Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2  All

Author Topic: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff  (Read 5183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +752
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« on: January 04, 2016, 03:06:21 pm »
0

This is a runoff to select a winner from the finalists of the 2014 Alchemy contest. The finalists were:

Quote
Druid
Types: Action
Cost: $4P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Choose one: +$2; or +P.

When you buy this, trash all Treasure cards you have in play.

Quote
Elixir (C)
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Action. +1 Buy. +$1. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Potion or a card costing at least P. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Quote
Enclave
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+2 Actions. You may discard your hand. If you do, +1 Card per Action card you have in play.

Quote
Incantation
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that costs more than it and shares a type with it. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.

Quote
Research
Types: Action
Cost: $1P
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $2 or $1P more than the total cost of the trashed cards in coins.

When you gain this, gain an Action costing up to $4.

Submit your votes to me via this forum's messaging system. To vote, give each card a score from 0 to 10. The winner will be the card with the highest sum. Feel free to discuss the cards (but not your scores) in this thread.
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1330
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2016, 03:18:24 pm »
+1

Do the numbers from 0 to 10 have to be integers?
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +752
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2016, 03:34:32 pm »
+1

Doesn't matter to me.
Logged

TrojH

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +191
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2016, 05:23:41 pm »
+2

Doesn't matter to me.

Have fun totalling up all the pi's and e's you are going to get... ;)
Logged

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2898
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2016, 07:36:45 pm »
+1

Druid seems too similar to Grand Market - a hard-to-get card that snowballs. I kind of like Elixir, though it may be too strong. Enclave feels brokenly strong with any cantrips. Incantation seems relatively weak and not like a card you want lots of (and Potion costs should make you want lots of them). Reasearch is interesting, but I'm not sure about the when-gain ability.
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.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9140
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2016, 08:33:25 pm »
0

None of these cards are mine.  Of these, I voted for the middle 3 in the original contest.  I'm not going to check my comments on them yet.  Here's what I think of them now.

Druid - Really similar to Grand Market, which makes it less interesting to me.

Elixir - At first it seems sort of like a Treasury buff to me (similar to how Alchemist is a buff to Laboratory), but the more I think about it the more different it is.  When you play it, you get to play (on average) half of your other Elixirs.  That's assuming that you just have one Potion in your deck, which is usually the case, and no other Potion-cost cards.  In this case, stacked Elixirs become a decent and reliable source of income.  Other Potion-cost cards mess with this, for better or worse.  Elixir also makes it a lot easier to buy more Potion-cost cards, since it will often keep drawing more Elixirs until ending on an actual Potion.  I think it's pretty neat.

Enclave - This sets up all sorts of conflicting desires.  Since it's a Potion card, you want to open with Potion and start buying it early.  But it's terrible early on (barely better than Necropolis), before you have a good action density.  Since it is a village, you want to play it earlier in your turn.  But its draw effect means you want to keep it until later for bigger draw.  I think this will make it very interesting and tricky to play.  I think it can be very strong, but not brokenly so since it needs a lot of extra support and some good decision-making to work around the hand discard penalty.  I really like it.

Incantation - Super simple.  I probably voted for it in the past because it works kind of like Demonic Tutor, adjusted to work in Dominion.  Now though, I think Transmogrify fills a similar niche.  This is still neat, but I'm less enthused by it.

Research - Forge variant.  The on-gain mitigates the cost of opening Potion, which I don't really like.  The trashing effect also sounds too restrictive to be worth going for Potion.  As a Potion card, it's slow to get going so it's poor if you're just after trashing (and the mandatory gain restrictions make it much harder to effectively trash Copper with it).  So you should want it for its gaining effect, but it's so specific that I don't think it will be a good idea often.  You have to trash exactly 2 cards, then gain something of a specific cost over it.  Forge is much nicer since it lets you trash any number of cards.  This contest shouldn't be judged by strength, but I think Potion cards should tend toward more power due to their opportunity and tempo cost.  If this wins, I expect that the card would be more fun and interesting if the requirements were relaxed, e.g. "trash up to 2 cards".



Now checking my old thoughts on these, it looks like my reaction to Elixir and Enclave are pretty similar.  I was more "I don't know" about Research.  I was more positive on Incantation and Druid.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4538
  • Respect: +4884
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2016, 03:35:11 pm »
0

One of those cards is mine from me. I will not act as if it was a secret, because it's in my own thread and all, and i guess if everyone knows it and feels i'm being unfair to a card, well, it's not like i'm being unfair in secret. But seriously, i'll try to be as fair as i can.

I think it's interesting how Druid's on-gain ability forces you to use the Potion option if you want to pick up more of them. It also kind of buffs the card, as you won't have that Potion in your deck anymore. Yes, i think it's kind of cool. It's a shame the on-gain allready exists, allthough here it does something new, and that Grand Market is, like faust said, a bit similar in the other respects.

Elexir also snowballs, but i think it's closer to Alchemy's "useful in multiples" theme than Druid. In the absence of other Potion cards, it's often going to give +$1 per Elixir you have, especially if you have several in hand to make sure at least one won't draw your Potion (or you trashed that). I think it's also really decent. Those aren't finalists for nothing.

I have no real opinion on Enclave. I think the hand-discarding is worse because it's a Village, and i'm concerned it will either be too dominant (if there are cantrips) or really bad, if there are none.

Incantation is by me, hooray. It's obviously flawless. Well, except it makes you reveal your whole deck if you trashed a Curse. It's basically a Chancellor in those cases, allthough the difference will matter if you have Tunnels - or an opponent who wants to see your deck composition. I don't really see the similarity to Transmogrify, allthough it's true that both trade a card in your hand for a better one. Transmogrify still doesn't reduce your deck size, and is useless on Coppers - while Incantation will use them to find your Potion.

I'm not sure what i think of Research. I guess it would look nicer at just P, and trash cards for cards costing either $2 or P more. It's probably going to matter if you want to trash itself for an Alchemist or something, but besides that i see little difference.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +752
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2016, 06:59:34 pm »
+1

One note on the voting: You should feel free to exaggerate your scores to give your favorite a 10 and your least favorite a 0. Some of you have already caught on that this will maximize your effect on the results. I will not be normalizing the scores, just summing the values I get. (Also feel free to ignore this advice if you just want to give your honest rating of the cards.)
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4538
  • Respect: +4884
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2016, 07:52:34 pm »
0

I was allready worried that this would affect the voting. I don't want my voice to be heard less, so i'll just normalize my vote myself - by ranking my least favourite card(s) at 0, my favourite(s) at 10, and the rest inbetween. I recommend everyone does this to make sure his vote is worth as much as anyone else's.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7060
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9292
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2016, 09:04:40 pm »
+1

I like Enclave, but for theme it ought to be renamed Autoclave.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Fragasnap

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
  • Respect: +388
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2016, 09:35:38 am »
+1

Quote
Druid
Types: Action
Cost: $4P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Choose one: +$2; or +P.

When you buy this, trash all Treasure cards you have in play.
Druid seems fairly tame. It's an always activated Conspirator or a free source of Potions (since it gets rid of the Potion you initially bought) for buying more Druids. I don't like it.

Quote
Elixir (C)
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Action. +1 Buy. +$1. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Potion or a card costing at least P. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.
Similarly to Druid, this simply doesn't seem very exciting. Its play pattern is a simple "Buy all the Elixirs, trash Potion, play all Elixirs every turn".

Quote
Enclave
Types: Action
Cost: $2P
+2 Actions. You may discard your hand. If you do, +1 Card per Action card you have in play.
Enclave is intriguing, but I think it struggles. I don't see much of a reason for it to have a Potion in its cost except that this is an Alchemy competition. Further, it having a Potion just ascertains that without a different splitter it will be utterly useless. Perhaps giving it +3 Actions would be preferable?

Quote
Incantation
Types: Action
Cost: $3P
+1 Card. +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card that costs more than it and shares a type with it. Put it into your hand and discard the rest.
Quote
Research
Types: Action
Cost: $1P
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $2 or $1P more than the total cost of the trashed cards in coins.

When you gain this, gain an Action costing up to $4.
I view these two as fairly similar, actually. They both cover the ability to trash Coppers: Something Alchemy lacks. They both provide a clean use for the Potion in your deck without additional complexity. They also cannibalize themselves very well, making them easy to stockpile. I find Incantation a little on the boring side, because while it is a strong trasher, it is entirely evident how it will play. Also Incantation is a non-terminal sifter, where turns in Alchemy heavy Kingdoms already tend towards lots of card manipulation.
Research seems super board dependent by comparison. The on-gain of Research looks to be way too much, since it effectively negates the downside of purchasing a Potion in the first place. Sans that on-gain I think I like Research best, but Incantation is definitely second.


Quote
Submit your votes to me via this forum's messaging system. To vote, give each card a score from 0 to 10. The winner will be the card with the highest sum. Feel free to discuss the cards (but not your scores) in this thread.
This is a terrible voting scheme. Anyone who owned one of these cards is incentivized to vote their own card a 10 and all others 0. If you start excluding such polarizing scores, you have to start questioning the validity of the scoring scheme used by all voters. Should I vote Incantation and Research perfect 10s just to maximize the chance that a card I like wins?

If you aren't going to go by simple approval voting, then at least go by a preferential voting system.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4538
  • Respect: +4884
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2016, 10:48:31 am »
0

I'm relieved to see i'm not the only one who doesn't like the voting Scheme... Not sure why i didn't say anything yet, probably i didn't want to seem ungrateful. But yes, another voting scheme would be better. We could do it by approval (vote for any number of cards, each gets one vote) or preferential (rank best to worst, cards get one point per rank, or maybe first gets more, whatever).

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +752
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2016, 11:58:58 am »
0

Voting closes tomorrow evening! I have 10 votes so far. Feel free to modify your votes as often as you like.

(FWIW, while not everyone is using the full range of 0-10, normalizing everyone's votes would not change the top 2 right now.)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 12:01:22 pm by mith »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9140
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2016, 03:02:54 pm »
0

I'm relieved to see i'm not the only one who doesn't like the voting Scheme... Not sure why i didn't say anything yet, probably i didn't want to seem ungrateful. But yes, another voting scheme would be better. We could do it by approval (vote for any number of cards, each gets one vote) or preferential (rank best to worst, cards get one point per rank, or maybe first gets more, whatever).

You can vote all 10s and 0s to do approval voting.  Or you can normalize ranked votes if you prefer that.  Or you can do something in between.
Logged

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1330
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2016, 03:03:38 pm »
0

I, personally, am not taking advantage of the voting system. I encourage you all not to as well.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4538
  • Respect: +4884
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2016, 03:43:52 pm »
0

I, personally, am not taking advantage of the voting system. I encourage you all not to as well.

I do take advantage of it and encourage everyone to do so. What now?

Roadrunner7671

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Roadrunner7672
  • Forum Mafia Record: 18-33-2
  • Respect: +1330
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2016, 03:46:07 pm »
0

I, personally, am not taking advantage of the voting system. I encourage you all not to as well.

I do take advantage of it and encourage everyone to do so. What now?
Now we see whether or not people take advantage of it.
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4538
  • Respect: +4884
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2016, 04:04:28 pm »
+1

I, personally, am not taking advantage of the voting system. I encourage you all not to as well.

I do take advantage of it and encourage everyone to do so. What now?
Now we see whether or not people take advantage of it.

"I don't like the voting system. I'll make sure my vote doesn't matter. That'll show them!"

Seriously, you're like somebody who has a cake and only eats half of it just so he can be angry at people who eat their entire cake. I'm not even writing this because i have to justify my vote - i have been rather fair. But if i can give the worst card 0 and the best 10, that's what i'll do.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9140
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2016, 04:54:48 pm »
+1

Voting with 10s and 0s isn't taking advantage of the voting system.  It's just voting with the voting system.
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1682
  • Respect: +1145
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2016, 07:41:37 pm »
+1

I'm going to not vote just to object to the voting system.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2898
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2016, 04:52:58 am »
0

For all the complaints about the voting system, I have yet to hear a better one. How about this:

You pick 5 cards from the proposals and put them in order. The first gets 5 point, the second 4 and so on. List voting has issues of its own, but I think this is better than just voting "yes" or "no" on each card.
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.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +752
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7060
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9292
    • View Profile
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +752
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2016, 10:17:35 pm »
0

Results:

Elixir: 72.5
Incantation: 65
Research: 50.5
Enclave: 40
Druid: 31.5
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9140
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 0.7: Alchemy Runoff
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2016, 10:32:16 pm »
0

I'm OK with this.  I gave Elixir 7.5 as my second choice.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 24 queries.