Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]

Author Topic: Make an attack that dishes out Debt  (Read 22689 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Loschmidt

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • Respect: +61
    • View Profile
Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« on: July 08, 2016, 08:56:08 pm »
+2

The challenge is to make an attack that dishes out debt someone but isn't boring or opressive or too similar to existing cards.

I'll take care of the obvious ones.

------------------
Cost: ~$5
"Some mild benefit to the player"
"Each other player with no debt tokens takes 1D"
------------------
Positives
- you can defend yourself from this attack by already being in debt, i think that's a cute interaction
- pretty simple card
- could be interesting depending on the bonus is gives to the player
Critcisms
- it is just a bridge troll variant/cutpurse that stays relevant late game
Variants
- could be made more powerful/stackable "each other player with fewer than 2/3/4 debt tokens takes 1D" (although that is probably oppressive)

I'll call this next one Debt Collector:
------------------
Cost: ~$5
*A very minor benefit to the player*
Each other player with at least 1 debt token gains a Ruins.
If they did not gain a ruins they take 1 debt token.
------------------
Positives
-Play multiple to bury your opponents under ruins. It is nice to have another ruins attack, a conditional ruiner seems good. Like a torturer variant where you really need to play multiple before you start handing out the crap.
-Also thematic! The debt collectors are wrecking your shit because you're behind on payments
-Heavily discourages anyone going into debt (the compliment to the previous attack!)
-Combos nicely with the previous attack!
-Needs support and setup to be really mean
Criticisms
-occasionally oppressive?
-slow game when everyone is cash poor and filled with ruins? (personally I like the odd slow game thrown into my dominion mix)

Thoughts? I want to see everyone else's take on the debt-firing attack. There has to be a good one out there somewhere
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2016, 09:07:23 pm »
+4

How would a debt attack work?  Maybe something like this:

Quote
Action - $5
Until your next turn, when anyone buys a card, they take 1 debt.  Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Buy.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 and 1 debt less, but not less than zero.

It could be the long-awaited cost increasing card.

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy

While this is in play, cards in the Supply cost <1> more.

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.
Logged

Loschmidt

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • Respect: +61
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2016, 11:34:52 pm »
0

How would a debt attack work?  Maybe something like this:

Quote
Action - $5
Until your next turn, when anyone buys a card, they take 1 debt.  Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Buy.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 and 1 debt less, but not less than zero.

It could be the long-awaited cost increasing card.

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy

While this is in play, cards in the Supply cost <1> more.

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.

Love it to pieces. Simple design. Much more interesting version of troll bridge.

As an aside it absolutely destroys your opponent's gainers, and also your own on your second turn. Interesting anti-synergy.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2016, 01:07:37 am »
0

How would a debt attack work?  Maybe something like this:

Quote
Action - $5
Until your next turn, when anyone buys a card, they take 1 debt.  Now and at the beginning of your next turn, +1 Buy.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 and 1 debt less, but not less than zero.

It could be the long-awaited cost increasing card.

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
At the start of your next turn:
+$3
+1 Buy

While this is in play, cards in the Supply cost <1> more.

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.
Someone should do a mockup of that one. Maybe I will
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2016, 09:41:54 am »
+1

Debt attacks are basically -1 Coin token attacks that stack. If you make the Debt attack conditional upon not havind Debt on the defender's side this is, in the absence of these few cards and Events with Debt cost, equivalent to the old -1 Coin token attack.
Logged

FishingVillage

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2016, 04:46:00 pm »
+1

Unfortunately debt is a rather nasty drawback if it can be stacked indefinitely on others. Even being able to consistently give debt is very harmful. Here's an example that's basically a variant of what you have in your opening:
Quote
Debt Attack
$5 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) may discard any number of cards from hand. Then each other player with no debt gains 1 debt per 2 cards in hand.

And, well, here's another idea, which tries unlimited stacking of debt, but gives other players a way out to not get completely flooded by it. Also I wonder how much one is willing to overpay to slap others with debt.
Quote
Debt On Buy
$4+ - Action - Attack
+2$
Each other player discards 1 card from hand or gains 1 debt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpay, each other player gains 1 debt.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 04:47:22 pm by FishingVillage »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9418
  • Respect: +10427
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2016, 04:47:21 pm »
+1

Unlimited = easy pin and unfun. Limited = -1 coin token. Bridge Troll is the debt attack.
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

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3185
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4697
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2016, 10:29:44 am »
+1

Debt attacks are basically -1 Coin token attacks that stack. If you make the Debt attack conditional upon not havind Debt on the defender's side this is, in the absence of these few cards and Events with Debt cost, equivalent to the old -1 Coin token attack.

Edge case: Storyteller.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2016, 10:54:11 am »
0

I think Tollgate is actually a great idea.

One more way of avoiding the stack would be: 'When there is a <Card name> in play: when you do X (gain a card, buy a card, etc.), gain 1 debt.'

Then it doesn't matter if you have 10 or 1 in play.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2016, 11:00:46 am »
0

Wording suggestion:

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1 Buy

Mechanically equivalent except it actually works with Moat (the ruling on Enchantress seems to imply that effects below a line are not covered by interactions that happen on play) and doesn't have the weird Workshop and own turn interactions. Why would you put +Buy on a card that increases costs for yourself?

Edited to work on buy, not gain. That would have been nasty with Cursers :P
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 11:03:12 am by Asper »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2016, 11:19:55 am »
0

Wording suggestion:

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1 Buy

Mechanically equivalent except it actually works with Moat (the ruling on Enchantress seems to imply that effects below a line are not covered by interactions that happen on play) and doesn't have the weird Workshop and own turn interactions. Why would you put +Buy on a card that increases costs for yourself?

Edited to work on buy, not gain. That would have been nasty with Cursers :P

I disagree about the Enchantress ruling being applied to Moat. Enchantress has its own key word about "instructions" whereas Moat is a blanket "that Attack". I think it's important to make the cost change a while-in-play like all cost reducers since Bridge, just to avoid the nastiness with KC.  The own-turn interaction is interesting IMO, and combined with the +Buy discourages stacking.

I also think that making it cost debt itself would be good, to prevent it from being copied by BoM or Overlord.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2016, 12:09:39 pm »
0

Wording suggestion:

Tollgate
$4 - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn:
+$2
+1 Buy

Mechanically equivalent except it actually works with Moat (the ruling on Enchantress seems to imply that effects below a line are not covered by interactions that happen on play) and doesn't have the weird Workshop and own turn interactions. Why would you put +Buy on a card that increases costs for yourself?

Edited to work on buy, not gain. That would have been nasty with Cursers :P

I disagree about the Enchantress ruling being applied to Moat. Enchantress has its own key word about "instructions" whereas Moat is a blanket "that Attack". I think it's important to make the cost change a while-in-play like all cost reducers since Bridge, just to avoid the nastiness with KC.  The own-turn interaction is interesting IMO, and combined with the +Buy discourages stacking.

I also think that making it cost debt itself would be good, to prevent it from being copied by BoM or Overlord.

While in play is not tied to playing. A card can end up in play without being played and be played when not in play. Defending against a played card isn't defending against a card in play - or at the very least, it's highly debatable it does. There's a reason Donald X made all Duration Attacks "Until your next turn" to avoid that ambiguity.

Furthermore, a card that triggers on buy may stack, but only if you decide to buy a card at all. If all you do is pay off debt, your opponent could have played this a bazillon times and you wouldn't get a single token. And even if you buy a card, you don't have to pay a cent more if you don't want - you just get tokens that hinder you to buy another card, and as long as you pay those off, you won't get more.

The self-harming aspect just feels clumsy - as i said it's a really weird idea to put a +Buy on a card and at the same time discouraging to buy multiple cards.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2016, 02:45:49 pm »
0

I play an attack card. It's an attack card so you can reveal Moat, however the Attack is written. Moat says you are unaffected by that card as a whole, which logically includes while-in-play portions. I agree that there is ambiguity, but I think it's more important to limit stacking. The "until your next turn"  wording doesn't fully resolve the confusion anyway, but if you understand the intended interaction there then it's easy enough to see how it should apply here.

I understand how Debt works, which is why I suggested it as a workable cost-increasing attack in the first place. However, stacked excessively it can still effectively become a pin, where a player can't buy any more cards without getting crushed by a mountain of debt. A hard limit of 10 stacks seems tough but surmountable to me, handled within a turn or two. 30 with KC or more with Procession is too much.

That's why I think blocking yourself is elegant, not clumsy. It gives extra money to compensate a little and it's something new for the player to consider. You say it discourages from multiple buys, but that's only if you stack too many. It slows you down so the debt-pinned player has time to pay it off.  If it's really so offensive, I say it's better just to not give +Buy. However, I think the self-harming weirdness is a good thing here, giving the player a different kind of experience.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2016, 03:23:57 pm »
+1

I maintain that the rules confusion of Moat/Lighthouse vs. Attack-Durations remains even with the "until your next turn" wording (there's evidence in rules questions that popped up upon reveal of those cards) and I believe that the answers to those questions apply just as well to "while in play" wording.  Nonetheless, here's another idea for discouraging stacking that uses the same kind of wording as other Attack-Durations:

Factory
<6> - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost <1> more.
At the start of your next turn:
Gain a card costing up to $6<6>.

With this setup, pinning the other players will pin yourself as well.  It discourages buying for everybody but is a gainer itself, yet it will fail to gain anything at all if it is excessively stacked.  Its cost is such that it cannot gain itself.

A small design drawback here is that it can cause confusion with cost comparisons, but that's already the case with debt cost cards plus any cards that specify cost limits.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2016, 06:46:49 pm »
0

Unfortunately debt is a rather nasty drawback if it can be stacked indefinitely on others.
I don't think so. Cutpurse, while being weaker than a Debt attack (but also hitting earlier in the game when you have less coins), is not the end of the world.
Torturer shows us that as long as you give the defending player the option to do something else, basically what you suggested, stackable attacks are fine.
Logged

Erick648

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 181
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2016, 07:18:16 pm »
+1

Here's one that gives out debt directly and works in multiples, but mostly avoids the pin aspects:

Usurer
(5) Action - Attack
Gain a Silver.
Each other player gains a Copper.  Each player who gained a Copper takes <1>.

I'm not sure about the cost or the Silver-gaining, which may need to be balanced.  The point is that you can't leave your opponent stuck with Debt and no money, because he gets a Copper to pay off his debt; it's not overly easy to stack because it's a non-drawing terminal that gains treasure; and even if you manage to play a bunch, you'll eventually run out of Coppers to hand out. 

IMO, the pin risk is no greater than Bureaucrat, but there will still be plenty of cases where you play two or more (e.g. because you happened to draw two Usurers and a village) so it's different from the -1 Coin token.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 07:22:22 pm by Erick648 »
Logged
Duplicate duplicates Duplicates duplicate Duplicates duplicate.

Rene Descartes taught me to believe in myself.

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Respect: +1161
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2016, 10:06:25 pm »
+1

The issue with handing out debt, is that if I KC a few attacks every turn, I could in principle hand out debt faster than the average payoff of my opponent's deck.  Even worse if my opponent can do the same to me at the same time.  It's better to hand out debt on buy.  In principle, this could cause an opponent to take several turns to buy a card and pay off its debt.  But it cannot pin a deck unless the deck has no payoff whatsoever.

To be honest, I think that a debt attack by itself is not that interesting, and it needs to be paired with an interesting bonus.  I think most people agree, the exciting thing about Bridge Troll is its cost reduction, not the -1 coin token.  I like Factory because it does something different. 
Logged

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Respect: +1161
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2016, 10:18:15 pm »
+1

The interesting thing about making cards cost <1> more is that it actually hurts yourself more than your opponents, since it applies for two of your turns, and only one of each of your opponents' turns.  I can imagine attaching this ability to a card that's too strong in order to nerf it.  What if we attached it to Wharf?  Would Wharf be less crazy?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2016, 12:20:25 am »
+1

The issue with handing out debt, is that if I KC a few attacks every turn, I could in principle hand out debt faster than the average payoff of my opponent's deck.  Even worse if my opponent can do the same to me at the same time.  It's better to hand out debt on buy.  In principle, this could cause an opponent to take several turns to buy a card and pay off its debt.  But it cannot pin a deck unless the deck has no payoff whatsoever.

To be honest, I think that a debt attack by itself is not that interesting, and it needs to be paired with an interesting bonus.  I think most people agree, the exciting thing about Bridge Troll is its cost reduction, not the -1 coin token.  I like Factory because it does something different.

Right, and I think the danger of allowing you to KC the attack unchecked is that if you pile on enough debt, it will take so long to pay off each single bought card that it may as well be a pin.  That's why I made Tollgate's debt un-KC-able.  Factory allows it but becomes as big a block to you as to your opponent if used in excess.

The cost increase hitting the one who played it on both turns is something I'd considered, but perhaps underestimated.  Tollgate could provide +$4 if necessary?  And Factory could put the gained card in hand if gaining $5s and $6s alone isn't strong enough.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2016, 02:40:03 am »
0

Quote
Usurer Part 2-$5
Action-Attack
Gain a silver, putting it into your hand
Everyone may discard 2 copper. If they do not: gain a copper, putting it in their hand. Each that did gain a debt token.
Usurer part two is not more disastrous for a deck than a kc-d mountebank, I think.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 02:43:15 am by AdrianHealey »
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2016, 02:39:24 pm »
0

Would this work:

Quote
Bad Missionary-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1 and +1Buy
--
When this is in play, all non-victory cards cost $1 less but no less than 0. All other players galn +1buy at the start of their turn and must use all the buys during their buy phase. When another player buys a card, he gains a debt.

So the debt stacks, but also the benefit. So on net it doesn't benefit other players. Probably too complicated though.
Logged

Dingan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1154
  • Shuffle iT Username: Dingan
  • Respect: +1726
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2016, 03:12:06 pm »
0

Would be gnarly to add a card that gives debt to the KC/KC/Goons/Masquerade pin.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2016, 03:20:07 pm »
+1

Moat says you are unaffected by that card as a whole, which logically includes while-in-play portions.

Moat says you are unaffected by "that attack", which may mean either the card or its attacking part. By convention, a card is not an attack if its harmful effect does not happen on play, which, in my eyes, implies that harming you outside of the on-play part is not an "attack", and so Moat does not apply. It's not even important whether i'm right here (how would i ever prove that), just that official cards avoid diverting from this convention to avoid confusion, which is why i suggest the convention should be applied here, too.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2016, 04:28:40 pm »
0

Quote
Mean Court Room - $6
Action-Attack
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
All other players draw a card.
All other players gain a curse.

I reveal moat. Do I draw a card? Imo: I do not.

Quote
Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less.

I reveal moat when Mean Fishing Village is played. It's my turn: are cards cheaper for me? I am inclined to think they do.

But what if it said:
Quote
Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less and when someone buys a card, they gain a curse.

Are cards now cheaper for me, when I revealed moat when it was played? Do I gain the curse?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2016, 04:49:50 pm »
0

Moat says you are unaffected by that card as a whole, which logically includes while-in-play portions.

Moat says you are unaffected by "that attack", which may mean either the card or its attacking part. By convention, a card is not an attack if its harmful effect does not happen on play, which, in my eyes, implies that harming you outside of the on-play part is not an "attack", and so Moat does not apply. It's not even important whether i'm right here (how would i ever prove that), just that official cards avoid diverting from this convention to avoid confusion, which is why i suggest the convention should be applied here, too.

As I've said above, I think these points have merit, but still disagree with your conclusion and have given reasons why.  "That attack" logically refers to the card as a whole; that's why Enchantress has its own special keyword to refer to the on-play instructions only.

I think an issue with your argument is that the card ideas being discussed here do have the attacking part happen on-play, because they can only ever be in play by being played.  These aren't Attack-Reserves, which can be put into play without being played, so the confusion isn't an issue here.

In any case, I don't think Tollgate can safely exist while following that "convention".  If it's not worth breaking the convention, then it should be scrapped as a whole.

What do you think of Factory, which does follow the convention?


Quote
Mean Court Room - $6
Action-Attack
+4 Cards
+1 Buy
All other players draw a card.
All other players gain a curse.

I reveal moat. Do I draw a card? Imo: I do not.

Quote
Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less.

I reveal moat when Mean Fishing Village is played. It's my turn: are cards cheaper for me? I am inclined to think they do.

But what if it said:
Quote
Mean Fishing Village-$5
Action-Attack-Duration
+1Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Action
All other players discard down to 3 Cards.
When this is in play: all cards cost $1 less and when someone buys a card, they gain a curse.

Are cards now cheaper for me, when I revealed moat when it was played? Do I gain the curse?

Mean Court Room - no you don't, because you're unaffected by the card.

Mean Fishing Village (1) - It should say "Now an at the start of your next turn" and "while this is in play", but the answer should be no.  You are unaffected by the card, which includes beneficial parts of it.

Mean Fishing Village (2) - The answer is still no.  It has zero affect on you.
Logged

math

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
  • Shuffle iT Username: math
  • Respect: +191
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2016, 04:52:55 pm »
0

I agree with eHalcyon.  For example, if another player player plays a Minion (discarding and drawing) and you reveal a Moat, do you draw 4 cards?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2016, 05:37:28 pm »
0

I agree with eHalcyon.  For example, if another player player plays a Minion (discarding and drawing) and you reveal a Moat, do you draw 4 cards?

It's more a question of the interaction of Moat/Lighthouse vs. Attack-Durations and theoretical "while in play" clauses that affect opponents.  As it is, I think the "until your next turn" wording on Swamp Hag, Haunted Woods and Enchantress is just as ambiguous, but they have official FAQs clarifying how the interaction works.  I believe the clarification there works just as well for "while in play", but it's debatable.
Logged

FishingVillage

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2016, 06:04:22 pm »
0

Unfortunately debt is a rather nasty drawback if it can be stacked indefinitely on others.
I don't think so. Cutpurse, while being weaker than a Debt attack (but also hitting earlier in the game when you have less coins), is not the end of the world.
Torturer shows us that as long as you give the defending player the option to do something else, basically what you suggested, stackable attacks are fine.
That probably depends on the number of players involved and/or whether there are ways to play multiple Cutpurses in a turn. Individually, sure, Cutpurses are somewhat annoying and become trivial later in the game. Having multiple plays of Cutpurse happen before your turn will probably start to become aggravating. Having that happen to you in multiple consecutive turns will probably make you stop playing altogether.

My opinion is probably influenced by the groups that I normally play with as well. If we get a board that has Torturer and consistent action splitters, or Torturer in games involving 3 or more players, we're likely to replace one of the cards with a protective Reaction, or just replace Torturer itself. I don't mind oppressive combos (particularly since I gravitate towards them ;D) but I've seen other players feel otherwise, and I would probably feel bad if I drove someone to never play Dominion ever again just because I like Torturer + Village a little too much.
Logged

Erick648

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 181
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2016, 07:14:32 pm »
0

Quote
Usurer Part 2-$5
Action-Attack
Gain a silver, putting it into your hand
Everyone may discard 2 copper. If they do not: gain a copper, putting it in their hand. Each that did gain a debt token.
Usurer part two is not more disastrous for a deck than a kc-d mountebank, I think.
I considered having the Copper be gained to your opponent's hands, but then it's usually the same as if there was no debt and they gained the Copper to their discard because they'll just play the Copper to pay off the debt.  Exceptions (e.g., if you play a handsize attack, if they trash or discard the Copper, if they're drawing their deck so they'd draw the Copper anyway, etc.) are too minor to be worth it.

The issue with handing out debt, is that if I KC a few attacks every turn, I could in principle hand out debt faster than the average payoff of my opponent's deck.  Even worse if my opponent can do the same to me at the same time.  It's better to hand out debt on buy.  In principle, this could cause an opponent to take several turns to buy a card and pay off its debt.  But it cannot pin a deck unless the deck has no payoff whatsoever.

Right, and I think the danger of allowing you to KC the attack unchecked is that if you pile on enough debt, it will take so long to pay off each single bought card that it may as well be a pin.

Good point about KC, although it would be hard to keep it up absent Watchtower or something due to the Silver-gaining.  Maybe change it to:
Usurer
(4) Action - Attack
Gain a Silver.________________
When you discard this from play, if you have a Silver in play, each other player gains a Copper.  Each player who gained a Copper in this way takes <1>.

That way, it can't be KC-ed.  You could still play several copies a turn (although, again, you'd have to deal with the Silver), but IMO, that's no more of a threat than a Bureaucrat pin.

My only problem with an on-buy debt attack is that an Event that does this already exists (Tax).  While there's room for both (cf. Embargo and Swamp Hag), I'd rather see something different first.
Logged
Duplicate duplicates Duplicates duplicate Duplicates duplicate.

Rene Descartes taught me to believe in myself.

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Respect: +1161
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2016, 10:31:47 pm »
0

The issue with handing out debt, is that if I KC a few attacks every turn, I could in principle hand out debt faster than the average payoff of my opponent's deck.  Even worse if my opponent can do the same to me at the same time.  It's better to hand out debt on buy.  In principle, this could cause an opponent to take several turns to buy a card and pay off its debt.  But it cannot pin a deck unless the deck has no payoff whatsoever.

Right, and I think the danger of allowing you to KC the attack unchecked is that if you pile on enough debt, it will take so long to pay off each single bought card that it may as well be a pin.

Good point about KC, although it would be hard to keep it up absent Watchtower or something due to the Silver-gaining.  Maybe change it to:
Usurer
(4) Action - Attack
Gain a Silver.________________
When you discard this from play, if you have a Silver in play, each other player gains a Copper.  Each player who gained a Copper in this way takes <1>.

That way, it can't be KC-ed.  You could still play several copies a turn (although, again, you'd have to deal with the Silver), but IMO, that's no more of a threat than a Bureaucrat pin.

My only problem with an on-buy debt attack is that an Event that does this already exists (Tax).  While there's room for both (cf. Embargo and Swamp Hag), I'd rather see something different first.
Yeah, I agree.  If the attack gains a silver, that makes a pin far less likely.

KC is just one situation though.  Another is a multiplayer game, perhaps combined with other attacks.  I remember one time Donald X said that the problem with Highwayman (precursor to Bridge Troll) was that it hurt a lot when combined with Militia.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2016, 11:50:35 pm »
0

I think the bigger problem with Usurer is simply that it's a Copper junker.  That's always been a tricky concept because of the size of the Copper pile, so official Copper junkers always come with checks built in (e.g. Mountebank has a built-in Moat, Jester requires flipping a Copper).
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2016, 01:38:39 am »
0

Factory
<6> - Action-Attack-Duration
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost <1> more.
At the start of your next turn:
Gain a card costing up to $6<6>.

With this setup, pinning the other players will pin yourself as well.  It discourages buying for everybody but is a gainer itself, yet it will fail to gain anything at all if it is excessively stacked.  Its cost is such that it cannot gain itself.

As you asked for feedback on factory:
How would you pin yourself? Gaining a card with Debt cost does not make you gain the Debt tokens. With this, you can make cards cost up to <6> more and still gain stuff.

I'm not a fan of the self-harming aspect nor the Workshop interaction, but as you want those, what am i supposed to say. The cost increase keeps you from gaining copies of the card itself, but of course you could have had that by simply limiting the cost of cards you can gain to $6<5>, too.

I'm sorry if i have nothing nice to say. I suggested a wording that stays in line with the convention, and i think breaking the convention for the sole fear of King's Court madness (which is a given whatever you use KC on) would be a poor choice. Especially as i already explained that even a stunning <30> on a pile can't really lock out your opponent. I understand you want to use the self-harming aspect to make sure you can't really lock out another player, but if you consider how absurdly hard it is to actually play the card that often, i really don't understand your problem here. Also, if you actually manage to King's Court the card ten times, i can still just postpone buying a card until my next turn, where you can't possibly play the card at all. And even if you KC 5 of these every turn, a debt of <15> is quite possible to overcome. And here we are talking about an ad-absurdum situation already.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2016, 03:18:54 am »
+1

I already said from the very start that debt can't really lock out anybody:

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.

so you don't need to explain it back to me multiple times. :\

The pin to fear isn't a hard pin, but one in which it takes too long to pay off the debt each time.  If each single item I buy forces me to pay <15> or more over the next 2-3 turns, that's just so painful and slow.  Unless the other player already has an incredible deck, they may as well be pinned and the game is just no fun at all from then on.

Factory is such that you can stack up to <6>, which is considerable but not as harsh for the other player (it's also just an initial idea; a different number could be better).  Going beyond that to set this soft pin on other players does the same to you, because Factory will fail to gain a card on the next turn (everything costs too much debt) and buying a card will rack up just as much debt for you as for anybody else.  You're just making the effort to play Factory a lot for no benefit at that point.  Thus, pinning the other players will pin yourself as well.

You make a good point that only half can be played each turn, so it's not as bad as I've been thinking.  But it's still not as easy to brush off as you've been making it out to be.  Being debt means players can't truly be locked out, so the concept is workable -- that was the premise from the start.  But the threat of a big debt burden is still very dangerous; it needs to be considered and should probably be mitigated.  Surely you can acknowledge that?  It's not an absurd situation especially if you consider games with 3+ players.  Factory might not be a good answer to that either, but I'm just suggesting alternative approaches to mitigate the danger of an unfun game where players can only buy one card every third turn.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2016, 03:56:06 am »
0

Quote
Some cool name-$Reasonable Price
Some generic benefit.
---
When you discard from play, all other players gain <1>. They may reveal a copper. If they do not, they gain a copper.

That way, if you are afraid you won't be able to pay the debt, you can self junk yourself with copper.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2016, 04:22:37 am »
0

Quote
Clearing House-$5
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1 and +1buy
----
When this is in play: When you buy a card costing at most $2, everyone else gains <1>.

The amount of $2's will probably be limited.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2016, 04:01:42 pm »
+1

I already said from the very start that debt can't really lock out anybody:

The two main problem with cost increasers is that they can lock people out of the game (can't even buy Copper!) and they're confusing with cost reducers.  Using debt solves both of those problems.

so you don't need to explain it back to me multiple times. :\

It felt to me like you were overestimating the problem of having debt, so i kept explaining it. Sorry if i was patronizing, that wasn't my intention.

The pin to fear isn't a hard pin, but one in which it takes too long to pay off the debt each time.  If each single item I buy forces me to pay <15> or more over the next 2-3 turns, that's just so painful and slow.  Unless the other player already has an incredible deck, they may as well be pinned and the game is just no fun at all from then on.

Well, if i play 15 Saboteurs a turn, it's not going to be much fun for you either, is it? Actually, 3 Saboteurs a turn are already doing more damage to my deck than i can usually hope to make up. Having Lab, Province or whatever other card cost an additional <3> is a joke compared to that.

Factory is such that you can stack up to <6>, which is considerable but not as harsh for the other player (it's also just an initial idea; a different number could be better).  Going beyond that to set this soft pin on other players does the same to you, because Factory will fail to gain a card on the next turn (everything costs too much debt) and buying a card will rack up just as much debt for you as for anybody else.  You're just making the effort to play Factory a lot for no benefit at that point.  Thus, pinning the other players will pin yourself as well.
Yes, i got that this was the intention.

It's not an absurd situation especially if you consider games with 3+ players.  Factory might not be a good answer to that either, but I'm just suggesting alternative approaches to mitigate the danger of an unfun game where players can only buy one card every third turn.

See my Saboteur comparison above. This also works with Knights and a few other cards. Heck, even a 4-player Militia game is horribly slow, no matter how many you play a turn. With Debt, you can at least pay off your debt over several weak turns instead failing to hit $5 every single turn and not being able to buy anything at all. My point isn't that the worst-case scenario wasn't annoying, it's just that we know a lot of more annoying situations in Dominion. I'll take <5> over 5 Saboteur attacks every day, and i'd rather pay off my debt for 2 turns than spend 3 turns with hands that can't buy anything worthwile at all.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2016, 05:55:08 pm »
+1

Hm, Saboteur comparison is a fair point, but I don't think it's actually a good defense.  Saboteur is among the most hated cards, isn't it?  It sits in this weird place where it can be overbearing and destructive, especially with 3+ players and in inexperienced groups.  Even for us who know that Saboteur is generally super weak, it can get soul-crushingly strong when played in excess.  IMO, Saboteur isn't so much an excuse for making similarly unfun cards as it is a warning.  Moreover, Tollgate as proposed is in many ways easier to stack up on because it's cheap and gives economy.

So as I said, maybe the pain of Tollgate is acceptable without other checks, but I think it's important to keep it firmly in mind and watch out for it.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2016, 02:14:52 am »
+1

My opinion is probably influenced by the groups that I normally play with as well. If we get a board that has Torturer and consistent action splitters, or Torturer in games involving 3 or more players, we're likely to replace one of the cards with a protective Reaction, or just replace Torturer itself. I don't mind oppressive combos (particularly since I gravitate towards them ;D) but I've seen other players feel otherwise, and I would probably feel bad if I drove someone to never play Dominion ever again just because I like Torturer + Village a little too much.
There is of course nothing wrong with that houserule but I'd like to add that Torturer pins, while being nasty, are not the end of the world. First of all, you can as usual always mirror this powerful strategy and above all you have an out via taking a Curse.
I do for example use this Debt attack card which is also an optional Curser:

Debt Peonage
Type: Action-Attack
Cost:
Take a Coin Token. Each other player may gain a Curse.
If he does not he takes  2 and you take a Coin token.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2016, 02:47:11 pm »
+2

You can still create a debt pin once the Curses run out. Should be the opposite.

Here's a crude version:

Debt Torturer
Type: Action-Attack
Cost:
+3 Cards
Each other player either takes a Curse or 2

Once the curses run out you can no longer pin them with debt.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2016, 02:51:56 pm »
+1

Hmm - this might be more interesting.


Debt Collector
Type: Action-Attack
Cost:
+3 Cards
Each other player either takes 2 or gains a Curse card, putting it in his hand.
Each player may discard a Curse card to pay off 1.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 02:54:06 pm by Destry »
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2016, 03:05:13 pm »
0

You can still create a debt pin once the Curses run out. Should be the opposite.
Nah, I am fine with it. The card does very little if the other player choose the Curse so it has to be become better in the endgame when the Curses are out. Compare it so Saboteur. You can also set up Saboteur pins in theory but in practice they occur rarely and if they do you can still hedge yourself against it via mirror stratgies, via massive gaining and so on.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9418
  • Respect: +10427
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2016, 03:36:22 pm »
0

With Saboteur, while it can lead to unfun and degenerate games, you can always just build a deck out of cards that cost $3 or less. If you're being given more debt tokens per turn than you can earn money per turn, you can't play anymore.
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: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2016, 03:45:10 pm »
0

With Saboteur, while it can lead to unfun and degenerate games, you can always just build a deck out of cards that cost $3 or less. If you're being given more debt tokens per turn than you can earn money per turn, you can't play anymore.
Ehm, Saboteur does trash cards that cost 3 or more. ^^
Good luck trying to achieve anything with only Copper and 2s.
Saboteur pins are a possibility; we have probably all played some games in which they appeared and while they can be nasty you can always hedge yourself against them.
I don't see how my card is worse than Saboteur (unless you play with 4 or more players but then Dominion becomes wacky anyway). Just because a theoretical pin possibility exists doesn't mean that it will actually arise or be significant. We all played our Saboteur pin games and survived them, realizing that they are way to defend against Saboteur.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9418
  • Respect: +10427
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2016, 03:46:49 pm »
0

With Saboteur, while it can lead to unfun and degenerate games, you can always just build a deck out of cards that cost $3 or less. If you're being given more debt tokens per turn than you can earn money per turn, you can't play anymore.
Ehm, Saboteur does trash cards that cost 3 or more. ^^
Good luck trying to achieve anything with only Copper and 2s.
Saboteur pins are a possibility; we have probably all played some games in which they appeared and while they can be nasty you can always hedge yourself against them.
I don't see how my card is worse than Saboteur (unless you play with 4 or more players but then Dominion becomes wacky anyway). Just because a theoretical pin possibility exists doesn't mean that it will actually arise or be significant. We all played our Saboteur pin games and survived them, realizing that they are way to defend against Saboteur.

Sorry; been way too long since I've played with Saboteur!
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

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2016, 03:52:38 pm »
0

I once played a game with kings court knights-saboteurs. I won the destroy deck game.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2016, 03:57:13 pm »
0

Well, Debt Peonage is much stronger than Saboteur. Saboteur doesn't give you any benefit; this give you 1-2 coin tokens. Saboteur is frustrating, but you can stop it buy buying 3 coin cards. This just stops you from buying cards.

The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card. I'd bet money, or at least coin tokens, Debt Peonage will dominate.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2016, 04:13:19 pm »
0

I'd bet money, or at least coin tokens, Debt Peonage will dominate.
For a mere Curser it is worse than all other 5s. I would never start with it if Witch or Mountebank were in the Kingdom and only go for it late in the game when it actually does something decent.

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

I once played a game with kings court knights-saboteurs. I won the destroy deck game.
Strange that nobody whines about Knight pins here. IMO they provide the worst pin possibility. You can always mirror a pin strategy but if you lose the Knights split in a Kingdom in which they are good, well, that's it. A nasty Saboteur deck provides you at least an out via Duchies whereas Knights just empty out all the good stuff.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2016, 04:29:31 pm »
0

And it's a massacre when you have won the split on both and have kc and villages to back it up.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2016, 04:30:26 pm »
0

Strange that nobody whines about Knight pins here. IMO they provide the worst pin possibility. You can always mirror a pin strategy but if you lose the Knights split in a Kingdom in which they are good, well, that's it. A nasty Saboteur deck provides you at least an out via Duchies whereas Knights just empty out all the good stuff.

It's mitigated by Knights trashing each other, so when one player wins the split the Knights will eventually eliminate each other.  The split winner will still have some left, but rarely enough to lock out a player.  Also, Knights usually can't touch Provinces, which is important. 

Knights and Saboteur have mitigation built-in, so it's tougher for them to get totally out of control.  That said, games where they do effectively pin a player can be really unfun, so they're not a good excuse for making more cards that do that.  Handing out unlimited Debt could very easily fall into that territory.  Debt Peonage sounds a lot like a Torturer that forces you to discard once Curses are gone.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2016, 04:35:38 pm »
+3

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2016, 04:45:16 pm »
+1

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.

In this case, it would probably be more appropriate to have one player buy the new Curser and the other player buy another Curser (probably test against a few different ones over multiple games).
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2016, 05:07:24 pm »
+2

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.

I agree to this. Test games aren't necessarily fun games. I personally often try to spot the most annoying playing style possible and go through with it. I suppose nobody did this with Rebuild (or Page, as far as i'm concerned).
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2016, 05:36:41 pm »
0

Hmmm something like this?
Action 4
At the end of your buy phase pay up to 3 coins
Your opponent takes the amount you paid debt tokens
At the start of your next turn take the amount you paid last turn.
Excuse the terrible wording.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2016, 03:29:40 am »
0

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.
You can tell the power of a card when you play with it so I fail to see why one should exclude a player from buying a card. It could be a totally balanced village but if it is the only village in the Kingdom and you can play a much better deck with villages in them even a crappy village will kick ass.
So this excluding-method is highly dubous.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2016, 04:10:35 am »
0

Strange that nobody whines about Knight pins here. IMO they provide the worst pin possibility. You can always mirror a pin strategy but if you lose the Knights split in a Kingdom in which they are good, well, that's it. A nasty Saboteur deck provides you at least an out via Duchies whereas Knights just empty out all the good stuff.

It's mitigated by Knights trashing each other, so when one player wins the split the Knights will eventually eliminate each other.  The split winner will still have some left, but rarely enough to lock out a player.
I have experienced some pretty harsh Knight games on the giving and the receiving end and lock-out did happen. Doesn't mean that the card is broken though; it is not dangerous in all Kingdoms and nasty attacks as well as preparing/defending against them or seeing whether they can become nasty in this particular Kingdom is at least to me part of the fun of Dominion. Anything that creates interaction in a fairly mutiplayer solitaire game is good in my opinion.


Quote
Debt Peonage sounds a lot like a Torturer that forces you to discard once Curses are gone.
Initially Debt Peonage is worse than comparable Cursers like Witch or Mountebank. It only becomes good once Curses are out.
So when there are other Cursers in the Kingdom the guy who goes for them has a card which is relatively better during the middlegame start and a relatively worse during the ending. If there aren't all players might wanna go for Debt Peonage. In a 2P game it is not an issue, Debt Peonage provides 2 Coin tokens for you and 2D for the other player, canceling each other out. In a 3P game Debt Peonage provides 3 Coin tokens for you and 2D for the other players so if everybody is playing one all get a net of -1$.
Seems trivial compared to the 3P Saboteur equivalent, all players trash/downgrade 2 cards.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #55 on: July 15, 2016, 02:26:17 pm »
+1

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.
You can tell the power of a card when you play with it so I fail to see why one should exclude a player from buying a card. It could be a totally balanced village but if it is the only village in the Kingdom and you can play a much better deck with villages in them even a crappy village will kick ass.
So this excluding-method is highly dubous.

In that case, you set up a kingdom with <new village> and an existing village. One player is only allowed to buy <new village>; one player only existing village; and any other player can do what they want. That's only one data point, but is more likely to give you useful information than everyone buying <new village>. In the case of Villages and Throne Rooms, you've got to do comparative testing, since the strength of those cards is the cards it supports, rather than the card itself. I've never won a game by just getting Villages, no matter how many times I've tried.

So, yeah, you've got a point, cards that are enablers are bad candidates for exclusion testing. Still, Dominion is balanced enough that you can exclusion test, say, Witch, and see if it's balanced. There was a time when there were no other cursers to compare to it.

The downside of testing Debt Peonage with another curser on the board is anything that gives out Cusrses will boost the chance of Debt Peonage setting up a debt pin. But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #56 on: July 15, 2016, 02:50:55 pm »
0

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #57 on: July 15, 2016, 02:59:05 pm »
0

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #58 on: July 15, 2016, 03:14:29 pm »
0

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
I didn't. You can tell via merely looking at it that while Curses are not out yet Debt Peonage is weaker than Witch and Mountebank. It provides the defending player an out via the 2D and +1 Coin token is worse than 2 Cards or Mountebank's 2$ (Mountebank is of course better as it also copper-junks and worse as it doesn't always hit but if anything the copper-junking is stronger; i.e. I find it safe to say that Mountebank is superior to a hypothetical "+2$  Each other player gains a Curse." )
Logged

461.weavile

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Itemfinder RPG
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #59 on: July 15, 2016, 03:18:16 pm »
0

What if we take this attack in another direction? Perhaps:

Card \ Action-Attack-Duration \ (Cost)

Until the start of your next turn, all Treasure cards which do nothing when discarded also say "When you discard this from play, take <1>.

At the start of your next turn, choose a player (including yourself). +(1) per < > that player has.

The wording could be better, clearly...
Logged
Warlords and Wizards is my favorite expansion.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2016, 03:45:46 pm »
+1

For the record, Donald X has explicitly stated that he does this kind of exclusion testing.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2016, 03:51:15 pm »
+2

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
I didn't. You can tell via merely looking at it that while Curses are not out yet Debt Peonage is weaker than Witch and Mountebank. It provides the defending player an out via the 2D and +1 Coin token is worse than 2 Cards or Mountebank's 2$ (Mountebank is of course better as it also copper-junks and worse as it doesn't always hit but if anything the copper-junking is stronger; i.e. I find it safe to say that Mountebank is superior to a hypothetical "+2$  Each other player gains a Curse." )

So you misread me. I was responding to your doubts about testing cards by limiting who could buy it in a game. Let me fill in the implied part of sentence quoted out of context. "But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically (when you comparison test Debt Peonage to other cards,) you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank."

My via-looking-at-it analysis is similar to yours - in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger. I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake. I could be wrong. We'll never know for sure because neither of us will playtest the card.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2016, 02:19:12 am »
0

For the record, Donald X has explicitly stated that he does this kind of exclusion testing.
Link?

We'll never know for sure because neither of us will playtest the card.
Nope. Once I am happy with it I will play with it.

Quote
I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake.
+2/3 Coin tokens and 2D for everbody else might be strong but I already analyzed mirror play and showed that it doesn't lead to pins in this case.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2016, 03:39:18 am »
+2

Quote
I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake.
+2/3 Coin tokens and 2D for everbody else might be strong but I already analyzed mirror play and showed that it doesn't lead to pins in this case.

Is that this analysis?  If you are forced to mirror to avoid the pin, that's not really a solution.

Here's the quote about playtesting:

Are there certain cards every new card gets tested with? Like Throne Room, Bridge, or cards it's particularly similar to? Do you make a point of getting every published card in a game with each new card? Or is random playtesting sufficient?

How do you decide when a card is sufficiently playtested? Does it have to survive a certain amount of games/time without being tweaked? Or do you just judge when it's hit the right balance of power, interesting-ness, and originality?
I don't focus on "every card" in any sense. A set gets played with each existing set and also in mixes. New cards get specifically played as I make them; then they're just in the mix and will come up sometimes. IRL I play through the set so everything from the new set does get in a game most nights. Cards that seem like they need extra testing get more testing. If some combo seems potentially like an issue, e.g. Throne Room plus whatever, I might specifically test that some; but I don't just test Throne Room with everything or anything like that.

A big classic specific testing thing is just, some players must buy the card, others can't. Typically, the ones that can't get a substitute, e.g. we're testing a Remodel and the ones who can't buy it get Remodel itself instead. That's just to reduce the chance that the new card seems strong because this is just a good board for its kind of thing. Those games are a lot less fun than regular playtesting though, for me anyway. I don't enjoy feeling pressure to prove that a card is beatable when obv. it may win due to factors other than how strong it is.

At some point the set feels done. The list of cards that maybe won't work out has shrunk down to some things that maybe still seem worth paying attention to but have consistently failed to produce problems. You can always keep making the set better but want to release the expansion eventually.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2016, 11:12:27 am »
0

There is no "solution" necessary as the card is far less horrible than deck trashers like Saboteur.
If you don't mirror a Curser you will probably lose in far more than 50% of the games. If you don't mirror a deck trasher you will lose, respectively in the case of Saboteur, anti-remodel some cards. If you don't mirror a debt attack you will get some debt.
No idea about what the problem is. Seems to be more of a personal dislike for attacks with pin potential than some objective remark about debt attacks.
Pins simply exist in Dominion and folks who dislike them can simply not play with the cards that create pin potential.

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 11:14:02 am by tristan »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2016, 11:31:42 am »
+1

In my opinion, pins are something to be avoided at all costs. I'm with eHalcyon there.

Although honestly, the only pin i really know of would be the Masquerade one, and that pin only exists if several cards appear and the game is a 2 player one. It looks more like a (far from trivial to catch) oversight. Torturer is not a "pin". You can just gain Curses, which is a good idea more often than people think. Saboteur is not a pin, though it's clearly very close. Usually, Saboteur's just too bad to make this work. In either case, you could just buy Coppers, Duchies on $5 hands and gain Estates when your Duchies get trashed. And, well, hope to have your one Silver in hand when Saboteur is played. Knights are probably the worst, as Sir Michael is also a discard attack and could technically limit you to 3 cards a hand, but even then the "hope to draw my only Silver to buy a Knight/Duchy" thing would apply.

A debt attack that gives debt on buying cards is not a pin. You only get debt when you buy something, which is not only something you decide on your own, but also what debt keeps you from doing in the first place. Debt would actively keep you from getting debt.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 11:33:02 am by Asper »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9418
  • Respect: +10427
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2016, 01:55:00 pm »
+2

If you don't mirror a cursor, you might well lose, but you can have fun building a deck and playing the cards you want to while you lose. If you don't mirror this attack, you might end up in a situation where you are no longer allowed to buy any cards the rest of the gams, and thus have no meaningful way to continue playing.

Yes a couple pins like KC Masq exit, but that is an accidental byproduct of a rules quirk, not q feature of Dominin.
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

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2016, 02:43:31 pm »
+3

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2016, 03:30:39 pm »
+1

If you don't mirror a cursor, you might well lose, but you can have fun building a deck and playing the cards you want to while you lose. If you don't mirror this attack, you might end up in a situation where you are no longer allowed to buy any cards the rest of the gams, and thus have no meaningful way to continue playing.

Yes a couple pins like KC Masq exit, but that is an accidental byproduct of a rules quirk, not q feature of Dominin.

I'm not sure who you are talking to. I'm talking about my suggested rewording to eHalcyon's card, that makes each opponent take one debt per play when that opponent buys a card. Claiming that this would mean he wasn't "allowed to gain a card for the rest of the game" is simply not true. Even if my opponent gained all of these attacks, without the support of KC or TR, the max amount of Debt i could have to take are <5>, as it can only be played every second turn. With KC, this becomes <15> at max, which isn't all that much on a KC board, especially one where my opponent had the time it took me to get 10 attacks and 5 KCs, and build a deck that reliably aligns them. We don't complain about how 5 Cutpurses lock out a player who owns nothing but his starting Coppers, do we?

Edit: Oh, it appears you replied to tristan. Sorry, i didn't read his suggestion. Ignore my post, then.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 05:36:19 pm by Asper »
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1861
  • Respect: +1765
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2016, 01:07:59 am »
+1

Speculator
Action/Attack - $5
+<1>
Gain a Gold to your hand.
Each other player gains a Silver on their deck. If they did, +<2>

This guarantees they'll be able to pay off the debt next turn.

Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2016, 01:22:04 am »
0

Speculator
Action/Attack - $5
+<1>
Gain a Gold to your hand.
Each other player gains a Silver on their deck. If they did, +<2>

This guarantees they'll be able to pay off the debt next turn.

Edge case!  Play more than 5 and they'll have more than <10>, but they still only draw 5 Silver next turn.

Anyway, I still think it's a bit iffy but I'm mellowing on Asper's version.  I still prefer having it increase the cost for the one who played it though, because I think it would be fun to have to play around that.  That'll be subjective though.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #71 on: July 19, 2016, 08:05:01 am »
0

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2016, 11:49:29 am »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2016, 04:10:23 pm »
+2

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.

Dude, I dislike using this argument, but as one of the playtesters with their name on the box, I know more about how much testing Donald X does than you do. Any card he suspects will be problem gets the exclusion testing thingy described in the quote above. Sometimes he'll test cards he thinks are fine, just to prove they don't need to be fixed. It's only one of his testing tools, but a crucial one to keeping the game balanced over the expansions.

No one is claiming Donald X's testing procedure is perfect and catches everything. He has only so much time and resources. But it catches more problems than "decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy."

This isn't about your card. If you and your friends have fun playing that card then it's a good card for youse guys, whether or not it's flawed. I can understand reasons for not playtesting. Playtesting takes time and isn't always fun. I just hate hate hate - King's Court hate - the attitude that off-the-cuff evaluation is an adequate substitute for testing.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2016, 05:11:49 pm »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.
Rebuild is one crazy outlier. But there are ample of other overpowered cards. Cultist was certainly not used in more than 20 or 30 games, otherwise folks would have noted that it is a tad too strong.
It is not a big thing though. The notion that a fan card  HAS to be exclusion tested just because it introduces a new concept is as loco as Rebuild.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2016, 05:16:09 pm »
0

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.
I just hate hate hate - King's Court hate - the attitude that off-the-cuff evaluation is an adequate substitute for testing.
I never made such an argument. Other posters dismissed a debt attack based on purely theoretical considerations wheras I argued that it is an empirical matter whether an attack with pin potential like Saboteur really is too nasty or not. ^^
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 05:22:08 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2016, 05:56:22 pm »
0

"It's only a fan card" is such a poor cop-out excuse.  A card that hands out debt should undergo rigorous testing.  Whether it actually happens or not is a different matter, and most fan cards never get any testing at all.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2016, 06:17:09 pm »
0

"It's only a fan card" is such a poor cop-out excuse.  A card that hands out debt should undergo rigorous testing.  Whether it actually happens or not is a different matter, and most fan cards never get any testing at all.
Bullshit detector went off the scale. As if you tested your own cards rigorously with dozens of people and dozens of methods.
Most published games are undertested. Dominion is no exception. You just gotta look at the development time or the list of playtesters or laugh about cards like Rebuild to see that this ain't the same intensity as guys like Rosenberg who tests with hundred folks and more.
Now if this pisses off actual playtesters, so be it.
Given this background your notion that fan cards should be seriously tested (wait, aren't you the theory guy who us afraid of pins?) is fanboy wishful thinking.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2016, 06:25:45 pm »
+3

I never made such an argument. Other posters dismissed a debt attack based on purely theoretical considerations wheras I argued that it is an empirical matter whether an attack with pin potential like Saboteur really is too nasty or not. ^^

tristan - it's a bit disingenuous to take one line out-of-context and argue against a misreading of that one line. You've argued multiple times against exclusion testing, stating that "decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy" and claiming Donald X only uses it rarely. If you have to mischaracterize my words to refute them, well, that says something as well.

As for your argument about Saboteur (and other trasher) pins... Apples and oranges. Whether or not a Saboteur pin is awful has no effect on whether or not a debt pin is awful. Or the likelihood your card will generate a debt pin.

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2016, 06:33:09 pm »
0

"It's only a fan card" is such a poor cop-out excuse.  A card that hands out debt should undergo rigorous testing.  Whether it actually happens or not is a different matter, and most fan cards never get any testing at all.
Bullshit detector went off the scale. As if you tested your own cards rigorously with dozens of people and dozens of methods.
Most published games are undertested. Dominion is no exception. You just gotta look at the development time or the list of playtesters or laugh about cards like Rebuild to see that this ain't the same intensity as guys like Rosenberg who tests with hundred folks and more.
Now if this pisses off actual playtesters, so be it.
Given this background your notion that fan cards should be seriously tested (wait, aren't you the theory guy who us afraid of pins?) is fanboy wishful thinking.

I never claimed to test all my fan cards.  I don't -- like I said, most fan cards don't get that treatment.  Only a few have the means and dedication to do it, like LF and Asper.  Fan cards should be tested though.  Being a fan-made doesn't change that it should be tested well, all the more so if it does something novel that isn't easily comparable to long-standing cards.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1861
  • Respect: +1765
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #80 on: July 20, 2016, 03:32:17 am »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.

Gear was changed from $4 to $3 late in the picture and probably should have been caught as overpowered.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #81 on: July 20, 2016, 05:55:49 am »
0

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.
If somebody claimed that a card is unbalanced or boring and I said that I playtested it a zillion times and found it to be decent I have proven nothing.
What I actually do is print fan cards, play with them and if they are boring / unbalanced I either trash them or change them. This might not be systematic enough for you but I have serious doubts about highly structured playtesting. I played some of the prototypes of Feld and he never used systematic stuff like playtesting sheets or guess what not. Far more important is a heterogenous group of playtesters, i.e. not always the same guys, to avoid groupthink.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #82 on: July 20, 2016, 11:01:14 am »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.

Gear was changed from $4 to $3 late in the picture and probably should have been caught as overpowered.

$4 to $3 isn't that big a deal, and it's still too early to say that Gear is too strong. There are plenty of good players that say it is decent but not the be-all-end-all that some are making it out to be.

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.
If somebody claimed that a card is unbalanced or boring and I said that I playtested it a zillion times and found it to be decent I have proven nothing.
What I actually do is print fan cards, play with them and if they are boring / unbalanced I either trash them or change them. This might not be systematic enough for you but I have serious doubts about highly structured playtesting. I played some of the prototypes of Feld and he never used systematic stuff like playtesting sheets or guess what not. Far more important is a heterogenous group of playtesters, i.e. not always the same guys, to avoid groupthink.

You play tested with Feld, or you happened to play a prototype of Feld's? Did you report results to him? Ambiguous name drop is ambiguous. Funny thing, he apparently does use mostly the same guys when testing.  In any case, the little bit of Feld's play testing process that you may or may not have experienced isn't really relevant. Feld's prototype game isn't Dominion. The play testing strategies that are useful for one game may not be good for another. Moreover, the exclusion method is only one part of it; of course you just play the game normally too.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #83 on: July 20, 2016, 01:40:02 pm »
0

Man, it feels like you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say, even when I agree with you. If I said the sky is green, you'd say it was blue just to argue with me.

I really don't understand your opposition to exclusion testing. It's just a tool, much like a hammer or a plumbus. It's an especially apt tool for testing the whether dominion cards are overpowered or not. I use it on my own fan cards. No one is claiming it is the only tool to use or there are no other considerations. So I don't understand why you are working so hard to discredit it.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #84 on: July 20, 2016, 02:24:48 pm »
0

Ambiguous name drop is ambiguous.
I play in Offenburg and I playtested some of Stefan's games. You are welcome to join us if you ever happen to be in Germany.

Quote
In any case, the little bit of Feld's play testing process that you may or may not have experienced isn't really relevant. Feld's prototype game isn't Dominion. The play testing strategies that are useful for one game may not be good for another. Moreover, the exclusion method is only one part of it; of course you just play the game normally too.
Sure, actual playtesting experiences are not relevant in a discussion about playtesting. ::)
Carry on with the bullshit.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #85 on: July 20, 2016, 02:27:13 pm »
0

I really don't understand your opposition to exclusion testing.
I am not opposed to it. Do whatever you want. I just doubt that it is actually useful as the strength of a card is influences by all the other cards. You control for the very card itself via this exclusion thingy but you don't control for all the factors that make it weak/strong in a particular kingdom.
You don't need such a method to determine that cards like Rebuild or Wharf or Cultists are overpowered, simply more playing would have sufficed.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #86 on: July 20, 2016, 02:56:54 pm »
0

Ambiguous name drop is ambiguous.
I play in Offenburg and I playtested some of Stefan's games. You are welcome to join us if you ever happen to be in Germany.

Quote
In any case, the little bit of Feld's play testing process that you may or may not have experienced isn't really relevant. Feld's prototype game isn't Dominion. The play testing strategies that are useful for one game may not be good for another. Moreover, the exclusion method is only one part of it; of course you just play the game normally too.
Sure, actual playtesting experiences are not relevant in a discussion about playtesting. ::)
Carry on with the bullshit.

Level of involvement is still ambiguous. How much behind-the-scenes stuff do you see?

Playtesting experience with Feld prototypes is less relevant than playtesting experience with Dominion.  You want to talk about BB?  You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #87 on: July 20, 2016, 03:50:35 pm »
0

You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.

Looks like that "diligence" did not prevent Rebuild, Wharf or other obviously overpowered cards. So it looks like the method doesn't work or is at least not better than ordinary playtesting.

Anyway, this is very entertaining as you are the very guy who rambled about pins in principle. So you might wanna make up your mind and decide whether the power of a card is determined empirically, during playtesting, or in theory (NO PINS EVAAA!).
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 03:53:20 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #88 on: July 20, 2016, 04:28:42 pm »
0

"I never argue from authority" as you name drop Stefan Feld.  OK.

Asper has spoken out of his experience.  Destry has spoken out of his experience.  Donald has spoken out of his experience.  So in a discussion about Dominion play testing, why is your play testing experience with a different game more relevant than these other experiences play testing Dominion?  Seriously.  You're dismissing their experiences while making the exact same kind of arguments in your own favour, except with less relevant examples.

There are always going to be cards that are stronger than others.  Rebuild is problematic; it was added late to the game and didn't get enough play testing.  Cultist and Wharf aren't problematic, IMO.  In any case, nobody has claimed that exclusion testing is the only way, nor that the playtesting process is perfect.  The only claims are that playtesting is important and exclusion playtesting is useful -- both claims that have been given plenty of evidence and should be self-evident anyway.

Pins are bad, period.  Experience with other pins has already confirmed this, and it's easy to see from a theoretical perspective too.  A game is no fun if you can't play it. 

As for "making up my mind", my position hasn't changed and I've already explained fully:

A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.

Theory is a good start, especially for ideas that are easily comparable to previous ideas that are already well understood.  And then you should test.

I'm disappointed in myself for continuing to try to talk to you as if you were willing to engage in reasonable discourse.  It's always shifting goalposts, straw men and selective quoting with you.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #89 on: July 20, 2016, 04:33:20 pm »
+1

Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.

And here you're calling it nonsense. I really want to know why you hate exclusion testing so much. Did it blow up your Death Star? Steal your high school girlfriend? Or worse, it passed when you opened two clubs?

You presume only exclusion testing was done with Rebuild, Wharf and other cards. Surprisingly, just playing with the new cards - what you might call, ordinary playtesting - is the more common way of testing out new cards. Since that too did not reveal how powerful those cards are, ordinary playtesting is also nonsense. I guess we're just left with making stuff up.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #90 on: July 20, 2016, 04:36:17 pm »
0

Pins are bad, period.
Sure, that's why Saboteur doesn't exist. Oopsie, it does. Now what?

What you don't seem to get is that this is a purely theoretical argument. Kinda like the initial reaction of a guy who first sees Saboteur, thinks that it is crazy with this immense deck destruction pin potential.
But in practice the card is actually fine and if anything on the weaker side.

So it looks like you made up your mind; pro theory, contra empirics.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #91 on: July 20, 2016, 04:37:49 pm »
0

Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.
I really want to know why you hate exclusion testing so much. Did it blow up your Death Star? Steal your high school girlfriend? Or worse, it passed when you opened two clubs?
How about engaging with my actual argument?  ::)

Quote
I am not opposed to it. Do whatever you want. I just doubt that it is actually useful as the strength of a card is influences by all the other cards. You control for the very card itself via this exclusion thingy but you don't control for all the factors that make it weak/strong in a particular kingdom.
You don't need such a method to determine that cards like Rebuild or Wharf or Cultists are overpowered, simply more playing would have sufficed.


Quote
You presume only exclusion testing was done with Rebuild, Wharf and other cards.
Nope. All I said is that more ordinary playtesting would have revealed that these cards are overpowered.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:40:03 pm by tristan »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #92 on: July 20, 2016, 04:44:16 pm »
+2

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #93 on: July 20, 2016, 04:50:00 pm »
0

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.
Still mad because I did not roll over when you treated me like scum after I joined this forum?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #94 on: July 20, 2016, 04:51:10 pm »
0

Pins are bad, period.
Sure, that's why Saboteur doesn't exist. Oopsie, it does. Now what?

What you don't seem to get is that this is a purely theoretical argument. Kinda like the initial reaction of a guy who first sees Saboteur, thinks that it is crazy with this immense deck destruction pin potential.
But in practice the card is actually fine and if anything on the weaker side.

So it looks like you made up your mind; pro theory, contra empirics.

Man, Saboteur was already discussed earlier.  Go read it again if you've forgotten.  The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card.  That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that.  And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall.  Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.

Way to selectively quote once again.

How about engaging with my actual argument?  ::)

He did, right here:

Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.
And here you're calling it nonsense. I really want to know why you hate exclusion testing so much. Did it blow up your Death Star? Steal your high school girlfriend? Or worse, it passed when you opened two clubs?


See how he quoted you there?  That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically?  I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #95 on: July 20, 2016, 04:55:19 pm »
0

The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card.  That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that.  And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall.  Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.
How the hell can you quantify whether Saboteur pins games are a good or a bad experiences? Some people enjoy such games, some don't. You might not enjoy them, I personally do.
Also, please point out where Donald said that deck trashers like Saboteur or Knights are a grave mistake or that deck trashing pins are an unintended feature of these cards. That you hate them is totally fine as long as you don't pretend that your personal preferences are more than that.


See how he quoted you there?  That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically?  I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Reading skills are essential.
I made a general statement about you arguing from authority and did not call exclusion testing nonsense.
As usual it is pointless to engage with your distortions.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:57:15 pm by tristan »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7461
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10638
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #96 on: July 20, 2016, 05:04:26 pm »
+2

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.

Gear was changed from $4 to $3 late in the picture and probably should have been caught as overpowered.

It was "caught". I was very worried it was overpowered and Donald obligingly played several games with me where I went Gear-BM. I lost every one of those games.

Now you can argue that Gear is too powerful compared to other, similar cards like Haven and Smithy. I mean that's certainly possible. And I do wish it cost $4. But I don't think it's ruining games by forcing you to go mono-Gear, which would be the worst-case scenario.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7461
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10638
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #97 on: July 20, 2016, 05:05:49 pm »
+3

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.

Seconded. You don't have to get tristan to agree with you in order for the rest of us to see that you're in the right, Destry. tristan is just a real horatio83 when you come right down to it.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #98 on: July 20, 2016, 05:11:08 pm »
+1

The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card.  That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that.  And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall.  Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.
How the hell can you quantify whether Saboteur pins games are a good or a bad experiences? Some people enjoy such games, some don't. You might not enjoy them, I personally do.
Also, please point out where Donald said that deck trashers like Saboteur or Knights are a grave mistake or that deck trashing pins are an unintended feature of these cards. That you hate them is totally fine as long as you don't pretend that your personal preferences are more than that.

- Tons of new players who don't know better play a 3+ player game with Saboteur where everything anybody buys gets trashed almost immediately by another player.  Then they go online and complain about how broken and unfun Saboteur is. 

- Likewise, tons of players including it in their list of cards to ban for the same reason. 

- Numerous players who, after playing a game where they pin an opponent, opt to apologize in chat and/or in the "Sorry..." game reports thread in these forums.  Because they have empathy and realize how unfun that would have been for their helpless opponent.

- The KC-Goons-Masquerade pin was acknowledged by Donald as a problem that slipped through playtesting which, if caught, would have been addressed.  I'm not going to bother looking for the quote this time.  Last time you asked for a source and I provided it, you immediately dismissed it.  Why should I bother?

See how he quoted you there?  That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically?  I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Reading skills are essential.
I made a general statement about you arguing from authority and did not call exclusion testing nonsense.
As usual it is pointless to engage with your distortions.

If you meant something else, it's a problem with your writing skills.  The post history is here.  Let me provide you with the context that you so love to ignore.

You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if [exclusion testing] is nonsense it is nonsense.

Are you now saying that what you meant was, "if [argument from authority] is nonsense, it is nonsense"?  Doesn't really make sense in context.

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made.  Not that these were arguments from authority -- these were arguments from experience, just like yours, except their experience is more relevant.

I think I'm done for today.  Feel free to take the last word.  I'll take Asper and LF's advice.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #99 on: July 20, 2016, 05:16:59 pm »
0

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. 
You really deny enlightenment principles like 'arguments should be analyzed independently of who made them'? No wonder these discussions are so pointless, you are quite literally a man from the Middle Ages.

If calling you out on basically denying the enlightenment and modernity makes me the bad guy, makes everybody call me a troll and guess what not, so be it.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 05:19:04 pm by tristan »
Logged

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Respect: +1161
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2016, 05:34:57 pm »
0

I don't know what's going on in this thread, but the idea of exclusion testing intrigues me.  There are two ways to think about the strength of a card:

1. If one player has access to the card, and the other doesn't, how many more games do they win?
2. If all players have access to the card, how much does it impact the game?

For most cards, both kinds of strength are the same.  However, Fool's Gold is an example that has more type 1 strength than type 2 strength.  If you're the only person with access to the Fool's Gold, then you can always get 10 of them.  However, if all players have access, they can foil each other, and it might not be very good for anyone.

You can also consider attacks that are good defenses against themselves.  This is kind of a subtle point, but Young Witch sifts through cards, which mitigates the slogginess of having a cheap curser.  Or Pirate Ship, which provides non-Treasure payoff in games where you may need it.  These reduce the impact that a card has on the game, which is important if the impact would have been very negative.  (Of course, the impact isn't always negative.)

For this reason, I think it's important to give a debt attack a payoff bonus (as opposed to, say, drawing cards).
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2016, 06:46:09 pm »
+3

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.

Seconded. You don't have to get tristan to agree with you in order for the rest of us to see that you're in the right, Destry. tristan is just a real horatio83 when you come right down to it.

But, but, but I just carefully crafted a response that will surely sweep him away with the power of my logic. That will work, won't it?

I cannot in good conscience leave a fellow internet denizen in darkness and error. It is my sacred duty to bring him to the light. Someone is wrong on the internet, and I must help them.


[How about engaging with my actual argument?  ::)

But you don't make an actual argument about how ordinary playtesting is superior to exclusion testing. You just stomp your metaphoric feet and claim more ordinary playtesting is sufficient and exclusion testing is dubious at best.

Let me give you an example of how ordinary playtesting may not give you the results you're looking for. Way back when, Donald X introduced a new card - Treasure Map - that gave you 3 Gold in your discard if you matched two of them. Ho ho ho - that's crazy! 3 Gold! Everybody bought them during those first games they appeared, and would overbuy them to prevent others from getting two to match. And the person who bought them always won - since everyone was basing their strategy on matching Treasure Maps. I vividly remember one demoralizing game where the Treasure Maps ran out before I could get a second one. Good thing Donald X nerfed that overpowered card!

Except - spoiler! - that's not the version that ended up in Seaside. When players followed different strategies -  were excluded from buying Treasure Map - did it become obvious TM wasn't overpowered. Actually, TM was underpowered and needed to be beefed up now gives 4 Gold on the top of your deck.

So, you see, if you just do ordinary testing, you may not get much useful information. And if time and resources are limited - Donald X doesn't have hundreds of playtesters on his payroll - focused testing, including exclusion testing as described previously, are crucial.


I hope this helps.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #102 on: July 20, 2016, 07:13:43 pm »
0

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. 
You really deny enlightenment principles like 'arguments should be analyzed independently of who made them'? No wonder these discussions are so pointless, you are quite literally a man from the Middle Ages.

If calling you out on basically denying the enlightenment and modernity makes me the bad guy, makes everybody call me a troll and guess what not, so be it.
Not that I disagree with your argument here, but there you go selectively quoting again. That is bad discussion practice, as it removes the quote from context. It makes you look more credible when your argument is made with the quote in context. If you are responding to a specific part of the quote, bold it, but don't take it out of context. I believe that is largely why others are calling you a troll. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I am genuinely trying to help.

However, please note that I am on the pro exclusion testing side of the argument. It is this qoute only that I agree with so far.
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #103 on: July 21, 2016, 03:41:28 pm »
0

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. 
You really deny enlightenment principles like 'arguments should be analyzed independently of who made them'? No wonder these discussions are so pointless, you are quite literally a man from the Middle Ages.

If calling you out on basically denying the enlightenment and modernity makes me the bad guy, makes everybody call me a troll and guess what not, so be it.
Not that I disagree with your argument here, but there you go selectively quoting again. That is bad discussion practice, as it removes the quote from context. It makes you look more credible when your argument is made with the quote in context. If you are responding to a specific part of the quote, bold it, but don't take it out of context. I believe that is largely why others are calling you a troll. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I am genuinely trying to help.

However, please note that I am on the pro exclusion testing side of the argument. It is this qoute only that I agree with so far.

I was going to leave tristan to his ignorance because I'm pretty sure I've explained argument from authority to him before and he willfully learned nothing.  But it's a new day, and since you are not a troll and probably able to listen to reason, here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote
An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Explanation

Quote
In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualification in an irrelevant field and should be irrelevant to the argument at hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote
Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided - it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy.

John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument. Although he did not call this type of argument a fallacy, he did note that it can be misused by taking advantage of the "respect" and "submission" of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion. Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change Locke's original terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority. By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the "Fallacy of appealing to authority," even while noting that "this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious."

In the Western rationalistic tradition and in early modern philosophy, appealing to authority was generally considered a logical fallacy.

More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority" or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority".

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies, or for being unreasonable about Reason itself?  Even then I wouldn't have minded so much, but tristan was literally using the same type of argument that he was condemning while he was condemning it.  Enlightenment indeed.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9418
  • Respect: +10427
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #104 on: July 21, 2016, 04:00:30 pm »
+2

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
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

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #105 on: July 21, 2016, 04:50:59 pm »
0

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I meant calling something a fallacy when it isn't, but this is close.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9418
  • Respect: +10427
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #106 on: July 21, 2016, 05:08:46 pm »
0

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I meant calling something a fallacy when it isn't, but this is close.

Yeah, it's not exactly the same. Though until I read that article, I had thought that the "fallacy fallacy" referred to simply an overuse of accusations of fallacies as your argument; whether those accusations were correct or not.
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

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #107 on: July 21, 2016, 05:24:47 pm »
0

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I meant calling something a fallacy when it isn't, but this is close.

Yeah, it's not exactly the same. Though until I read that article, I had thought that the "fallacy fallacy" referred to simply an overuse of accusations of fallacies as your argument; whether those accusations were correct or not.

So, shortly put, it's the claim that a false premise implied a false conclusion.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #108 on: July 21, 2016, 07:08:43 pm »
0

Uhhh...just forget I said anything about this argument at all. Let's go back to analyzing possible debt attacks...or how about debt giving reactions? Maybe something like:
Quote
cardname some reasonable cost
Action-reaction
Some simple action.
                                               
When you trash a card, you may discard this. If you do, each opponent takes <> equal to half the trashed card's cost in coin rounded down.
Ninjaedit: clarity
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 07:09:56 pm by Doom_Shark »
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #109 on: July 22, 2016, 04:51:34 am »
0

You can also consider attacks that are good defenses against themselves.  This is kind of a subtle point, but Young Witch sifts through cards, which mitigates the slogginess of having a cheap curser.  Or Pirate Ship, which provides non-Treasure payoff in games where you may need it.  These reduce the impact that a card has on the game, which is important if the impact would have been very negative.  (Of course, the impact isn't always negative.)
This is a very good point. I'd like to add that a lot of attacks defend against themselves. For example Cursers (or junkers in general) don't just hurt your opponent but also make you get less Curses. So even if you don't want a junker in a particular game you might have to buy one simply because your opponent bought one.


Quote
For this reason, I think it's important to give a debt attack a payoff bonus (as opposed to, say, drawing cards).
This is partially why Debt Peonage gives you Coin tokens.
Logged

461.weavile

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Itemfinder RPG
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #110 on: July 29, 2016, 10:27:01 pm »
0

Quote
cardname some reasonable cost
Action-reaction
Some simple action.
                                               
When you trash a card, you may discard this. If you do, each other player takes <> equal to half the trashed card's cost in coins rounded down.

Any inkling of what might go on the top? Remodeler that deals with debt costs? I prefer when the Reactions are guaranteed to have an effect in the kingdom, but maybe the Remodeler isn't the simplest effect...

I seem to have misplaced my idea for a Debt Attack. Let's see where it could've gone.... Ah yes:

Quote
At the start of your next turn, choose a player (including yourself). +(1) per < > that player has.
----
While this is in play, when a Treasure card is discarded from play, its owner takes <1>.

Please ignore the potential discrepancy between revealing Moat and effects that don't occur on-play; I'm pretty sure Moat still operates as intended.
Logged
Warlords and Wizards is my favorite expansion.

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #111 on: July 30, 2016, 05:12:07 pm »
0

I just realized that there is kind of already a way to have an attack dush out debt: tax+junkers
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #112 on: July 30, 2016, 06:06:29 pm »
0

I just realized that there is kind of already a way to have an attack dush out debt: tax+junkers
Except that Tax, like Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods, triggers on buy for precisely that reason.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #113 on: July 30, 2016, 08:11:16 pm »
+2

Oh yeah...I noticed that with other cards, being especially flavorful for smugglers, but missed that interaction.
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

madeofghosts

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2016, 07:54:47 am »
0

Would this work?

[some minor benefit that isn't +$]
You may take a debt token; if you do, so does everyone else.

So you'd use it if you weren't going to spend all your money that turn anyway, or if you're relying on gaining instead of buying. And it's stackable but only if you're ok with it stacking against you too. No idea what a suitable cost would be. It doesn't seem all that strong.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #115 on: August 18, 2016, 08:34:08 am »
0

I tested this as an attack:

Action-Attack-Duration, $4
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn: +$2

It was really, really weak. Now i'll try it as:

Action-Attack-Duration, $3
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1Buy
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]
 

Page created in 0.23 seconds with 20 queries.