  It would just be closer to official Shelters.

I'm going to quote this part again:

Quote
I totally realize that my alternative Shelters have a larger impact.

Then we're on the same page and I don't know what you're arguing against.  ::)
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #169 on: November 11, 2015, 08:12:17 pm »
0

The main difference is that you care about how large the impact of my Shelters is whereas I care about whether this impact leads to interesting decisions (something you flat out denied whereas I gotta test Lost Garden) and whether it is too swingy or opening changing (here the other two Shelters have more of an influence).
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9177
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #170 on: November 11, 2015, 09:45:38 pm »
0

The main difference is that you care about how large the impact of my Shelters is whereas I care about whether this impact leads to interesting decisions (something you flat out denied whereas I gotta test Lost Garden) and whether it is too swingy or opening changing (here the other two Shelters have more of an influence).

No, that's false.  I never said it would be uninteresting.  If you are referring to my comments about the decision of to trash or not, I once again point to your own analysis:

Note that even with the current version you wanna trash Curses as they are dead cards. Even with the strong version which I do not like (2 VPs per Curse) you would trash a Curse in the middlegame as it is a virtual Estate.

In other words, the decision to trash would have everything to do with the strength of the trashers themselves, not the amount of VP this shelter would provide. 

Rather, the potentially interesting decisions that this could cause are rooted in how it weakens junking attacks, and whether the players should still invest in those attacks if they aren't hurting as much on the VP side.

And again, I don't really care that much about how large the impact is.  I've said it ad nauseum but you just seem to ignore it -- I was only giving a warning about the bigger impact and that it was something to consider, depending on what your goal was.  I said more than once that if you wanted a bigger impact than official shelters, then it's fine.  I was wondering if you cared whether it was in line with the other shelters, and providing a note on the power and impact in case you did.  Thus, me repeating over and over: "it's fine if that's what you're going for".

Maybe I should just give up on posting here, because you seem to take even little bits of feedback antagonistically.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #171 on: November 12, 2015, 07:47:27 pm »
0

Note that even with the current version you wanna trash Curses as they are dead cards. Even with the strong version which I do not like (2 VPs per Curse) you would trash a Curse in the middlegame as it is a virtual Estate.
In other words, the decision to trash would have everything to do with the strength of the trashers themselves, not the amount of VP this shelter would provide.
"To trash or not to trash" refers to whether you wanna trash Lost Garden, not Curses (naturally you wanna trash dead cards.).  ::).

Of course you are totally right that Lost Garden changes the strength of Cursers and Looters. This is interesting but not enough IMO. If the card turns out to be an autoplay during playtesting, i.e. if it is worse decision-wise than Hovel, if there is "no trash or not to trash Lost Garden", I will get rid of the card.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 07:49:59 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9177
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #172 on: November 12, 2015, 09:40:16 pm »
0

Note that even with the current version you wanna trash Curses as they are dead cards. Even with the strong version which I do not like (2 VPs per Curse) you would trash a Curse in the middlegame as it is a virtual Estate.
In other words, the decision to trash would have everything to do with the strength of the trashers themselves, not the amount of VP this shelter would provide.
"To trash or not to trash" refers to whether you wanna trash Lost Garden, not Curses (naturally you wanna trash dead cards.).  ::).

It's the same thing.  Lost Garden is just as dead a card as Curse or Estate.  But I could consider it from that perspective.  If you have strong trashing and you can trash all the Curses, Ruins, etc. then Lost Garden would be worth 0 anyway.  If your trashing is really weak, I speculate that the decision should be pretty simple with a 1:1 ratio.  Suppose you split Curses evenly, then this card is providing VP value greater than a Province (counting the other shelters as well, for ~8VP).  You wouldn't trash it unless you also thought you could trash most of your Curses.  At 1:2, then its providing a more modest -- but still decent -- VP value in this situation.  It would be worth ~4VP, better than a Duchy, and now it's more of a question whether you should trash it or keep it.

Edit: to be totally clear though, I still don't mean to say that it wouldn't work at 1:1.  I'm only suggesting that the same kind of decision exists at either ratio, depending on the strength of the trashers and junkers available.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 10:39:06 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: my cards
« Reply #173 on: November 19, 2015, 04:57:44 am »
0

I disagree about the weak trashing caase. Lost Garden is worth 8VP conditional on you not trashing your 5 Curses. As they are dead cards you do have an incentive to trash them.
So it all depends upon the timing and the strength of trashing. If there is e.g. something like Develop in the deck and players draw Develop together with Lost Garden before anybody bought a 5$ curser the question arises whether you should trash it or get rid of a Copper.

This might be a simple decision for strong players who can judge well how the game will continue but then again for strong players many decisions are obvious.

I think that the 1:2 version is more appropriate for an ordinary Victory card.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]  All
 

Page created in 0.157 seconds with 21 queries.