Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Results!)  (Read 11942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9138
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #75 on: March 21, 2016, 08:19:50 pm »
0

@Asper, I'm wondering why you're so against the while-in-play clause.  I like it because it's something simple, new and unique that has some really interesting implications.  I particularly like what it does to Pearl Diver,  Wishing Well and Ironmonger.  You said you've tried something like it before; did you find problems with it in testing?

I tried a card that uses the bottom of your deck to store stuff for later. Diving Bell instead uses the top of your deck to store stuff for later, by making you draw from the bottom instead. There isn't that big of a similarity other than that. As i said, your idea works much better, and the reason i dislike the "while in play" thing is mostly that it alters how another card plays. Considerations like "Which card takes precedence now?" aside, it feels a bit unelegant. I don't know about any better way to do it, though.

What cards do you feel are problematic?  I don't think it's any harder to figure out than Trader replacing gains, even though Trader is optional and this is mandatory.  This just replaces draw with draw-from-bottom.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +769
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #76 on: March 21, 2016, 08:48:44 pm »
+1

@Asper, I'm wondering why you're so against the while-in-play clause.  I like it because it's something simple, new and unique that has some really interesting implications.  I particularly like what it does to Pearl Diver,  Wishing Well and Ironmonger.  You said you've tried something like it before; did you find problems with it in testing?

I tried a card that uses the bottom of your deck to store stuff for later. Diving Bell instead uses the top of your deck to store stuff for later, by making you draw from the bottom instead. There isn't that big of a similarity other than that. As i said, your idea works much better, and the reason i dislike the "while in play" thing is mostly that it alters how another card plays. Considerations like "Which card takes precedence now?" aside, it feels a bit unelegant. I don't know about any better way to do it, though.

What cards do you feel are problematic?  I don't think it's any harder to figure out than Trader replacing gains, even though Trader is optional and this is mandatory.  This just replaces draw with draw-from-bottom.

Catacombs would be funny.

Look at the top 3. If you don't take those, draw 3 from the bottom. :p
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4462
  • Respect: +4850
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #77 on: March 21, 2016, 09:12:42 pm »
+1

@Asper, I'm wondering why you're so against the while-in-play clause.  I like it because it's something simple, new and unique that has some really interesting implications.  I particularly like what it does to Pearl Diver,  Wishing Well and Ironmonger.  You said you've tried something like it before; did you find problems with it in testing?

I tried a card that uses the bottom of your deck to store stuff for later. Diving Bell instead uses the top of your deck to store stuff for later, by making you draw from the bottom instead. There isn't that big of a similarity other than that. As i said, your idea works much better, and the reason i dislike the "while in play" thing is mostly that it alters how another card plays. Considerations like "Which card takes precedence now?" aside, it feels a bit unelegant. I don't know about any better way to do it, though.

What cards do you feel are problematic?  I don't think it's any harder to figure out than Trader replacing gains, even though Trader is optional and this is mandatory.  This just replaces draw with draw-from-bottom.

I didn't think they were problematic, just not pretty. And Trader is already causing us Blue Dogs. In general it does the same weirdness the -1 Card token does, like ignoring Farming Village. Which is okay if there's no other way or the concept is just too good to not do it because of this, but it's still a negative thing. Thinking of which, can i lose my -1 Card token and still draw from the bottom of my deck? As far as i know not. But i can choose.

Another thing is that the card tells me to draw cards. It's already in play, so i guess i should draw from the bottom... But, why does it stand below there, i already drew these 2, what to do now? The timing is obvious to experienced fan card analyzers like us, but it's confusing when compared to official cards. A similar issue is why i made my "Minister" (which gains according to cost and reduces cost) not "while in play". Of course, using a "this turn" wording isn't really a better option for Diving Bell.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9138
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #78 on: March 21, 2016, 10:22:42 pm »
0

Discussion on Diving Bell continued here.  Discussion here should probably stick to the cards still in the running. :)
Logged

mith

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Shuffle iT Username: mith
  • Respect: +751
    • View Profile
    • MafiaScum.net
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #79 on: March 28, 2016, 03:47:52 pm »
0

Results:

Prawn Shop (mith) - 83
Sunken City (Asper) - 61
Harbourmaster (King Leon) - 60
Pioneer (LibraryAdventurer) - 56
Helmsman (RobertJ) - 27

The next contest will be delayed for about a month... busy busy!
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 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #80 on: March 28, 2016, 04:21:45 pm »
0

Yes! Prawn Shop won!
Logged
Oh God someone delete this before Roadrunner sees it.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1090
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +845
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #81 on: March 28, 2016, 09:44:55 pm »
0

ugh, Prawn shop won?

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9138
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 5: Seaside (Finalists!)
« Reply #82 on: March 28, 2016, 10:35:10 pm »
0

ugh, Prawn shop won?

Well, I went all in on Helmsman. :P

Congrats mith!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All
 

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 21 queries.