Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 172  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 138148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scolapasta

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2700 on: July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm »
0

Hi all, back from the long weekend! As I suspected, I wasn't able to post any, but have been following along and we have some great cards this week!

I've also had a plenty of time to think how I can improve Coven.

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursed token to an Action Supply pile with no other Cursed token on it. (When any player plays a card from that pile, they first gain a Curse.)

The feedback I've gotten so far really helped frame my thoughts (thanks!):

I just had an idea (you can take it or leave it). What if there was a single cursed token that was shared by all players. Buying the event would move it to the pile of your liking. This would mean in 4 player games it wouldn't get too crazy with 4 cursed tokens.

Also, it would appear you have a typo on the card (playa)

The immediate and obvious problem of Coven is how often it will push big-money strategies to the forefront, because one can always avoid Coven completely by having no Action cards. You could possibly have it move the Cursing token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 (to exclude Coppers).

I really liked Naitchman's method of posting several different versions, so I hope no one minds, but I'm going to post several different versions I've been considering. Since no one else has done an Adventures' "place token on a pile" Event, these will be a more varied; if that's an issue, let me know and I can move this to my dedicated thread.

The way I see it there are basically 4 general options here:
• Cursed token - curse a player when they play a card (Cursed Gold variant; the current version)
• Cursed token - curse a player when they buy or gain or a card (Embargo variant)
• Cursing token - curse other players when you buy or gain a card (Ill gotten gains variant)
• Cursing token - curse other players when you play a card (Witch variant)



One of the issues with the Cursed token is the difference between 2 and 4 player games; ideally the token would only work on other players, which is fine in two player games, but not really fair in 4 (the first player to play a token on a pile affects 3 others players; the second player's token on the pile, only one - the first player). Like I said in my original post I got around that by affecting all players, but I don't love that. Also having 4 piles that are cursed is a lot.

naitchman's idea of a single Cursed token could work, but it'd be less on theme (since Adventure tokens are per player). I'm already having it be a little different in that the token's effect affect everyone.

The second issue is Fragasnap's point that big money gets pushed to the forefront. I think this can be helped by slowing down the cursing. So the first variant is that: only the first card you play is cursed. (another idea I had to slow it down is to use the Journey token to make it curse every other play; or even combine both, so it curses every other turn that you play the cursed card).

(Fragasnap's suggestion of moving the token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 is also good, but I still think might still be too much of a slog compared to just once per turn)





The second variant is the Embargo variant. Since embargo already exists, I tried making this different by being on gain. That, and the fact that you don't have to wait to place the token, of course, makes it stronger (though that is balanced some by only being Action Supply piles).





Overall, I am now leaning towards switching this to a Cursing token. That seems to fit better with the "this token helps only you" theme of the other Adventures tokens.

Variant 3 is therefore the ill gotten gains variant. I made it on buy instead of on gain so I could price it low enough to buy early.





The last, the Witch variant, is obviously the strongest. If it worked always and you could convert any cantrip into a Familiar: :o. Fortunately, it also can be slowed down to only once a turn. I decided to also weaken a little more by limiting to non attacks.





I do have one bonus variant - of the last type, but it's a little different by being one-shot. It also doesn't make the card into an Attack, so it can't be reacted to.





So if you've made it this far, thanks for bearing with all my thinking. Please let me know what you think - which one generally do you like best? I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.
 




« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:58:32 am by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 691
  • Respect: +396
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2701 on: July 09, 2019, 12:22:10 am »
+1

Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

anordinaryman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +78
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2702 on: July 09, 2019, 01:43:01 pm »
0

I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.

You can edit the original if you want, but it will make it easier for me if you also make a new post. I would really appreciate that!
Logged

scolapasta

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2703 on: July 09, 2019, 02:10:11 pm »
0

I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.

You can edit the original if you want, but it will make it easier for me if you also make a new post. I would really appreciate that!

Definitely. I'll always do both, just to avoid any confusion.

How much time left for us to make our final decisions?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:11:46 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

anordinaryman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +78
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2704 on: July 09, 2019, 04:14:02 pm »
0

In the spirit of this being a *weekly* contest:

Submissions close In 24 hours.
Logged

pubby

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
  • Respect: +544
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2705 on: July 10, 2019, 12:44:51 am »
0



For Renaissance.
Logged

naitchman

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
  • Respect: +121
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2706 on: July 10, 2019, 11:16:33 am »
+3



I like this one the best.
The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.
Logged

naitchman

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
  • Respect: +121
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2707 on: July 10, 2019, 11:27:08 am »
0



For Renaissance.
Even without holy land this seems a bit cheap at $4. If a curser costs $4, it means you can always open with one. The only cursers that cost $4 are young witch, which has a built in defense, and sea hag, which gives no benefit. These weaknesses can counterbalance their cheap costs. Crusade on the other hand curses and has a reasonable benefit with no drawback. Add in Holy Land and it makes it even better, because at least you can utilize the junk you're getting.

I think getting rid of the +buy (something that's not so easy to use early game, which is when you want to curse) and raising it to $5 would probably be better. (Even though this would not be a great $5 card without the artifact, the fact that you're fighting over an artifact can artificially increase the price, like flag bearer)
Logged

scolapasta

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2708 on: July 10, 2019, 11:53:59 am »
0



I like this one the best.
The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.

That's a good point. Possible fix could be to make it cost $5 (which of course would still benefit the first player is they drew 5/2) or maybe even $6 (may be worth switching to on gain then).

Any thoughts on the last two?

Thematically (and not meaning mechanics, but meaning relating to concept of a "Coven"), I prefer the ones that work on play more. i.e a Witch allows you to Curse a player when you play a card (Witch), but get a gathering of Witches together to do the same thing but in a stronger way.

I think I'm favoring the last one, because it's a cheap way of giving a curse, hopefully on your next turn, if you can plan it well. In a 2 player game, a regular witch costs 5 and will typically hand out 5 curses (assuming your opponent also bought a witch). This coven would cost you 10 to hand out 5 curses, but:
1) it doesn't have to be attached to a terminal play
2) by costing 2, you can spread out the purchase more easily
3) it can't be defended

I'm sure I'm missing something though.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 446
  • Respect: +242
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2709 on: July 10, 2019, 03:31:45 pm »
+1

CHALLENGE #35 - THEMATIC CURSER SUBMISSION

A card that curses with overpay based on the Guilds set. An idea I've wanted to try for some time now, but have always been weary of due to how swingy it could be. Opening it could be painful for your opponents, but the on-play liability of Annexation is hopefully enough to mitigate this. An overpay of $2 (total cost $4) adds one Curse, but it essentially adds one draw opportunity for your opponent if you play Annnexation and one dead card in your deck if you don't. So the real power is when you can overpay $4 (total cost $6) and up and get a net, negative impact on your opponent.



Quote
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player may discard a Victory or Curse card to draw a card.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpaid, +1VP and each other player gains a Curse.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 03:34:15 pm by Kudasai »
Logged

scolapasta

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2710 on: July 10, 2019, 04:00:18 pm »
+1

OK, so this is the version I'm going with for the challenge:



In the end I decided to go with the Witch variant, due to in fitting the "Coven" concept best. I'm hopeful the once per turn slows it down enough to make games with it fun.

(I was very close to the 2 cost one -shot but thematically, none of the other Adventures "token on piles" Events do that, so this one seemed to fit better)
 
After the challenge, I'll probably revisit the discussion in my dedicated thread, as I'd love to get this just right (and I do think there's room for a player specific "cursing" token).
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 365
  • Respect: +523
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2711 on: July 10, 2019, 04:30:34 pm »
+2

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursing token to a non-Attack Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)
I wanted to say that this Attack transformation has the most potential, but I think the "non-Attack" portion will not change the card. The Adventures-tokens usually get tossed onto whatever spam-friendly card you happen to need a bunch of in your deck, which not many Attack type cards are Adventures-token targets. A more meaningful change would definitely be to make it only apply to Attack cards or to implement some type of Seaway limitation so you can only put it on expensive cards.

Quote
Crusade
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Buy, +1 Coffers. Each other player gains a Curse.
When you buy this, take the Holy Land.
Quote
Holy Land
Types: Artifact
When you gain a Curse, you may trash it. If you did, gain a Copper.
I think I agree with naitchman that a $4-Curser needs some kind of notable drawback to it to make it harder to justify using. The +Buy Crusade grants is itself a fairly rare resource, let alone the money-smoothing potential of +Coffers. I suppose the on-play power of Crusade is largely attempting to counterbalance the raw strength of Holy Land, which likely puts the first player to buy Crusade in a very bad position; but that echoes Flag Bearer to such an extent that it kills a lot of the interest of the card.

Annexation
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player may discard a Victory or Curse card to draw a card.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpaid, +1VP and each other player gains a Curse.
Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

scolapasta

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2712 on: July 10, 2019, 05:02:20 pm »
0

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursing token to a non-Attack Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)
I wanted to say that this Attack transformation has the most potential, but I think the "non-Attack" portion will not change the card. The Adventures-tokens usually get tossed onto whatever spam-friendly card you happen to need a bunch of in your deck, which not many Attack type cards are Adventures-token targets. A more meaningful change would definitely be to make it only apply to Attack cards or to implement some type of Seaway limitation so you can only put it on expensive cards.

I had considered having cost restrictions (on any of the variants, actually), but preferred to try without due to the fact that I was already at 3 lines of text on the card. If I need to do for balance I could see adding it (especially since it would remove text if it allows me to remove things like "non-Attack" or "Once per turn".)

About the non attacks, my other reason for that was to avoid any possible confusion of what does it mean to add the attack type to an already attack card (I had different wording originally). With the current wording of "is also an attack" - which is similar to Capitalism - I think there is no confusion.

(though I did also consider for this version not adding the attack type, with the concept being that the Coven would be producing a curser so strong it could not be blocked - I used that in the $2 one-shot instead, but could see moving that to here, maybe)

I still like that it avoids supercharging an attack, but you are probably right, that people probably wouldn't move it to those piles anyway.

We're past the 24 hour cut off now, so I'll leave it as is, but would appreciate if you want to continue brainstorming in my dedicated thread when I post it there after the contest.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 05:11:45 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2713 on: July 11, 2019, 12:42:43 am »
+1

Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.
The Curses aren't automatically dead as the opponents can sift through them if you play Annexation. They can also sift through their Provinces.
This is nearly as good as a Fugitive (a $4.5) for the opponents which is why I disagree with your claim that the card would be overpowered even without the VP tokens.
It is probably too good but without the VP tokens it would be extremely weak in Kingdoms with other Cursers.
Logged

anordinaryman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +78
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2714 on: July 11, 2019, 12:55:48 am »
+3


I was really impressed with all the amazing ideas y'all came up with! You really made me see the sets in a new way and it's way cool. All of these card submissions were great. I am now providing my detailed thoughts on every submission:


This definitely fits as a promo. Making curses a benefit is the type of anti-Dominion stuff that will probably never belong in a main-line expansion. I think there's a stronger reason for that—most cards are based on the assumption that curses are bad. I think turning them into -1vp silvers makes a lot of the cursers no longer playable. Witch becomes: “+2 cards, each other player gains a silver.” Well, it doesn't always, you have to play a heretic. But it's the threat of that which I worry would prevent players from buying witch in the first place. Any game that has *some curser* and Heretic would be less interesting than a game with only *that curser*. It reminds me of how some fans make reaction cards that hurt the player playing an attack – that's a bad design choice because it creates a threat that prevents players from buying attack cards. That's how I feel about the general ability of making curses beneficial. So I have a problem with the central concept of this card.
Specifically, this card has a lot of clever details: it costs 5 which means it's hard to get, and you have to have one in play to turn your curses into silver. Which means you want a lot of Heretics so you can always get one in play – but having a lot of heretics is bad for your deck, every one other than the first is just some weak VP.  Lots of clever design here!



Congrats on making a curser that wraps up so many of the themes/motifs of Hinterlands! On-gain effect, discards, Victory card interaction. It has a very natural synergy with Tunnel. Good work! The on-gain effect works well with this card, since the estate synergises with the attack. It also makes excellent use of a +1 card effect since you almost always have the choice to turn it into a Village. Another contest I had in mind was making a “+1 card” work, and well, you totally did it! There's a lot to like about this card, but I do wonder about the price. If you discard a useless victory card (say, estate) this card is essentially witch. If you buy Potemkin Villages, you probably have estates to discard (or at the very least, other Potemkin Villages). But this comes with a +1vp and an estate. To me it seems like this becomes a Witch too often to cost 5, especially considering you have a village effect (it's slightly worse – but only slight, most of the time you discard a curse or copper you didn't want anyway and it's just a village) as a choice, I think, because of its flexibility and the fact it gives a victory point, that this is slightly too strong to be a 4. Well, there is the fact that when you buy one of these it clogs you deck slightly... which slows down the ability to curse people. Hm. Certainly this is a very interesting curser. The double-line is confusing and makes me feel it wouldn't be printed in Hinterlands. I know this card is super emblematic of Hinterlands, I wonder if you were free of this restriction what you could do with this design? Would the card be better or worse by giving a victory token instead of an estate with it. Things to think about! This is in the top 5


This card uses both the “name a card” and the coffers themes from guilds. So it fits as a curser decently well.  This card works best if you have cards your opponents don't. The best way to ensure that is to increase your hand size. I think this card's vanilla benefit needs to increase your hand-size to make this a better card. Perhaps draw up to 6 cards if you don't want it to be too similar to Witch's +2, but +2 cards would probably be fine. You would definitely increase the pricing for the card if you made this change, but I think it's worth it. A swingy curser is semi-problematic. A cheap-swingy curser is even more problematic. So I think the card would be better if it were more powerful and more expensive. I give you props to an attack card that sometimes provides benefits, I just think the whole card really is asking to be designed with some sort of hand-size increase. Also, you may not be aware but this card can become a little bit political. Player 1 reveals they're only copy of X that Player 3 has. On Player 2's turn do they reveal X with sorceress to purposely target Player 1? It's very subtle, but know that Donald X. designed very few dominion cards with  politics, so for that reason this card fits less into guilds. I do really like the concept a lot!



This card fits Dark ages very well, it trashes and interacts with the trash. This card is specifically more powerful with other Dark ages cards, I think that makes it even more emblematic of the set.Dark ages supplies actions you might want to trash (ruins and necropolis). Neat synergy! I think you did a real good job making the trashing have to be 2 differently named cards – I do believe you had previously underestimated how good trashing 2 cards is. The “differently named” aspect is also strengthened due to shelters all having different names. Warlock really does belong in Dark ages. It's a fine curser. I worry that the secondary attack feels just a little mean – gaining 2 curses and discarding can have a little bit of a demoralizing feel to it and it feels out of scope to the card. I'd consider limiting the discarding to forcing players to discard curses – it keeps the card more on theme (all about curses), and it hurts because it prevents them from using warlock to trash the curses. 2 curses doesn't hurt too much if they get to trash one their next turn. Just a thought. Another thought, this card is really ripe for an on-trash benefit. It's a card that likes to trash actions. So make the card an action that likes to be trashed. This kind of cool self-synergy is in many of the best designed Dominion cards. This is in the top 5


Uses Renaissance themes of villagers and also counting the number of tokens you have (Swashbuckler). Good use of a subtle motif in your design! This card definitely does fit in Renaissance. I think, however, that treasures that produce only 1$ are a little bit awkward. Also, a treasure that produces villagers is awkward. This card freely gives you villagers, where it's worth noting that the other cards do so in more interesting ways, either only giving villagers on gain or forcing you to trash a card, or forcing you to gain a weaker card. (Which reminds me, this card actually helps Sculptor a bunch since it's a kingdom treasure costing up to 4, which makes it fit the set even more. Nice work!) These are all interesting/hard decisions since villagers give you so much more flexibility. I think using this card as +villagers to an action would make this card better. It could even be +1 card +1villager (perhaps a discard to draw a card or something to give it a little more power). Also, villagers are a natural thing to stockpile, so you may be gaining 3 villagers just for the benefit of having 3 villagers.  If you had attached the cursing to coffers, there seems to be the more interesting decision of whether to spend the coffers instead. Not using villagers isn't fun, you don't get to play your action! Not using coffers means you still get to buy a cheaper card, and that's still fun. Also, coffers attach themselves to a treasure more easily.

Greedy Witch
cost $2+ - Action - Attack
+$2
Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
---
When you buy this, if you didn't use a coin token, you may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, take a coin token.

Guilds. Coin token and overpay.
This is phrased incorrectly. Taking inspiration from Butcher it should be “You may remove a token from your Coffers, if you do, each other player gains a Curse.” Right now it is ambiguous whether using the token still gives you +1$ that turn.
To me “if you didn't use a coin token” is a confusing restriction that doesn't belong in guilds. And it's ambiguous. Didn't use a coin token *when?* I think you mean to add a “this turn.” Which is a good way of limiting the ability of over-pay for coffers. Also, you should be calling coin tokens “coffers.” There's a few issues in the phrasing that makes this card not fit in the expansion.
I do like the idea of reinterpreting coffers as cursing material. It's certainly interesting. But this card is underpriced. +2 money with the ability to curse is pretty significant, and with the overpay mechanic you present a pretty easy way to gain coffers. Plus, with candlestick maker, Plaza, Baker, and Butcher, odds are you have at least 1 other coffer producer in the game. I just think the cursing will be two easy and too cheap. Cheap cursers prevent problems—there's a reason why sea hag has no benefit and basically turns into a curse itself when the curses are out.
I think to make this better you should make the card itself generate coffers rather than give the over-pay  mechanic. Something like: “Choose one: +1 coffers; or, +2$ and you may remove a token from your Coffers, if you do, each other player gains a curse.”




First I wanted to do it on-buy but on-gain seems more fun...

It's a good thing you stuck with on-gain. Renaissance was about simplicity, and all the cards in renaissance use on-gain not on-buy. It would be more complicated to introduce another concept, so this card fits Renaissance much better using an on gain. This card is a very simple extension of an attack artifact, this 100% fits the bill as a renaissance trasher. I do think this card is not nearly as powerful as a lot of people were worried it was. If you spend all your buys on estates, well, you have a terrible deck and need to deplete a third pile. If it turns the game into a weird slog where everyone's deck sucks, well, those types of games are not usually fun because you buy terminal actions but you don't have an engine and your terminals collide so you can't play them and that's frustrating. Or you spend turn after turn just missing the price point you were going for and that's frustrating. Good thing Renaissance has baked in the solution to those frustrating games – coffers and villagers! So I think this card fits super well into renaissance. Plus, there's always the option to ignore it until it's province time, and it has a definite use there, as well. This is in the top 5




This card only uses one of the themes of Adventures: the Tavern mat.

I really think it's a shame you departed from the original idea of Ravens gaining Ravens. The cool part about this card is you really want to gather a bunch of Ravens for devastating effect. However, buying is such a high expense. The best solution is to make Ravens be able to gain themselves (and it follows the animals gaining themselves motif and fits in Adventures better). Otherwise if you're first to buy a bunch of Ravens, well then you need to attach some benefit to them. The benefit you attached is very docile and boring, Poachers are helpful buys that most decks want anyway. The choice to buy Ravens becomes less, “I want to struggle with this card into a cool mechanic of cursing my opponent” and more “I just need more poachers in my deck.”
Everyone was right, the fact that Ravens had a choice to instantly gain a Raven was too strong. I have a few ideas, you can make the gaining conditional (one idea, similar to magpie, if the top card is an action, gain a Raven, otherwise, no benefit. This actually works well with the few cards that let you gain extra actions – Port, Messenger). Another idea is to change the discarding so that every 2 Ravens you discard your opponent gains a curse. Or limit how many ravens you can discard per turn.
I really love the concept here, and I hope you iterate on it and figure out a way to make Raven's self-gaining. It's a brilliant idea.



This card has a fundamental confusion, in that it is masked as a defense card, when it isn't at all. If I read it briefly I think, oh yes I protect myself when someone curses me... but it doesn't work. You play a witch, I call a Totem, thinking I'm safe. I follow the instructions “each player who turn it isn't...” oh dang, that includes me-- I gain a curse! If you like this concept. I recommend you find a way to express the card more clearly as a curser that triggers on your own turn. “When you gain a curse on your own turn...” would do wonders for clarity.  There's a good synergy with Messenger where you can curse your opponents twice with one messenger buy. And messneger gives you a +buy to buy more curses... nice! I just think that it's a little underwhelming, without artificer present, you're wasting a stronger gainer or remodeler or spending a buy to curse your opponents. And the temporary silver isn't very strong. I think this would be better balanced as a +$2 then +$3.

My submission:

This uses choices, which makes it Intrigue-y, but for this contest, I was hoping for cursers that were really emblematic of the set. Since choices do appear in many of the sets, I feel that you would need to have an interaction with victory cards in order to make this submission be able to win this contest. That being said, I think this is a good card with a really cool concept. I do think you're underestimating how quickly this card gets useless.  In a typical game with witch, at least half of the game the curses are gone. I think the 4 choices aren't super strong – it's not like you can build an engine out of +2 cards and +2 action cards, and +$2 is pretty weak. I really do love this concept though! I would recommend you play around with the particular choices – I think you could make it +1buy +2money, or +3 cards, or +3 actions as the three choices and this card would still be balanced at a 5 since it becomes useless after 5 plays (assuming each player gets one.)



 

This uses the tokens and Tavern mat from Adventures, so it certainly fits in this set. I also really like the clever design of making a non-terminal curser work. In addition, the -1 Card tokens don't stack, so it's fine to play multiple a turn. I do think attaching a +buy to a curser is a bad precedent—it's one that Donald X. has entirely avoided (Skulk is a semi-exception). There's a lot of reasons for this: +buys are so important you buy the card often for the +buy. (Non-terminal +buys doubly so), so you end up with less interesting choices to buy the attack since it covers so many bases at once.  I think this card would be better without the +buy. It also doesn't really stack with the rest of the card – it only gives you 1$, so it doesn't promote needing several buys. And it doesn't relate or defend in anyway against the attack. It seems like a random benefit tacked onto the card. I think giving more $ would be appropriate, or perhaps giving the card a mild cellar/cycling effect (this plays nicely with the curses and works badly with the -1 card token – in both cases it fits very well). The concept is sound, if you play around with the vanilla bonuses I think this can be even better.



For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?
This card uses the Native Village mat, but more importantly, it investigates the design-space central to Seaside of ~tHe FuTuRe~. The reason why seaside has a top of deck motif is because the top of your deck is the source of your next turn... the future. The reason why Island exists is because it has a place for points in the future. So, Island Warrior, by tucking curses into other player's matts does affect the future score, even if they never play a Native Village or Island Warrior card. I love the design of this card! However; there are a few issues with the pricing. First off, compare it to Soothsayer and you see it's not significantly weaker enough to be a whole price point lower. Soothsayer gives a +1 card which is a very strong benefit when it curses. Island Warrior provides no benefit to its opponents yet will probably end up with the same effect (in games with Island Warriors, people will dump their mat to their hand to get golds). If you look into the other motifs of Seaside, you'll see conditional gold gaining (Explorer, Treasure Map). I think that avenue is the key to improving this card. If the gold gain was conditional on something, then the price point of 4 could actually work. Something to think about! This is in the top 5


Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 Coffers
Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffer, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 Villager
This fits into renaissance by using coffers and villagers, nice! I also really like the set up as a nice way to change games like Baker does, *and* this card provides a use of the villagers – protection against Dunner! Nice work! However, “Set up” is a new concept, and I think complicates the Renaissance expansion, whose goal was simplicity. In addition, “loses a” is not the right way to phrase it. Check out Butcher-- it should be something like each other player chooses to “removes a token from their Coffers or Villagers...” I also like how this card defends against itself with +2 coffers. When I made a proof of concept for this contest, having a +2 coffers curser was my first idea, and then I noticed there's already a +2 coffers attack in Renaissance. Therefore, Dunner seems a little repetitive in the set. I like the design of this, but I can't imagine that this would have been put into Renaissance because of these issues.


This brilliantly fits into guilds by using coffers and overpay. I'm really impressed by how you made overpay for coffers work and you also made a coffers attack work by providing coffers and a curse if they don't have any. And, this is a cheap curser that makes sense, if you buy only one, it's essentially a curse every-other-time you play it, which fits great as a cheap curser. The only feedback I have for this is I think it the card would be more interesting if you let your opponents choose whether to gain a curse or lose a coffer; HOWEVER, this would be a new mechanic for guild (the word “choose” does not appear in Guilds), and so I think you made the right choice for this context. The other thing to think about is pricing silver at a bonus at 3. Then again, costing it 4 would make the over-pay less practical. And I think the bonus of +2$ is the right one for this, it's a card about money. Yeah, every single part of this card fits very well.
There's some cool synergy with itself, the more landlords you overpay for, the more you are protected against the cursers. I think that in a Guilds game, this card is not very likely to curse opponents, but I'm fine with that.
The landlord pile solves all the issues I had with Greedy Witch's overpay for coffers by limiting the coffers directly, and by giving your opponents a chance to spend the coffers before offering to you in the landlord pile. This is in the top 5




This card does great fitting into Dark ages by combining two of its themes. Nice work! I do like the idea of doing one final trash of a curse. It's interesting to me that a Dead Witch could be better than a Vengeful Witch, especially in a Kingdom with weak trashing. Well, a Kingdom with no trashing it's for sure better, but there's no way to gain the Dead Witch if there is no trashing. I don't like the fact that you have a “transforming” card that might never be able to transform. I would recommend you adding this “setup: place 1 curse per player in the trash.”  Or perhaps, “when you buy this, trash a curse from the supply.” Now each player has the interesting choice, *when* do they want to kill their witch. And if one player removes all the curses from the supply, as soon as they use a dead witch to trash one, other players can now kill their witches. It is a really brilliant synergy how a Dead Witch actually can help kill other witches. I do like this card a lot; However, there is one big flaw in your card. It's very political. If there are no curses in the trash, you can choose for some players to gain a curse from the trash and for others to actually gain a curse from the Supply (or vice cersa if there are no curses in the supply). Donald X. has specifically designed attack cards that can't single out a single person, and this card has a big loophole here. So, because of that, it doesn't belong in any of the expansions. There is no easy way I can discover around this without removing the choice of whether to kill your own Witch. I do think this card is great and has some potential, so I encourage you to look into these issues (or, perhaps ignore them if you don't think they are issues. It's just my opinion!)


This uses artifacts and coffers, and thus really fits into Renaissance! I think The Holy Land is a really interesting artifact—it's not nearly as powerful as it seems, but it's still good.
I've already mentioned in other feedback how I feel about +buys attached to cursers. The fact that this is cheap is yet another strike against this card, it has too much going for it. I've talked about this in other feedback, but the strongest Dominion cards relate to themselves in interesting ways. Right now your vanilla bonuses have nothing to do with cursing or The Holy Land. I think you should let the vanilla bonuses somehow relate to the artifact. For example, a copper trasher would be great. “You may trash a copper, if you do +1 coffers” could be good enough to price this at a 4 and it would connect with Holy Land a lot more. You can try some sort of Mining variant. Also, calling this crusade means there should probably be trashing attached to this.





This card is disqualified from the contest because it uses +VP. There are no vp Tokens in Guilds. It doesn't fit in Prosperity or Empires though because it has over pay. So this card isn't emblematic of any one expansion. I really like this mechanic: you overpay for the card to get all the benefit, and then the card provides a slight benefit to your opponents after that. That's a pretty intersting mechanic. I think this card will pretty much only be bought at 6, and it makes it pretty powerful. It curses instantly as opposed to on-play. I think this actually poses some serious problems. On 5/2 with Baker you can give each opponent 2 curses before the first shuffle. Very often multiple players can get 6 before their second shuffle and give out 2 curses then. This is something that makes me uneasy, but I have no idea how to solve this problem. I do want to point out that the top-part has a nice synergy with giving out curses. To be honest, If you had omitted the +VP from this card, there were still other Guilds-oriented cards that fit the set better than this.







Coven makes use of both Events and tokens, which makes it fit Adventures very well. I had written up previous notes from the original Coven and I like the direction you're moving towards. One of my suggestions was limiting it to “once per turn” and I think this is a good way of operating. At 6 this has a very high opportunity cost. You have to skip a buy to purchase this, and then it only curses once per turn afterward. So, I think this is weaker than it seems. I think I would never buy Coven when there was another curser on the table. Either the curser costs 5 and provides me some decent benefit besides cursing so I would prefer this in my deck to buying Coven and having nothing in my deck, OR the curser is cheap and I can curse my opponents much faster than I could saving up 6$ to buy Coven. So I think this needs to be stronger to be more useful. Or, I think you could price it at 5 and/or you could not limit it to what cards you can put it on. I do think you made the right choice by having it change the card to be an attack card so reaction cards are boosted a bit. That's a good bit of design there.


Final Results:
Potemkin Village is just mis-priced enough, and the double line is very awkward, so that's why it isn't winning. Warlock could have been stronger by relating the discard attack to the rest of the card and/or by giving it an on-benefit trash.

I really love Island Warrior and it was super close to winning, but I also think it is mis-priced a bit, and there was a huge opportunity for it to be conditional gold-gaining instead, and if it was, it could have have won this context.

Parade has a truly wonderful simplicity. I'm almost surprised this isn't already a card in Renaissance.
Landlord makes a wonderful use of the coffers mat and has such great synergy with itself.

This is very hard for me to pick, it's honestly a toss-up between these two. We're going with...

Winner: Parade by segura. Some people's objections of it being too powerful are not considering the power of Parade viewed with other Renaissance cards, which don't include any Kingdom Victory Cards. And a card like hideout means buying an estate is actually probably worse since it takes two hideouts to trash it. The more you like at this card, the more it fits perfectly as the curser in Renaissance. Excellent work!

Runner up: Landlord by NoMoreFun



Logged

Kudasai

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 446
  • Respect: +242
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2715 on: July 11, 2019, 01:17:13 am »
+1

Annexation
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player may discard a Victory or Curse card to draw a card.
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpaid, +1VP and each other player gains a Curse.
Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.

My original idea was to have it also be a Victory card that is worth 1VP. This makes paying $8 for it give a 4 point swing (3 Curses + 1VP), which makes it conflict less with Province buying. Adding the Victory type also allows players to discard Annexations when another player plays Annexation, but this could be problematic. So I'll likely try something like simply getting +1VP on buy (no scaling).

Anyways, thanks to you a Segura for the feedback. And congrats Segura! That is a pretty neat Artifact!
Logged

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2716 on: July 11, 2019, 05:22:39 am »
0

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 05:24:03 am by segura »
Logged

faust

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2575
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3551
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2717 on: July 11, 2019, 07:03:32 am »
0

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).
I think this is generally an interesting challenge, but maybe we shouldn't do two junking contests in a row?

EDIT: I do have an idea for this, so I don't mind, but others may have run out of inspiration for junking.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 07:14:24 am by faust »
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.

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 365
  • Respect: +523
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2718 on: July 11, 2019, 07:20:30 am »
0


I probably agree with most of what you said. So much so that I withdrew this entry and replaced it with Chronicler (a fact I posted here and edited my original post), which you didn't look at.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

anordinaryman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Respect: +78
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2719 on: July 11, 2019, 08:22:07 am »
0


I probably agree with most of what you said. So much so that I withdrew this entry and replaced it with Chronicler (a fact I posted here and edited my original post), which you didn't look at.

Yikes!!! I think I missed it because the entire card was quoted so I skipped past it assuming it was one someone else posted outside a quote and I had already reciewed... I’m really sorry to miss your card. I was so worried I would mess up somehow, and I did :(
Would you want me to apply the same effort feedback to that new card and tell you my thoughts on it? Again, my deepest apologies for messing up.

I missed the original edit because I started writing up feedback earlier then contest end and simply rewrote feedback whenever I noticed a card change. This is completely my fault, I’m sorry.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:23:47 am by anordinaryman »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 365
  • Respect: +523
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2720 on: July 11, 2019, 10:01:05 am »
0

Would you want me to apply the same effort feedback to that new card and tell you my thoughts on it?
Only if you want to.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 347
  • Respect: +212
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2721 on: July 11, 2019, 10:02:33 am »
0

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

Does self-junking count as non-conventional (probably ruins)? What about something like IGG?
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

scolapasta

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Respect: +103
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2722 on: July 11, 2019, 11:03:00 am »
0

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

Does self-junking count as non-conventional (probably ruins)? What about something like IGG?

If IGG works, I could just reuse one of my Coven versions! :)

(just kidding, of course)

Other cards I'd wonder about in that same vein are Embargo or even Torturer, since it's a choice. (my guess is Embargo would be, bot Torturer wouldn't)

Since there is a subjective fine line in what qualifies, would you be willing to do something similar to what Fragasnap did with the no vanilla bonus challenge and +1 submissions that qualify? (or otherwise just let us know if something doesn't)
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2723 on: July 11, 2019, 11:45:53 am »
0

Self-junking as a straightforward nerf/downside like with Cursed Gold is not in the spirit of the contest whereas a card that would sometimes junk the opponents and sometimes you would. Junkin on-gain or on-buy or conditional upon the presence of a token are fine whereas a choice-junker like Torturer would be rather borderline.

I don't want to make the parameters too tight, if you have a good idea just roll with it.
Logged

Aquila

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
  • Respect: +211
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #2724 on: July 11, 2019, 11:58:04 am »
0

Roll with an idea I will, whether it's good is another matter:


Edit: added 'choice as you' to the end for less ambiguity. You choose one of the options, everybody does it (unless blocked)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 12:46:09 pm by Aquila »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 172  All
 

Page created in 0.13 seconds with 23 queries.