Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 166 167 [168] 169 170 171  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 136594 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

anordinaryman

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: +76
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4175 on: November 28, 2019, 01:19:05 pm »
0

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Three broad sets of issues here:
1. Are friends a reflexive property? If A is my friend, am I A's friend? If it is reflexive, then whoever goes earlier in the game has a massive disadvantage. Their score will be the same as someone else with fewer turns and according to tie breaking principles that person going later will win. Or if they have the same number of a turns, it is a tie. The first turn player can never win a game with this card, they can only hope to tie. This card really only works if friendship is non-reflexive. As in A is B's friend, B is C's Friend, C is A's friend.

2. What happens with odd players? How do you define "opposite side of the table." Is it literally opposite side of a table? What if we aren't playing at a table (I normally play on the ground)? What if you are playing online? What if there's a table but everyone is on the same side?

3. As it's written, it depends on what order you score people. If my score gets doubled from my friend, and then my friend calculates their score, then they get the points from my friend's friend AND me.

You can resolve all these problems with something like "the player to your left is your friend, when scoring, add the value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck to your vp." Now this unambiguously works for any number of players, any table arrangement, makes sure that player 1 can still win, resolves the scoring-order ambiguity, works with variable cost victory points (gardens are worth differently in their deck than yours), and also thoroughly addresses the contest requirements. It also incentivizes victory point and landmark scoring since that will not pass off to the player that you are their friend. I might recommend changing from "friend" to something that is more one-way, like "crush" or "idol"

If you do this, the card passing gives you an interesting incentive to pass provinces to your friend. You want their score high, but you don't want their engine strong or they can give those provinces to their friend instead. Ha! I could see this continually happening, with cheaper victory cards being passed around all game. I think this is a really interesting concept, but you'll need to address the three issues I mentioned by modifying card text. Another solution to making reflexive-friendship work (one I don't like as much) is redefining Dominion as a team-based game. Instead of a tie -- you'd have two winners. Of course, this breaks down entirely when you have an odd number of players. You could also use the "value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck" to make reflexivity work, but again, it breaks down with odd number of players.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 01:20:29 pm by anordinaryman »
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +67
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4176 on: November 28, 2019, 01:48:07 pm »
+1

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Three broad sets of issues here:
1. Are friends a reflexive property? If A is my friend, am I A's friend? If it is reflexive, then whoever goes earlier in the game has a massive disadvantage. Their score will be the same as someone else with fewer turns and according to tie breaking principles that person going later will win. Or if they have the same number of a turns, it is a tie. The first turn player can never win a game with this card, they can only hope to tie. This card really only works if friendship is non-reflexive. As in A is B's friend, B is C's Friend, C is A's friend.

2. What happens with odd players? How do you define "opposite side of the table." Is it literally opposite side of a table? What if we aren't playing at a table (I normally play on the ground)? What if you are playing online? What if there's a table but everyone is on the same side?

3. As it's written, it depends on what order you score people. If my score gets doubled from my friend, and then my friend calculates their score, then they get the points from my friend's friend AND me.

You can resolve all these problems with something like "the player to your left is your friend, when scoring, add the value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck to your vp." Now this unambiguously works for any number of players, any table arrangement, makes sure that player 1 can still win, resolves the scoring-order ambiguity, works with variable cost victory points (gardens are worth differently in their deck than yours), and also thoroughly addresses the contest requirements. It also incentivizes victory point and landmark scoring since that will not pass off to the player that you are their friend. I might recommend changing from "friend" to something that is more one-way, like "crush" or "idol"

If you do this, the card passing gives you an interesting incentive to pass provinces to your friend. You want their score high, but you don't want their engine strong or they can give those provinces to their friend instead. Ha! I could see this continually happening, with cheaper victory cards being passed around all game. I think this is a really interesting concept, but you'll need to address the three issues I mentioned by modifying card text. Another solution to making reflexive-friendship work (one I don't like as much) is redefining Dominion as a team-based game. Instead of a tie -- you'd have two winners. Of course, this breaks down entirely when you have an odd number of players. You could also use the "value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck" to make reflexivity work, but again, it breaks down with odd number of players.

I think what he meant is that Dominion becomes a 2 vs 2 game when this card is in the game. This is better accomplished by adding the "Team" type, specifying that this card is exclusively meant for 4P games where P1 and P3 play against P2 and P4.
Logged

Freddy10

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: +34
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4177 on: November 28, 2019, 03:50:56 pm »
+1

Somehow releated to this contest: Asper made team cards some time ago: Asper's Cards
Logged
Who trashes the trashers?

Aquila

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
  • Respect: +211
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #53: 3+ players only
« Reply #4178 on: November 28, 2019, 05:11:02 pm »
+1

Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
  • Respect: +1127
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4179 on: November 28, 2019, 09:16:00 pm »
+1

Pot Stirrer
Action/Duration - $2
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy, +$2
-
While this is in play,  when any player plays an attack, it doesn't affect you, and +1 Coffers if the Attack affected another player whose turn it isn't


Basically a card that rewards you for watching other players get attacked. It's probably fine in 2 player, but the interesting effect would only ever kick in with more than 2 players.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 11:44:11 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4180 on: November 29, 2019, 07:11:01 pm »
+1

Here's a silly idea I had after spiralstaircase posted Fairytale cards which begot Story Points.  I hadn't fully designed or even really tested the idea, but here's how it goes:

Introducing Story cards (Stories).  There are 12 cards in each Story pile, just like Victory cards.  They grant to their owner Story points (SP).  The player with the fewest Story Points loses the game, regardless of their Victory Point total, and then the remaining player with the most VP wins.  Ties are friendly, so if multiple players each have the fewest Story Points, none of them are eliminated.

Quote
Dominion: Fantasy, Setup
In games using any cards or Landmarks from Dominion: Fantasy, each player begins by secretly building their 10 card deck out of the normal starting cards and up to 6 History cards (4 with 5 or more players). Remove the other cards from the game without looking at them.
At the end of the game, the player with the fewest SP loses the game regardless of VP. If this is a tie, no one loses.
Quote
History: 24
Types: Story
Cost: $2
4SP
Players begin games with Dominion: Fantasy cards by building their own deck out of the usual cards and History cards.  It is secret, so you won't necessarily know how many History cards a player has (though their opening plays will give you a hint).  There are 24 History cards total.  History cards are not added to the Supply: You can only get them at setup.  You are allowed to replace Shelters and Heirlooms from your starting deck with History cards.  Your deck must be comprised of exactly 10 cards.  Players shuffle and draw their starting hands after building their decks.
Dominion: Fantasy as a set has 24 History cards, 20 Kingdom card piles (each of which is a Story card), and 16 Landmarks that provide SP.

Find below some sample cards:
   
 
Quote
Interpreter
Types: Victory, Story
Cost: $3
Worth 1VP for every 2 History cards in your deck (round down).
Worth 1SP for each differently named Victory card in your deck.
Keep 4 History cards for a cheap 2VP+SP card.  Keep 2 History cards and this is at least an Estate+SP.  Maybe don't keep 6 History cards, but I won't tell you how to live your life.
Quote
Superstitious Village
Types: Action, Story
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +3 Actions. Discard a card.
2SP
A sifting double-Village with a fixed SP counterpoint. Too many of these and you'll be discarding your whole hand.
Quote
Magic Beans
Types: Treasure, Story
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, trash a card from your hand and if it isn't a Treasure, gain a Treasure costing up to $3 more than it.
Worth 1SP per differently named Treasure in your deck.
A mandatory trashing Treasure that Mines non-Treasures into Treasures if you want.  Too many of these and you won't have anything to trash.
Quote
Faerie Circle
Types: Landmark
When scoring, 3SP per differently named card you have after the first 5.
Like Museum, but with a threshold.  It matches Museum at 15 differently named cards for 30SP to a typical maximum of 18 names for 39SP.
Quote
Shangri-La
Types: Landmark
When scoring, 3SP per copy you have of the least common Victory card among your cards (if it’s a tie, count either).
Similar to Triumphal Arch, but makes you need to have an equal number of each Victory card you put into your deck.  Maybe the 1 Duchy you'd buy will cost you the Story Points that allowed you to compete?

Even scaling cards have largely fixed SP caps to make it easier to track other players' SP potential.  If I know you have 2 Magic Beans cards, then I know you can have 2*(Unique Treasures)+4*History Story Points, but I can't necessarily be completely sure of how many History cards you have (from 0 to 6).
Strategically, you want to have 1SP more than the player who has the fewest SP, but any SP over that is useless.

HISTORY
Superstitious Village originally gave 1SP per 2 differently named Actions in your deck, and is now worth 2SP so that tracking players' SP is easier.
Magic Beans originally optionally Remodeled anything to Treasures, and now trashes Treasures or Mines non-Treasures so you can't trash anything to Copper on your last turn for Magic Beans' SP value.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 01:37:00 pm by Fragasnap »
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

forkofnature

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4181 on: November 29, 2019, 10:28:27 pm »
+3

The "lose, then win" aspect of Story Points is interesting, but man it looks like a lot to keep track of. Especially given that (1) the History setup makes it impossible to use a counting aid, and (2) all your cards are worth a variable amount of SP. I'm sorry, but I'm not playing a game where I need to mentally track the number of unique actions in four different decks on top of tracking VP. And even if I do track all that successfully, I can still lose to something I couldn't account for at all (History count).

Then again, I always use a VP counter irl, so maybe that's just me.

To be a bit more constructive, I would suggest having Story cards be worth a static amount of SP, and limit the initial History gamble to something like 3 instead of 6 so that known quantities can more easily insure against the hidden variance. (The hidden variance will remain relevant since it will still be detrimental to excessively focus SP.)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 01:37:46 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

artless

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +21
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4182 on: November 29, 2019, 11:19:58 pm »
0

Usurper's Crown
Artifact(*) - 3+ players

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When you gains a province, you may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.(**)

*This artifact doesn't bind with a kingdom card. It should be shuffled with project / event / landmark (into the randomizer deck or a card-shaped things deck).
**The remaining player with highest VP wins.

This card turns a regular game into a N vs 1 game, while not breaking the game too much.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 12:52:56 am by artless »
Logged

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Respect: +144
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4183 on: November 30, 2019, 06:32:38 am »
0

Usurper's Crown
Artifact

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When a player gains a province, they may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.
The Artifact is fine but I fail to see the appeal of playing any competitive (you can obviously lose as a team in a coop) game in which everybody can lose. Here this will happen basically always among players of a similar skill level.
Logged

grep

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
  • Respect: +43
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4184 on: November 30, 2019, 06:28:26 pm »
+1


Great Wall
$8* - Project
When the player to your left plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you.

This costs $2 less per player in the game beyond the first two.

v2: modified cost (old version: )
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 03:18:26 pm by grep »
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 691
  • Respect: +396
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #53: Three is Company
« Reply #4185 on: December 01, 2019, 10:11:29 pm »
+1



Based on my card Delegate (submitted for the Command-type contest). Based on the playtesting results from Delegate, I think it would be safe to say that Emissary works great with 3 or 4 players, but is unbalanced at other player numbers.

Version History
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed vanilla bonus to a choose one instead of +2 Cards, and moved them to after the special effect.
v1.2: Changed vanilla bonus to +1 Card and +1 Action and moved it back to before the special effect.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 11:48:33 am by Gubump »
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

segura

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Respect: +144
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #53: Three is Company
« Reply #4186 on: December 02, 2019, 10:17:39 am »
0



Based on my card Delegate (submitted for the Command-type contest). Based on the playtesting results from Delegate, I think it would be safe to say that Emissary works great with 3 or 4 players, but is unbalanced at other player numbers.
Why? Sure, in a 2P games you have less options and the other player can simply play money to make Emissary pointless. But as it stands the card looks extremely strong: even a petty Pearl Diver makes Emissary better than DoubleLab.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5418
  • Respect: +2797
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4187 on: December 02, 2019, 10:48:37 am »
0

Agora - Landmark
When scoring, +2 VP for each differently named Action card in your deck, if there is both a player who has more copies of that card than you and a player who has fewer copies of that card than you
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 691
  • Respect: +396
    • View Profile
Re: Contest #53: Three is Company
« Reply #4188 on: December 02, 2019, 11:36:51 am »
0



Based on my card Delegate (submitted for the Command-type contest). Based on the playtesting results from Delegate, I think it would be safe to say that Emissary works great with 3 or 4 players, but is unbalanced at other player numbers.
Why? Sure, in a 2P games you have less options and the other player can simply play money to make Emissary pointless. But as it stands the card looks extremely strong: even a petty Pearl Diver makes Emissary better than DoubleLab.

It's a lot less likely to hit in 2P games, even if everybody is playing an engine deck. You're probably right about its power, though. I'll change the vanilla bonus.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Violet CLM and his Dominion Card Image Generator.

forkofnature

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4189 on: December 02, 2019, 11:52:05 pm »
+1



Flight of Fancy, Action, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your left names a card, then the player to your right names a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card without those names. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cheaper Lab with the drawback that it won't always draw your good stuff. I suppose this technically works in two-player, but the 3+ spirit is there  :P
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 11:51:36 am by forkofnature »
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
  • Respect: +434
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4190 on: December 03, 2019, 07:50:39 pm »
0

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Three broad sets of issues here:
1. Are friends a reflexive property? If A is my friend, am I A's friend? If it is reflexive, then whoever goes earlier in the game has a massive disadvantage. Their score will be the same as someone else with fewer turns and according to tie breaking principles that person going later will win. Or if they have the same number of a turns, it is a tie. The first turn player can never win a game with this card, they can only hope to tie. This card really only works if friendship is non-reflexive. As in A is B's friend, B is C's Friend, C is A's friend.

2. What happens with odd players? How do you define "opposite side of the table." Is it literally opposite side of a table? What if we aren't playing at a table (I normally play on the ground)? What if you are playing online? What if there's a table but everyone is on the same side?

3. As it's written, it depends on what order you score people. If my score gets doubled from my friend, and then my friend calculates their score, then they get the points from my friend's friend AND me.

You can resolve all these problems with something like "the player to your left is your friend, when scoring, add the value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck to your vp." Now this unambiguously works for any number of players, any table arrangement, makes sure that player 1 can still win, resolves the scoring-order ambiguity, works with variable cost victory points (gardens are worth differently in their deck than yours), and also thoroughly addresses the contest requirements. It also incentivizes victory point and landmark scoring since that will not pass off to the player that you are their friend. I might recommend changing from "friend" to something that is more one-way, like "crush" or "idol"

If you do this, the card passing gives you an interesting incentive to pass provinces to your friend. You want their score high, but you don't want their engine strong or they can give those provinces to their friend instead. Ha! I could see this continually happening, with cheaper victory cards being passed around all game. I think this is a really interesting concept, but you'll need to address the three issues I mentioned by modifying card text. Another solution to making reflexive-friendship work (one I don't like as much) is redefining Dominion as a team-based game. Instead of a tie -- you'd have two winners. Of course, this breaks down entirely when you have an odd number of players. You could also use the "value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck" to make reflexivity work, but again, it breaks down with odd number of players.

I think what he meant is that Dominion becomes a 2 vs 2 game when this card is in the game. This is better accomplished by adding the "Team" type, specifying that this card is exclusively meant for 4P games where P1 and P3 play against P2 and P4.

I supposed to use in 4-player games. Yes, in 3-player games it won't work. Better wording exists.
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4191 on: December 04, 2019, 09:23:18 am »
+1

Tithe
$4 - Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player draws until they have 4 or more cards in hand, then sets a card aside face-down. All players discard their set aside cards, and if any such card cost less than every other one, that player gains a Curse.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 11:51:44 am by Something_Smart »
Logged

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 263
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4192 on: December 04, 2019, 09:32:45 am »
0

Usurper's Crown
Artifact(*) - 3+ players

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When you gains a province, you may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.(**)

*This artifact doesn't bind with a kingdom card. It should be shuffled with project / event / landmark (into the randomizer deck or a card-shaped things deck).
**The remaining player with highest VP wins.

This card turns a regular game into a N vs 1 game, while not breaking the game too much.

I like this but you might want to change the bonus to be like... Woodcutter or something instead of an autovillage. I imagine lack of buys is more of a limiting factor when trying to double skunk the table.

Tithe
$4 - Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player draws until they have 4 or more cards in hand, then sets a card aside face-down. All players discard their set aside cards, and if any such card cost less than all the others, that player gains a Curse.
Does this only curse one person, or if (in a four player game) two people toss Copper, one tosses an estate, do the copper tossers get Cursed?
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

Something_Smart

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4193 on: December 04, 2019, 09:47:25 am »
+1

In that situation, nobody's card cost less than all the others, so nobody gets cursed.
Logged

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
  • Respect: +869
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4194 on: December 04, 2019, 09:56:03 am »
+1

24 hour notice! The deadline for submissions is in 24 hours from now.
Logged

spineflu

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 263
  • +1 Post. At the start of your next turn +1 Respect
  • Respect: +104
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4195 on: December 04, 2019, 11:31:05 am »
0

In that situation, nobody's card cost less than all the others, so nobody gets cursed.

One last dumb question - "all" as in the sum of all other cards discarded, or "all" as in any other card discarded?
like, if the former, if the following are tossed:
Transmute
Silver
University

then the university player gets cursed, yeah (2P vs 3 + P)?
Logged
sometime-maintainer of the Weekly Design Contest trello

Something_Smart

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4196 on: December 04, 2019, 11:50:45 am »
+1

All as in each; they're only cursed if it costs less than each other card, considered individually.

The wording's already nasty, I'll see if I can clarify that without making it worse.
Logged

forkofnature

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4197 on: December 04, 2019, 12:25:50 pm »
+1

All as in each; they're only cursed if it costs less than each other card, considered individually.

The wording's already nasty, I'll see if I can clarify that without making it worse.

Does this help?

"Each other player draws until they have 4 cards in hand, then each other player simultaneously discards a card. The player who discarded the card costing the least gains a Curse. (Ties don't count.)"

Honestly, I would make ties lose: as it is, as long as two people discard a Copper this is mostly a weak Militia. That might be worded something like "…Each player who discarded a card costing the least gains a Curse (including ties)."
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 12:33:06 pm by forkofnature »
Logged

Something_Smart

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4198 on: December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm »
+2

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always. Even attacks like Spy are technically supposed to go in turn order, usually irl it doesn't matter and so they do them all at the same time, but here it very much matters. So unfortunately, first setting the cards aside face-down is necessary.

Also, there isn't always a "least," because of Potion and Debt costs. Transmute doesn't cost more or less than Silver, for instance.

As for making ties lose, that's probably too brutal in a 3-player game, especially early on. There's still that element of fear in discarding a Copper because your opponents might be discarding Estates.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
  • Respect: +521
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4199 on: December 04, 2019, 01:37:06 pm »
0

To be a bit more constructive, I would suggest having Story cards be worth a static amount of SP, and limit the initial History gamble to something like 3 instead of 6 so that known quantities can more easily insure against the hidden variance. (The hidden variance will remain relevant since it will still be detrimental to excessively focus SP.)
Typically, Interpreter is worth 4SP and Magic Beans is worth 4SP, but they imply more construction than just buying them. It is mostly to give players some recourse to increase their SP (or shortchange a lagging player's SP by ending the game before they're ready) if only one Story card appears in a Kingdom.  I want it to be hard for players to end up in a situation where they definitively have the fewest SP and cannot win, but the game isn't over (unlike VP, where there is usually a chance, however slim, of a comeback).  Without slightly scaling SP, the situation would be much more common due to how often there will be only 1 Story card (Superstitious Village might be too much scaling, I admit.  The whole concept is untested.  I will change Superstitious Village).  Really, if I were to change this function, a basic Story card would be necessary to act counterpoint to Provinces, but that risks rendering Story Points much more similar to Victory Points, which was not my ideal.  I want players to think about Story Points on turn 0 and Victory Points on turn 9, where a 10SP "Epic" card added to the Supply alongside Provinces would make players think about both styles of points at the same time in the game instead of balancing their consideration.

To further elaborate on this History card setup, they were added because ties are friendly.  Due to the fact that 2-way ties for least result in no elimination, 3-way ties with 0SP each would be much more common if players weren't encouraged to buy into the system before the game even begins (mind you, I don't mind if 3-way ties for 0SP do happen, I only want to discourage them without complicating the rules for ties-for-least (ties-for-least eliminating multiple players would need a caveat to not eliminate all players, and further makes it more likely for players to have the definitively least SP as well as making the concept work overall poorly with Landmarks)).

As far as the History card count: You normally start with 3 junk cards.  You would virtually always swap all your Estates with History cards (barring cards that incentivize having or trashing Estates like Shepherd or Sacrifice), so having extras on top of that is what makes it interesting.  Not to mention that your opening tells other players the History cards you could have: If you open $3/$3, you can have at most 4 History cards, where -/$3 has 7 unaccounted cards, and Alms is tortuous.  Damaging your opening for extra SP from History cards may often be a bad idea, but I'd test with a few too many History cards than too few─and even then the first change I would likely make is reducing the SP value of History cards to 3SP.  I want to make holding onto your starting junk more tempting though, and 4SP seemed a reasonable way to do it.



Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.
Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards
Pages: 1 ... 166 167 [168] 169 170 171  All
 

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 21 queries.