Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 190 191 [192] 193 194 ... 209  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 228902 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

X-tra

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Respect: +64
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4775 on: February 14, 2020, 08:19:59 pm »
+6

Report and move on, people. Trolls tend to do that: they swallow up a good portion of a thread and gain self-gratification as any ounce remaining of common sense in a would-be civilised debate gets obliterated. Golden rule of the Internet: When we have a very good moment together, this is where people with self-destructive behaviour chimes in.

All I can say, Kudasai, is that Iím sorry that you must bear the awkwardness of that disruptive follower of yours. I know his thinking doesnít mirror yours and donít think for a second that we think any lesser of you because of that. Same with you, naitchman. Your weekís contest, your rules. It is an excellent contest and yielded a lot of really cool ideas from the community (even if, apparently, understanding the instructions of that challenge was errr... hard to grasp for some, lol). Everyone is giving their best here and I canít say that there has been one single effortless entry since the start (well, maybe the blank card, but again: lol). Keep up the good and hard work, people!

Letís get back on track now. 😊
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 09:03:21 pm by X-tra »
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
  • Respect: +127
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4776 on: February 15, 2020, 04:40:21 am »
+2



Inventions are cards which you can play as one-shots by meeting some condition which is described for each card below the dividing line. You can also buy and play them as normal.

Looks pretty awesome, but I'd certainly give it a different color, as a reminder that these cards provide extra options during your turns by virtue of being in the kingdom. Reactions are having a different color for similar reasons - to remind that they have an effect on moments other cards typically have no interaction.

Also, two of the entries say "you may you may".
Logged

Saul Goodman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4777 on: February 15, 2020, 07:28:01 am »
+1

Report and move on, people. Trolls tend to do that: they swallow up a good portion of a thread and gain self-gratification as any ounce remaining of common sense in a would-be civilised debate gets obliterated. Golden rule of the Internet: When we have a very good moment together, this is where people with self-destructive behaviour chimes in.

All I can say, Kudasai, is that Iím sorry that you must bear the awkwardness of that disruptive follower of yours. I know his thinking doesnít mirror yours and donít think for a second that we think any lesser of you because of that. Same with you, naitchman. Your weekís contest, your rules. It is an excellent contest and yielded a lot of really cool ideas from the community (even if, apparently, understanding the instructions of that challenge was errr... hard to grasp for some, lol). Everyone is giving their best here and I canít say that there has been one single effortless entry since the start (well, maybe the blank card, but again: lol). Keep up the good and hard work, people!

Letís get back on track now. 😊

Well said.  Speaking of getting back on track, when is this going to be judged? 

I was completely stumped by this contest.  If I had known I could enter a Blank Card, I would have done so.  I am eager for the next challenge!
Logged

hypercube

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
  • Shuffle iT Username: xyrix
  • Respect: +317
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4778 on: February 15, 2020, 07:54:49 am »
+1

Looks pretty awesome, but I'd certainly give it a different color, as a reminder that these cards provide extra options during your turns by virtue of being in the kingdom. Reactions are having a different color for similar reasons - to remind that they have an effect on moments other cards typically have no interaction.

Also, two of the entries say "you may you may".

Good points!
Logged
I have sigs off.

[TP] Inferno

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +113
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4779 on: February 15, 2020, 05:22:54 pm »
+2

I was completely stumped by this contest.  If I had known I could enter a Blank Card, I would have done so.  I am eager for the next challenge!
I'm coming up with ideas, just not good ones. *sigh*. Guess I'll just wait until next challenge. This was really difficult.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

naitchman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
  • Respect: +175
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4780 on: February 16, 2020, 01:44:21 am »
+5

Wow! Seems like a lot has happened since I was gone. I guess I want to say a couple of things:

As far as judging: It is currently 1:30 am where I am, so I am going to go to bed and judge the entries in the morning. I think there's still a bit of time left of my 36 hour warning, so if anything comes in the next couple of hours I'll count it. That being said, I'm guessing there probably won't be anymore entries. Because of the large number of individual cards (I think there might be close to 100), I'm not going to comment on every single card, however I might comment on interesting/intriguing cards and give suggestions if something catches my eye. My plan is to comment more on the general mechanic and give suggestions if I think of any.

Kudasai: Sorry for the judgement that didn't go your way. I think X-tra said it well; it's unfortunate you're put into this awkward situation and most of us know that your thinking doesn't necessarily mirror segura's. Like I said, the decision was not so clear cut, and I was on the fence; but I ultimately felt it didn't count. I didn't explain my reasoning at length in the original post, but I felt if heirlooms didn't count, than leaders couldn't either. Many people keep cursed gold in the same stack as pooka meaning setup is minimal (especially considering there is no decision time), so heirlooms have less setup than leaders. I didn't say this in the original post, but I was planning on giving feedback on leaders if you didn't change your submission (Perhaps saying this might have made the situation not blow up as much).

Segura: I'm sorry this judgement has bothered you so much. It's also unfortunate that I wasn't able to respond to your comments (due to Shabbat) because I feel that might have deescalated the situation. I've explained my reasoning in the paragraph above in more detail than I did in the original post. Judgements sometimes don't go your way but as a general rule, we need to accept judgements (even those we don't like) so the system can work. On the flip side, judging is sometimes hard; you have to aware of the inevitable ramifications. In this case I was aware of the downside of disqualifying kudasai's card; however, if I had allowed it, some people might have complained saying they held back ideas that were similar because they didn't think it would qualify. In the end, I had to go with my gut, and what I felt fit within the framework of the contest. I would like to state that I hold no ill will towards you because of this; everyone makes mistakes and everyone has bad days. You've been on this thread for quite some time and have contributed many good ideas, and I know that you are usually respectful and considerate. I don't take this personally at all and look forward to you joining us again soon.

To all entrants: Wow! Great job. I thought this week was going to be hard and was worried there would be too few entries, but you guys definitely did deliver. I think there's at least 18 new mechanics. What's great about this is we can all use these ideas for future card ideas (I probably will). Also, as Gazbag has pointed out, you are all disqualified and Gazbag wins with blank cards. 😜 (As an aside, I burst out laughing when I read that)

To those who felt this week was a little harder than normal, sorry about that; hopefully you'll get back on the train next week.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 01:57:49 am by naitchman »
Logged

Saul Goodman

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +45
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4781 on: February 16, 2020, 10:37:07 am »
+1

To those who felt this week was a little harder than normal, sorry about that; hopefully you'll get back on the train next week.

Wow.  I mean, it's always been obvious to me that anything too hard for me is unequivocally wrong, period.  But I have never had anyone actually apologize for it.  #HealingMoments

 ;) ;D ;) ;D

(Seriously: great challenge!  And great job to all the entrants, even the ones that were DQd.  I was amazed!)
Logged

spineflu

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 472
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +278
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4782 on: February 16, 2020, 11:33:03 am »
0

Due to the excellent points segura has brought up I've decided to change my entry. Introducing Blank cards:

Blank cards are a new card type with zero rules text. This innovation means that Blank cards add no extra set up time, in fact they don't even have a randomizer card! I demand that naitchman disqualifies all other entries this week as all of them add extensive extra setup to games by virtue of having rules text.

I know this is a joke post but i'm pretty sure i have randomizers for blank cards - the blank card promo packs from BGG come with them.

Kudasai

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 467
  • Respect: +274
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4783 on: February 16, 2020, 02:30:47 pm »
+3

Wow! Seems like a lot has happened since I was gone. I guess I want to say a couple of things:

As far as judging: It is currently 1:30 am where I am, so I am going to go to bed and judge the entries in the morning. I think there's still a bit of time left of my 36 hour warning, so if anything comes in the next couple of hours I'll count it. That being said, I'm guessing there probably won't be anymore entries. Because of the large number of individual cards (I think there might be close to 100), I'm not going to comment on every single card, however I might comment on interesting/intriguing cards and give suggestions if something catches my eye. My plan is to comment more on the general mechanic and give suggestions if I think of any.

Kudasai: Sorry for the judgement that didn't go your way. I think X-tra said it well; it's unfortunate you're put into this awkward situation and most of us know that your thinking doesn't necessarily mirror segura's. Like I said, the decision was not so clear cut, and I was on the fence; but I ultimately felt it didn't count. I didn't explain my reasoning at length in the original post, but I felt if heirlooms didn't count, than leaders couldn't either. Many people keep cursed gold in the same stack as pooka meaning setup is minimal (especially considering there is no decision time), so heirlooms have less setup than leaders. I didn't say this in the original post, but I was planning on giving feedback on leaders if you didn't change your submission (Perhaps saying this might have made the situation not blow up as much).

Segura: I'm sorry this judgement has bothered you so much. It's also unfortunate that I wasn't able to respond to your comments (due to Shabbat) because I feel that might have deescalated the situation. I've explained my reasoning in the paragraph above in more detail than I did in the original post. Judgements sometimes don't go your way but as a general rule, we need to accept judgements (even those we don't like) so the system can work. On the flip side, judging is sometimes hard; you have to aware of the inevitable ramifications. In this case I was aware of the downside of disqualifying kudasai's card; however, if I had allowed it, some people might have complained saying they held back ideas that were similar because they didn't think it would qualify. In the end, I had to go with my gut, and what I felt fit within the framework of the contest. I would like to state that I hold no ill will towards you because of this; everyone makes mistakes and everyone has bad days. You've been on this thread for quite some time and have contributed many good ideas, and I know that you are usually respectful and considerate. I don't take this personally at all and look forward to you joining us again soon.

To all entrants: Wow! Great job. I thought this week was going to be hard and was worried there would be too few entries, but you guys definitely did deliver. I think there's at least 18 new mechanics. What's great about this is we can all use these ideas for future card ideas (I probably will). Also, as Gazbag has pointed out, you are all disqualified and Gazbag wins with blank cards. 😜 (As an aside, I burst out laughing when I read that)

To those who felt this week was a little harder than normal, sorry about that; hopefully you'll get back on the train next week.

I 100% understand. For the two contested I created I immediately wished I had rephrased things once submitted! :)

Also, don't worry about leaving comments for Leaders. You already have a lot of judging ahead of you!
Logged

naitchman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
  • Respect: +175
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4784 on: February 16, 2020, 08:15:19 pm »
+9

As I said before, I'm very impressed by the quality and quantity of entries this week. Props to all of you.

With that out of the way: It's Judging Time!

2 sided events by grep
When I first saw the idea of 2 sided events, I was a bit skeptical. My main concern was that this would become a game of figuring out if you should buy the event and open up the other side to your opponent, which might work well in 2p but feels more random in 3 or 4 player games. I think you handled this well by giving the events +buys, keeping the price low, and making the 2 sides synergize with each other. This makes it likely (and worth it) to buy both sides in one turn, meaning the side that starts face up on your turn is less relevant. Overall, it's simple yet interesting; I like it.

Morning Cards by Spineflu
The idea of Morning Cards (cards that are played at the beginning of your turn as opposed to night cards) has been suggested before (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823329#msg823329) (not a negative, just pointing it out). I have a couple of issues with this implementation.
1) This one gives effects to all players, and only a slightly better effect to the person who actually played it. In many cases, it feels like buying a morning card is a sucker move, because you waste the time and money buying it and playing it (which takes 1 card if you draw it naturally at the start of your turn, and 2 cards if you hold onto it from one turn to the next), and your benefit doesn't seem to be worth all the trouble.
2) You can only get the recurring benefit of one card (which can stop if someone else plays a morning card). This means you can't even stack the benefit. And if someone else gets a morning card, getting one yourself becomes even less worth it; The only extra thing you get by playing it is the bottom half. In addition when your opponent plays his morning card again, your morning card goes back in your discard to clog up your deck again.
3) Rather than having a homogeneous pile, you have 4 different types of cards in each pile. Most of the time I think the personal benefit is marginal, but in some case, like if there's no other +buy, getting Dew or Sunrise becomes really strong. If it was a homogeneous pile, it wouldn't be as bad, because everyone would buy one. But because this is a mix, it can lopside things.Player 1 might buy Dew turn one and have little reason to buy any other morning cards (since only 1 will stay in play). Meanwhile, Player 2 needs a +buy to be competitive but the top card of the morning pile is now Dawn Chorus. Does he buy it with the hopes of hitting a Dew or Sunrise? He might have to buy 3 or 4 junk morning cards before he hits the morning card he's actually going to use.

I think allowing someone to hold onto a morning card in addition to their new 5 cards as opposed to as part of their new 5 cards would help a little bit (since it wouldn't clog your deck as much every time you play it) but there are still some kinks to work out on this one.

2 sided events by Majiponi
I'm not sure whether you independently thought of the same idea as grep, or saw his idea and decided to add some more cards. I'll assume the former.

Suggestions: I don't think you should have the duration type on these events. Duration usually goes on things that stay in play, but events never really go in play. You can just leave the next turn effects above the line (like expedition does)

Ignoring the duration thing, I liked grep's implementation of the idea a bit more; his usually went for some synergy between the 2 sides when bought in one turn and gave +buys to many of them which meant buying both sides in one turn was very likely. Without the +buy it becomes a game of trying to figure out if you should buy the event and thus open up the other side to your opponent. In 2p this could be interesting, but in 3p or 4p games this starts to fall apart and feels more random and dependant on who's sitting to your left.

Single Cards by NoMoreFun
I've tried in the past making cards with only one in the game and it is definitely hard to do. If it's too powerful, it just becomes a race to get it. Also, if it stays in one players deck, whoever gets it is going to have an edge. Overall I like the way you did many of these cards, allowing them to return to the piles or transfer to other people. They're also done in such a way that it's still worth it for the first person who actually buys it. The only card I think doesn't work is Communion; why buy it if everyone's going to share in the benefit? I could see some situations, but in general I could see games where no one buys it because it doesn't give you enough of an edge over your opponents. That aside, I do like the mechanic in general (it's interesting to see cards passed around and affect the game in interesting ways); well done.

Blockade by somekindoftony
I'm not sure exactly what the new mechanic is; this seems like a single card not a general mechanic. I'm guessing the mechanic is blocking piles? I would be interested to see some more examples of cards that could use this. That being said, I imagine there is only so much you can do with mechanic; it would pretty much be used to strategically block your opponent from getting cards you don't want them to. Other cards with this mechanic would probably feel similar. Besides the questions of how returning cards/cards that tell you to gain the card specifically work, I'm also not a fan of completely blocking the pile. Embargo doesn't block the pile, it just makes you take a hit to buy from it (and it doesn't affect gaining). Also the lack of +buy on this card means that if I want to unblock piles my opponent blocked (let's say provinces), I might have to wait another turn to actually start buying the cards (compare this to Doorman by NoMoreFun). Overall, I think this needs some work.

Armor by 4est
Suggestion: I think a dividing line with the equip part on the bottom would look a little nicer

That being said, I like the idea of this, beefing up cards for the rest of the turn. I can definitely see how this could be used in plenty of different situations (and you did a good job showing a few). Nice job.

Reload by mandioca15
Suggestion: Rather than +1 reload, I think plain "reload" would be better since you're not getting a new reload (and there's no such thing as +2 reload, so the 1 is really unnecessary).

At first I thought this was very similar to "discard your deck", but I see the difference now. It's a new shorthand that allows you to gain cards and kind of topdeck them (but not completely). It's cute, but I think the uses will feel pretty similar (put something in your discard pile, then reload to have a chance at getting it on the top of your deck).

Workers by D782802859
I think you did a pretty good job of showing how these can really shine. There's a lot of ways you go with these cards (which I like). Some of these can be used in a coffer/villager way (get something to be held onto for later time). I particularly like the cards that can untap themselves (which gives you the decision of keeping the card for more uses or getting the moreful effect). Pretty good.

Rules by grrgrrgrr
Suggestion: Golden era should probably say that Gold costs $1 less (because then it doesn't get confusing with bridge). Fair start has some problems with shelters and heirlooms as pointed out by scolapasta.

Overall these are nice and versatile. While it is new to the official game, I've definitely seen different iterations of these with the same idea over the forums (I know someone called them Edicts).

Jewelry by scolapasta
I think the idea it's good that you attached a +buy to all these cards. You have some interesting effects. I don't know how I feel about adding yet another phase to the turn (and messing up the easily understood ABC acronym), but in general the idea is pretty good. It allows treasures to care about buys and yet still give $; something we couldn't previously have.

Strength by X-tra
A bit of rules for this one but I think I get it. I think the 2nd iteration (not allowing you to use cards from your hand) definitely fixed some issues. To some degree, I can picture some fun battles for strength, but on the other hand, I can see some problems coming from it.

1) Very strong attack that have a likely chance of not hitting; and by that I mean not hitting at all, not just one person who has a moat. This means there's quite a swing to these; most attacks in dominion have a positive benfit to the person who plays it, meaning that even if it's blocked by all players, you still get something. And it's possible to only be blocked by some of the players and not others. Some of these cards have quite a swinginess depending if you win the battle or not (flamethrowers, Experimental Magic, Gunpowder Barrel).
2) Forced to go for it: I'm not such a fan of cards that demand you buy them because of their mere presence (regardless of the rest of the kingdom). I've never played with these cards, but my hunch is that (at least in a 2p) if one person goes for them and the other doesn't, the "stronger" player will have a huge edge because of how powerful these cards are when they "hit".
3) 3 or 4p interactions: I could see games where 2 out of 3 players go for these and knock each other out because they keep preventing the other from using their cards to the full extent. I can also see this making dominion more political (something many players don't like); A and B decide to not block each others pikemen while they both block C's pikemen.

I also feel that this a lot to learn and will probably slow the game down.

Equipment by [TP] Inferno
I feel this has potential, I just don't think you showcased this well. Like others have said, many of the cards don't really have an interesting choice of when to hold them and when to discard them (the strategy is to just hold). I'm sure it's possible to come up with cards that will work with this and make it interesting; like you said, it's back to the drawing board.

Card Costs by Aquila
I really like this one. It has the benefit of making non $ costs without the downsides of potions. And unlike debt (which is pretty much strictly cheaper than $), this is a different category of cost altogether (BTW, I'm assuming 2 different cards with card cost are uncomparable cost-wise). You did a great job showcasing how this could be implemented in different ways (especially including your "musings"). One of my favorites from the contest.

Mount Cards by Gazbag
An ability you can keep using until it becomes too much. I think you did a great job on this one, and it can really add a lot to the game.

Threat Cards by Fragasnap
These seem like a reactionish attack on top of an action card (since you can do both). To me, it doesn't feel like it adds more than already exists. It's kind of like a duration attack that gets to be played early. It would seem that the things you could do with these cards could be replicated pretty similarly with the existing mechanics. I'd probably have fun playing with some of these cards, I just don't know if the whole new type feels justified. Also, I do think having an unblockable attack is something that shouldn't be done, but that's just me. All that being said, cool cards.

Roundabout Cards by Snowyowl
I have a couple issues with this:
1) Extra Setup: This doesn't technically add any extra setup, but when I draw a roundabout card, I'm going to have be more careful with the order of the kingdom cards. Imagine you're drawing kingdom cards for the kingdom and the 5th one is Pearl. Oh shoot! what was the order of the other ones? And once you figure that out, you gotta be careful to not lose track of the order of the next 5. If anything, the mere presence of this in your box (not even in the kindgom) can add setup time, because I'll have to be careful about the order of any kingdom for fear of drawing a roundabout card. Of course, you could instead randomize an order after you draw all kingdom cards (if there's a roundabout card), but then it's still more setup time.
2) Putting cards in an arbitrary order can be annoying to some players. I don't know how other people setup their table, but I usually order the kingdom cards based on price (like they do online). Having them in a circle with real order would drive me nuts.
3) This whole thing seems like a roundabout (pun intended) way of avoiding tokens which would probably be more appropriate here. Many of the piles could just use some tokens or pile markers (like young witch's bane marker). Pearl could use 3, smuggling ring could use 1, and with some differences in rules many of the others could too.

Enchantments by Something_Smart
I like the idea. It feels a great way to build up your cards and engine. I can see the depth of strategy and the versatility of the mechanic. Great job!

Side note: I think Arcane tower might be a little broken as a defense against cursers. Buy one arcane tower and buy a curse with it in hand; you are now impervious to curses (of course you do get 1 curse but it's not in your deck).

Leaders by Kudasai
Like I said earlier, this is technically dq, but here are my thoughts. I really like the idea. It adds a bit of personality to each person's deck. I'm assuming the idea would be to have different sets of leaders that would sometimes be available. I don't know if the ones you showcased would be balanced but the idea in general seems fun.



Final Results: Among the top contenders were (in order of posting) Single Cards, Armor, Workers, Card Costs, Mount Cards, and Enchantments.

Runners Up: Single Cards and Workers. Both have so much potential and flavor to add to a game.

Winner: Card Costs by Aquila. I really think this opens a new avenue on ways to acquire and alot could be done with this. Congrats Aquila.
Logged

Aquila

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Respect: +283
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4785 on: February 17, 2020, 03:33:16 am »
+2

Thanks naitchman, terrific work in judging and choosing a great contest. This got a lot more popularity than other recent ones, and there were plenty of upvotes all round! Hard to better.

Here's something that's easy but hopefully quite an open design space:

Contest #62: a card that has +1 Buy and uses it well

They're relatively scarce in the official game, so there's plenty that can be done, plenty of effects that need a +buy to work. Make this +Buy the core focus of your design; something like Margrave isn't going to win, but Goons could. Forum would count, and it might do well too. Any card-shaped thing will qualify.

I should be able to judge in a week's time, so the projected close time is Monday 24th February 3:30am forum time.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 07:33:19 am by Aquila »
Logged

[TP] Inferno

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +113
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4786 on: February 17, 2020, 04:46:50 am »
+4

Terrific work and contest choice, naitchman. This got a lot more popularity than other recent ones, and there were plenty of upvotes all round! Hard to better.

Here's something that's easy but hopefully quite an open design space:

Contest #62: a card that has +1 Buy and uses it well

They're relatively scarce in the official game, so there's plenty that can be done, plenty of effects that need a +buy to work. Make this +Buy the core focus of your design; something like Margrave isn't going to win, but Goons could. Forum would count, and it might do well too. Any card-shaped thing will qualify.

I should be able to judge in a week's time, so the projected close time is Monday 24th February 3:30am forum time.

Contraband and Merchant Guild would be more examples, yes? Anyway, hopefully this is better than my last entry.

Social Experiment (don't judge, I couldn't think of anything better)
$5
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-------
When you discard this from play, if you bought 2 or more cards this turn, +2 Villagers.

So it's not great early on. And it remains so if you don't buy multiple things with it. But, if you use the +Buy that it gives you, you get some Villagers for your trouble. Maybe worth an extra Copper to turn this into a potential Lab. Tweaking might be in issue if balance issues arise.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

somekindoftony

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
  • Respect: +53
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4787 on: February 17, 2020, 07:45:17 am »
+4

Edit: I'm a little bored by this as I look at it so I'm working on a new idea and will post later.



Getting in early again. The easiest to imagine use of this card is that you can pick up a copper with that extra buy and it will be at least a silver instead (not a great five card at that point) but it can (if supported by actual coin) also turn a purchase of two silvers into a gain of two golds meaning that you just picked up an effective +6 off this card.
The problem is that it doesn't generate any coin itself and if you need to buy a province it is useless. In this way its a bit like quarry but that card would be devestating with a + Buy attached. Minters Token however needs it to be any good.

I've tried to write it by the way so that its ability wont stack. You can't turn a buy of a copper into a gain of a gold with two of these in play. That's intentional. I hope I succeeded.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 08:51:43 am by somekindoftony »
Logged

X-tra

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Respect: +64
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4788 on: February 17, 2020, 09:37:23 am »
0

Strength by X-tra
A bit of rules for this one but I think I get it. I think the 2nd iteration (not allowing you to use cards from your hand) definitely fixed some issues. To some degree, I can picture some fun battles for strength, but on the other hand, I can see some problems coming from it.

1) Very strong attack that have a likely chance of not hitting; and by that I mean not hitting at all, not just one person who has a moat. This means there's quite a swing to these; most attacks in dominion have a positive benfit to the person who plays it, meaning that even if it's blocked by all players, you still get something. And it's possible to only be blocked by some of the players and not others. Some of these cards have quite a swinginess depending if you win the battle or not (flamethrowers, Experimental Magic, Gunpowder Barrel).
2) Forced to go for it: I'm not such a fan of cards that demand you buy them because of their mere presence (regardless of the rest of the kingdom). I've never played with these cards, but my hunch is that (at least in a 2p) if one person goes for them and the other doesn't, the "stronger" player will have a huge edge because of how powerful these cards are when they "hit".
3) 3 or 4p interactions: I could see games where 2 out of 3 players go for these and knock each other out because they keep preventing the other from using their cards to the full extent. I can also see this making dominion more political (something many players don't like); A and B decide to not block each others pikemen while they both block C's pikemen.

I also feel that this a lot to learn and will probably slow the game down.
 

Thanks for this very well-put and in-dept review of my submission! The points youíve raised definitely resonate through the concepts Iíve presented. I will answer your 4 concerns.

1. All cards presented as examples of the Strength concept gives something to whomever uses it, regardless of the "If most " part and even if an "Otherwise" hits you back. Well, except for the Flamethrowers and the Gunpowder Barrel. Flamethrowers has been designed as such, because it is pretty powerful when it does hit. Gundpowder Barrel, well... it should probably be changed so that it gives you when called and if you have the most , then itíd give you an additional . Thatíd be fairer, yeah. Still, thereís always a good reason to play Strength cards. Even with Experimental Magic, you get to trash something, at least.

2. I know this sounds like I shot myself in the foot with these, but that was the idea :) . This may seems displeasing because it sort of shatters the status-quo of Dominion, but I really did want to include a system in which players must go head-to-head to prove that youíre not just playing cards alone, but are in fact directly competing with your opponents. The stress of seeing that one player buying red cards after red cards should give you that little adrenaline rush that forces you to counter-react, something I was yearning to create with my entry.

3. Ah, but that is something I didnít consider ! You are very right to say that, by design, not being forced to reveal your Strength cards as a reaction to a certain player may create a situation where players in losing positions do not block each otherís Strength cards, but pool against the winning player. If I make it so that everyone has to reveal their hand whenever a Strength card is played, then itíd be incredibly tedious, especially if donít have any in your hand in the first place. I think the political aspect is alright, though. Makes it for an interesting game, maybe? Sort of an ďinvisibleĒ pact between losing parties. Thatís pretty funny imo, and I think it adds not only to the flavor of Strength cards, but to the player interaction as well. I definitely understand why that might be considered a detriment, but uhhh... I think I like it? I dunno, I have dumb tastes in me games. :)

4. The learning process of that mechanism isnít too hard, strangely enough. Iíve taught it to some of my (no expert by any means) friends and they caught onto the idea pretty quickly. Itís a trivial anecdote, I know, but it might be worth considering. As for slowing down the game, I think thatíd be the biggest problem with my entry. Used to be worst though. More tests are needed!

Anyway, thank you for your comments! This was a very exciting week!


Contest #62: a card that has +1 Buy and uses it well

Question for this contest: Can we present, say, a card that gives more than +1 Buy? Like +2 Buys, for instance?
Logged

spineflu

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 472
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +278
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4789 on: February 17, 2020, 09:57:28 am »
+1

EDIT: This is withdrawn


Revisiting an old entry from contest 41 that I liked.
Dropped the price by a buck and changed it so the coffers trigger only happened on the second gain. No more potentially unbounded coffers from an opponent doing a copper buy/t-fair/watchtower/priest thing.






Getting in early again. The easiest to imagine use of this card is that you can pick up a copper with that extra buy and it will be at least a silver instead (not a great five card at that point) but it can (if supported by actual coin) also turn a purchase of two silvers into a gain of two golds meaning that you just picked up an effective +6 off this card.
The problem is that it doesn't generate any coin itself and if you need to buy a province it is useless. In this way its a bit like quarry but that card would be devestating with a + Buy attached. Minters Token however needs it to be any good.

I've tried to write it by the way so that its ability wont stack. You can't turn a buy of a copper into a gain of a gold with two of these in play. That's intentional. I hope I succeeded.

I think the way you've got this phrased you can still stack them but in parallel, rather than in series - if you've got two in play and you buy a single copper, you can gain two silvers out of it instead. May want to consider like... Changeling wording, something like, "When you buy a treasure this turn, you may exchange it for a treasure costing up to $3 more than it."

i dont think silver-flooding as-is with this wording would be problematic, but Harem flooding off a single Silver buy certainly would be

woo post #400 - thank you all for putting up with my nonsense
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 12:56:33 pm by spineflu »
Logged

Aquila

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Respect: +283
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4790 on: February 17, 2020, 10:26:43 am »
+1

Question for this contest: Can we present, say, a card that gives more than +1 Buy? Like +2 Buys, for instance?
You can, but a word of warning: there's a reason the official game doesn't have lots of +buy cards, and that is to prevent the supply emptying and decks progressing too quickly in the average game. So avoid letting your card give too many buys away unless something is really limiting it. Travelling Fair has you spend $2 for each extra buy, and there's no way around it.
Logged

mandioca15

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
  • Respect: +48
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4791 on: February 17, 2020, 01:43:17 pm »
+1

Credit (Treasure, $4)

+$2
When you play this, you may set aside 2 debt tokens from the supply. If you did, +1 Buy.
---
When you discard this from play, take any set aside debt tokens, then you may pay off debt.


Effectively, this allows you to use your buy from your next turn now, at the cost of having a worse one next turn. The money it generates, however, can be used to pay off the debt, if you have enough left over.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1571
  • Respect: +1199
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4792 on: February 17, 2020, 02:04:40 pm »
+1



Royal Docks
Action/Duration - $5
+1 Buy
This turn, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside under this.
While any cards remain under this, at the start of each of your turns, play one twice.

Note: Royal Docks remains in play until it doesn't have any cards under it and all the cards it plays are discarded from play, same as other Throne Room variants. If you play the same royal docks twice (with Throne Room), it's all set aside under the same docks, and you can play 2 cards from under it at the start of every turn. There is no way to set cards aside under a Royal Docks other than on the turn you play it.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 05:58:55 am by NoMoreFun »
Logged

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1234
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
  • Respect: +1269
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4793 on: February 17, 2020, 02:34:14 pm »
+2

Logged
I currently imagine mail-mi wearing a dark trenchcoat and a bowler hat, hunched over a bit, toothpick in his mouth, holding a gun in his pocket.  One bead of sweat trickling down his nose.

'And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." - Moroni 7:41, the Book of Mormon

X-tra

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Respect: +64
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4794 on: February 17, 2020, 03:01:56 pm »
+7



The idea was originally like this. However the card above seems better.

Tally up all your Buys this turn and if it is bellow 0, then you have 0 Buys. 0 Buys means you can't Buy anything during your Buy phase.
Logged

forkofnature

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +24
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4795 on: February 17, 2020, 04:07:37 pm »
+7

Logged

Snowyowl

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
  • Respect: +81
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4796 on: February 17, 2020, 07:15:24 pm »
+2

Deed
$2 ē Treasure
$0
When this is your first buy in a turn or when you trash this, +$3 and +1 Buy
Cheap card with a trashing theme? This has clearly just escaped from Dark Ages. But the name and art give it a fiscal flavour, like something from Prosperity or Empires.

It has some compelling uses. e.g. with Watchtower, you can buy it and immediately trash it for a net +$4 and +1 Buy just for having Watchtower in hand.

Cards that give a large-font 0 of something are just intrinsically hilarious. (Overgrown Estate.)
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 07:17:51 pm by Snowyowl »
Logged

grep

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4797 on: February 17, 2020, 08:35:12 pm »
+2


Bourse
$6 - Project
At start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
When you buy a second card in a turn, +2 Coffers.


Pretty straightforward way to incentivize buying multiple cards, even when they are not really needed
Logged

naitchman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
  • Respect: +175
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4798 on: February 17, 2020, 09:00:35 pm »
+1

It's a gold with a +buy. The Catch? You must use the buy. This means using this to spike high points doesn't work as well (you can do it, it will just come with a copper).

It took a long time to get the wording right but here's what I got. I wanted only the buys from this and your orginal buy to be mandatory (or else worker's villages/ Market Sqaures would really mess with this). If anyone has a better way of saying it please feel free to say so.

Update: fixed wording a bit so it is a little less ambiguous.
Update 2: Fixed wording to allow buying events or Projects
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 12:55:52 pm by naitchman »
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • Respect: +451
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4799 on: February 17, 2020, 09:58:43 pm »
+2

Shanty Market
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
The second time you gain a card in this turn, +$1.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 10:01:07 pm by majiponi »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 190 191 [192] 193 194 ... 209  All
 

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 21 queries.