Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 99  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 58275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3460
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #300 on: October 17, 2018, 01:07:43 am »
0

[ img width=200]https://i.imgur.com/GdYUXUR.jpg[ /img]

Iím not sure what you mean I just did it like you did but obviously nothing happened. It only removed the link. Iím doing this with an ipad maybe I canít do it with an iPad.
Hereís the image without the line.
https://i.imgur.com/GdYUXUR.jpg
You need to lose the spaces before img and /img, as Tejayes already noted.

Also I am not sure how this fulfills the condition for this week's contest.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1348
  • Respect: +1606
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #301 on: October 17, 2018, 02:34:51 am »
0

I agree with faust - I did intend for the definition to be fairly broad and I'm really happy with the ways it's been interpreted, but just having a combined coin+debt cost isn't quite what I had in mind.
Logged

ClouduHieh

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
  • Shuffle iT Username: ClouduHieh
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #302 on: October 17, 2018, 03:03:52 am »
0

I noticed other cards that were coin and debt token. And thought those were allowed too. You should of been more precise. And I was kinda bummed that I missed the last 2 contests. It took me a week just to get it to work with imgur. Iím kinda a slow learner when it comes to tech.
Logged

ClouduHieh

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
  • Shuffle iT Username: ClouduHieh
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #303 on: October 17, 2018, 03:05:53 am »
0

Ah finally man itís annoying Iíll have to type that in every time though
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +375
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #304 on: October 17, 2018, 03:36:52 am »
0


I like this far more than the 3/5 Peddler and don't think that it is shocking at all, it looks pretty balanced. Arguably bonkers with Ironworks but if you played two Actions before Ironworks it is ungainable.
I also think that Great Hall was a niche card whereas Mill is something you often get for the DoubleOasis effect and not for the VPs so double the VPs on a cantrip shouldn't be totally crazy.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #305 on: October 17, 2018, 04:51:17 am »
0

I noticed other cards that were coin and debt token. And thought those were allowed too. You should of been more precise. And I was kinda bummed that I missed the last 2 contests. It took me a week just to get it to work with imgur. Iím kinda a slow learner when it comes to tech.

The fact that your card shares a trait with some of the other submitted cards doesn't mean that it satisfies the same restrictions. Debt costs are allowed, but it doesn't automatically make a card have a varied cost, which was the challenge.
Outskirts for instance has a varied cost because you can either buy it for 5$ and 5 debt, or for 5$ and an Action card from your hand.

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +375
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #306 on: October 17, 2018, 07:07:24 am »
+3



For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #307 on: October 17, 2018, 08:37:34 am »
+1



For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.

I appreciate you linking to the thread :)
This goes very well with the Seasons spirit, I think! Not only can you buy it really cheap when it's not useful yet, you can even Remodel it into a Province in the endgame, which makes the Winter part significant, too. Very neat!

Aquila

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +149
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #308 on: October 17, 2018, 11:19:26 am »
0


I see some people thinking, isn't this an automatic buy for the first turns? Just don't play any until they're all gone. In 2 player games at least, if one player did this whilst the other builds up for later, by turn 6 they're 2 Provinces ahead. It'll be down to how often the building up for later is viable as to how interesting this is.
If it is a problem, increasing the base cost would make the Coppers more important.
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #309 on: October 17, 2018, 11:22:22 am »
0



For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.
Cool! I don't really like the Season mechanic myself, because you need to track it with a board or something and you can forget, or something, also the cards are usually wordier. That being said, some of the coolest fan cards I've seen are Seasons. I really like this idea.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +827
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #310 on: October 17, 2018, 11:35:40 am »
+2


I see some people thinking, isn't this an automatic buy for the first turns? Just don't play any until they're all gone. In 2 player games at least, if one player did this whilst the other builds up for later, by turn 6 they're 2 Provinces ahead. It'll be down to how often the building up for later is viable as to how interesting this is.
If it is a problem, increasing the base cost would make the Coppers more important.

The way I see it is taking Baths points over buying a good card for your deck early is almost never worth it, so I doubt going for these would be any better.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #311 on: October 17, 2018, 12:54:02 pm »
0

Cool! I don't really like the Season mechanic myself, because you need to track it with a board or something and you can forget, or something, also the cards are usually wordier. That being said, some of the coolest fan cards I've seen are Seasons. I really like this idea.
It's true that forgetting to move the token is an issue. This is actually something that would work better in a hypothetical online implementation.
Seasons also has the risk of cards getting wordier if you insist on making it do something specific per Season. Sojourner and Student show that (they are still worth it, I think). In general it's better to just check for a true/false, like on Snow Witch, Sanitarium or Plantation, or to have the same value scale, like with Cottage, Timberland, Restore or, well, Viking Village.

King Leon

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
  • Respect: +307
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #312 on: October 17, 2018, 06:13:58 pm »
0

I'll use this instead because it maybe has some shock-factor:


This card is crazy with Pouch, Travelling Fair and other easy-to-get +Buy stuff. And it is even more crazy in an engine with Salvager or Forge. This card’s price needs an upper limit and the it should at least cost $2 (in Vanilla Big Money it is strictly better than Estate, however).
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 06:20:08 pm by King Leon »
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #313 on: October 17, 2018, 06:56:16 pm »
+2

CHALLENGE #4 - VARIABLE COST CARD

Not sure what Cost display more successfully shows that there are two different cost to this card. The first certainly works, but having the visual cue of both cost seems neat. The card instructions are the same.

   
Very interesting. I think the 4* one is better. Also, costs.
Logged

ClouduHieh

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
  • Shuffle iT Username: ClouduHieh
  • Respect: +83
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #314 on: October 17, 2018, 10:45:23 pm »
0



Can I have a redo then.
Does this at least meet the requirements.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1247
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +953
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #315 on: October 17, 2018, 11:52:37 pm »
+1

This variable cost doesn't work. Gaining the card happens after you buy it, so you can't buy it for $2 in the first two turns, and after it's in your deck, there's no record of when you bought it (no way to tell apart a Lumber Camp you bought turn 1 from a Lumber Camp you bought turn 6).

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +375
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #316 on: October 18, 2018, 03:18:58 am »
0

I'll use this instead because it maybe has some shock-factor:


This card is crazy with Pouch, Travelling Fair and other easy-to-get +Buy stuff. And it is even more crazy in an engine with Salvager or Forge. This cardís price needs an upper limit and the it should at least cost $2 (in Vanilla Big Money it is strictly better than Estate, however).
I disagree. Salvager is indeed a strong combo but with Forge you can "overshoot", i.e. you have 5 or more Actions in play so Forging Highland leads to nirvana. Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to buy cantrips instead of stuff that is useful for you early in the game. So I guess that something like Forging Magpies or Fortresses is easier to pull off.

While this card is indeed better in money decks (is that such a bad thing?) you can only get so many for a cheap price (unless you don't play Highlands when you draw them which seems highly dubious), i.e. there is an inherent self-balance in the design.
Logged

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3460
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #317 on: October 18, 2018, 04:01:40 am »
0

I disagree. Salvager is indeed a strong combo but with Forge you can "overshoot", i.e. you have 5 or more Actions in play so Forging Highland leads to nirvana. Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to buy cantrips instead of stuff that is useful for you early in the game. So I guess that something like Forging Magpies or Fortresses is easier to pull off.
I would at least be somewhat worried about decks where you can gain this early in your turn and trash it late, it may get too ridiculous if you Ironworks this with your second action and Salvage/Bishop it with your 20th.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Kudasai

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 347
  • Respect: +144
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #318 on: October 18, 2018, 04:40:38 am »
+1

This variable cost doesn't work. Gaining the card happens after you buy it, so you can't buy it for $2 in the first two turns, and after it's in your deck, there's no record of when you bought it (no way to tell apart a Lumber Camp you bought turn 1 from a Lumber Camp you bought turn 6).

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.

Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
  • Respect: +116
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #319 on: October 18, 2018, 07:35:05 am »
0

This variable cost doesn't work. Gaining the card happens after you buy it, so you can't buy it for $2 in the first two turns, and after it's in your deck, there's no record of when you bought it (no way to tell apart a Lumber Camp you bought turn 1 from a Lumber Camp you bought turn 6).

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.


But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #320 on: October 18, 2018, 08:26:40 am »
0

But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?

Then you'll think twice what you'll do with that token.

What I don't like is that the on-gain effect is hugely anti-synergetic. You can either buy this card after your opening, where there's a big chance that it will fail, OR you buy it in the opening, where you will still have to buy it for 4$, but then it starts costing 2$, effectively making it a Woodcutter... Unless you go for a treasure-based strategy, which means this becomes a cheap Big-Money supporter.

faust

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3460
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #321 on: October 18, 2018, 08:44:33 am »
0

It should also be clarified if you still get the effect when it's tied for most expensive, that will have a pretty big impact on power level.

I actually like the anti-synergy. You can get it early for the economy boost, but it will crumble later, or you wait and end up with a more powerful card. The only thing that bothers me is that it is usually not a very interesting decision whether to go for it later; with cheap engine components you do, otherwise you don't (unless you need a Ruined Market). But maybe the interesting decision in the opening makes up for that.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Erick648

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +446
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #322 on: October 18, 2018, 11:50:38 am »
0

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.


But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?
How about this wording:
"While you have gained fewer than two other cards this game (including other copies of Lumber Camp), this costs $2 less (but not less than $0)."
That should match the spirit of the card without creating too many rules issues (there may be rare timing-based complexities with dual gainers, e.g., Stonemason, but I don't think those are any worse than you'd find in an official card).
Logged
Duplicate duplicates Duplicates duplicate Duplicates duplicate.

Rene Descartes taught me to believe in myself.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5256
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #323 on: October 18, 2018, 12:03:32 pm »
0

Man, then we can just say "If it is one of your first two turns this game, this costs 2$ less (but not less than 0$).

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7828
  • Respect: +8662
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #324 on: October 18, 2018, 12:07:34 pm »
0

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.


But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?
How about this wording:
"While you have gained fewer than two other cards this game (including other copies of Lumber Camp), this costs $2 less (but not less than $0)."
That should match the spirit of the card without creating too many rules issues (there may be rare timing-based complexities with dual gainers, e.g., Stonemason, but I don't think those are any worse than you'd find in an official card).

I don't think that works... there is nothing other than memory telling you how many cards you have gained this game.

This reminds me of my Swamp card from a while ago; various people had various suggestions on how to make the turn-tracking work.
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
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 99  All
 

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 21 queries.