Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 172 173 [174] 175 176 ... 197  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contest Thread  (Read 190361 times)

1 Member and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

spineflu

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 418
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +211
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4325 on: December 23, 2019, 02:47:51 pm »
+1

i think Something_Smart was talking my suggestion on his card, which admittedly does make it a political card. anordinaryman, yours seems very well thoughtout and balanced to me.

Something_Smart

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +64
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4326 on: December 23, 2019, 04:01:20 pm »
0

edit: spineflu pointed out that  this comment was directed towards his suggestion towards a card, and not my contest submission. Probably using my name instead of his was a typo Something_Smart made?
Derp, yes, my bad. Topic summary confused me :P
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
  • Respect: +541
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4327 on: December 23, 2019, 10:07:01 pm »
0

Quote
Gift Exchange
$3 - Action
Starting with the player to your left, each player trashes a card from their hand or a Gold from the supply.
Starting with you, each player may gain a card from the trash.
Question:
The way I want this to work when the Gold pile is empty is: players can still choose the Gold option, and if they do they trash nothing. Is that how you understood it? If not, how can I tweak the wording?
Your wording is correct according to the similar behavior of Tournament.  I've always disliked the wording and would prefer something such as
Code: [Select]
Starting with the player to your left, each player may trash a card from their hand. If they don't, they trash a Gold from the Supply.I don't know how much I like the card, just because it reads to me like a more troublesome Bishop.  The way it provides trashing to all players way will make it similarly irrelevant whenever it appears without other trashers.  When other trashers─and especially trashing Attacks─appear it goes on to be a weak Gold gainer with an uneven gaining power that is strongly bound by turn order.  Bishop at least can be relevant in any end-game by providing a decent trash-for-benefit effect.

Magic Workshop
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5. Choose a card in the Supply costing at least $3; each other player may gain a copy of it.
the goodwill-to-all aspect breaks in Potions games because no one is going to want to get junked with potions.
You might want to revise the order of these to make it more ... charitable - something like
Quote
Choose a card in the Supply costing at least $3; each other player may gain a copy of it. If anyone does, gain a card costing up to $5; otherwise, +1 Action
which keeps it from being a totally dead card in a game with an opponent who is refusing your help.
I could change Magic Workshop to "choose an Action card costing at least $3." That would solve both the Silver and Potion problems, though it would remove the ability to distribute useless alt-VP like Duke and Feodum (which I thought was cool), but that's also probably for the better.

I think anordinaryman spineflu's suggestion is too political and also far too weak; I'd never take a $3 if it meant my opponent got a $5, and the Ruined Village aspect doesn't really help. (At least make it a cantrip, though it could be interesting to make it a Peddler or Lab or something your opponent might want to accept the gift to deny you, but that's still very political in multiplayer.)
Magic Workshop is inherently incredibly political because Player A gets to choose the card that Players B and C can gain.  Helpful cards for each of those players would be different in many circumstances.  Regardless of politics, the ability for other players to gain a Silver in response to me gaining a $5 card does little to nothing to counterbalance the strength of that effect, let alone that there will often be worse options than Silver (like Duchy in the early game).  Frankly, this may as well just read "Gain a card costing up to $5."
While "Choose an Action card in the Supply..." would go a long way to improving the effect, I think that spineflu is ultimately correct to say that the card ought to be throttled by requiring one to select cards other players want.  I would try to make Magic Workshop an unconditional cantrip that then only gives you its powerful Workshop effect when you choose a card another player actually wants.

Quote
Christmas - Event $4
Choose to gain a Grinch; or both a Gift and a card costing up to $4. Each other player that has Naughty gains a Lump of Coal; if they don't have Naughty, they gain a Gift.
Quote
Naughty - State
When you play an Attack card, take Naughty.
Quote
Gift - Action - $4*
+1 Action. Return this to the Gift pile, if you did, gain a card costing up to $4.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Quote
Lump of Coal - Action - $0*
Return this to the Lump of Coal pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Quote
Grinch - Action Attack - $6*
+2 Cards, +1 Action. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a Gift or reveals a hand with no Gifts. Then, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)
All theme aside, Lump of Coal likely renders Attacks automatically impossible to play in Christmas games.  In 2-player games, playing an Attack means that the other player can buy a super-cheap Ball-ish that junks you for the rest of the game.  In multiplayer games, playing an Attack means that players can bury you in Lump of Coal cards for the rest of the game.
There probably needs to be something to prevent Lump of Coal from becoming so oppressive.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

anordinaryman

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Respect: +84
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4328 on: December 23, 2019, 11:27:54 pm »
+1


All theme aside, Lump of Coal likely renders Attacks automatically impossible to play in Christmas games.  In 2-player games, playing an Attack means that the other player can buy a super-cheap Ball-ish that junks you for the rest of the game.  In multiplayer games, playing an Attack means that players can bury you in Lump of Coal cards for the rest of the game.
There probably needs to be something to prevent Lump of Coal from becoming so oppressive.

I appreciate the feedback. I believe this dynamic is what makes Christmas interesting. Similar to how a player who buys a bunch of ambassadors can be so oppressive, or like a torturer chain can be oppressive, or a ghost ship can be oppressive, but now it's the person who bought the attack that is in trouble with losing out on Christmas.

 Except the lump of coal isn't as bad as any of those attacks. It's not that oppressive. It's much better to have in you deck than a curse. You can trash a Lump of Coal if there's trashers available. If there's no trashers available, then you can return it for an action. Also, if there are no trashers available, well, you don't mind being Naughty because the Witch you bought is definitely worth being Naughty for. But the presence of Christmas makes you probably delay Witch so you can take advantage of a few Gifts before you get Naughty. If there are trashers available, then you don't care so much for the lump of coals you're getting, but it does make you rethink some of the weaker attacks like oracle might be worth skipping. A strong attack though, it might be worth being naughty. And Christmas always comes with a strong attack -- you want to add a Grinch to almost any deck. Plus, naughty isn't cumulative. In a game with multiple attack cards, it is probably a viable strategy to either be naughty or nice. It's a complicated strategy. It's also worth noting you can only get cards costing up to $4 with Christmas. So your opponents will probably have to shell out for $5s later on. Towards the endgame, no one will want to buy Christmas, so it's safer to become naughty then.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1550
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4329 on: December 24, 2019, 08:10:43 am »
+3

Feedback:

Christmas Chapel by majiponi

I can imagine this functioning very similarly to Chapel, except even more centralising. The effect for everyone seems tacked on and not really enough to make not going for this worthwhile.

Christmas Feast by pubby

Do the other players get to see the card before choosing to gain it or putting it back? Either would be interesting. I like this one a lot - it's swingy but in a fun way. I think it would be better as a workshop variant rather than an event, so there's an extra layer in deciding to "go for" the Christmas Feast deck, to make it more conscious than luck based. Still, I like the idea. Excellent response to the theme.

Snow Hill/Sleigh by grep

I imagine this being really good and fun in games where this is the only Village, but otherwise useless. The drawback is too much - compare to Lost City. You would want to not play sleighs to set up a chain later, but that actually nullifies the advantage of gaining to hand. Perhaps gaining to top of deck would be the best of both words. I like what you're going for here (one of my long time favourite things is everyone getting the same benefit), but I don't think this works quite well enough.

Oversee by Fragasnap

I think this is a bit too swingy. Estate->$5 card is very good in the opening (why Expand needs to cost $7), while in games with special cards it can backfire horribly. I don't think it's any more interesting for the trashing being mandatory,. The shared effect helps other people in an interesting way in Kingdoms with this card, giving some 2nd player advantage, but it all seems like through the lens of luck.

Midnight Ride by forkofnature

This card pretty much doesn't work sorry. A cantrip leaves you worse off than every other player for having played it. There are some niche scenarios where you are far better equipped to deal with a card than other players, but I don't think this card explores it well. Better luck next time

Santa Claus by segura

I like the Heirloom by theory/Donald X better, as I don't mind seeing a dead Heirloom as much as a dead kingdom card. Still this is an interesting card that makes the greening phase interesting and brings new life to gainers (in non alt vp games). The penalty might be a bit too much.

Santa's Workshop/Gift by [TP] Inferno

Workshop variants are on the weaker/situational side as far as cards go, so putting a penalty on one needs to have something to balance it out, and I don't think being non terminal with +buy is quite enough. I think this is a very good approach to the theme, and I like Gift, but I don't think the card as a whole adds enough interesting.

Magi by Gazbag

 I really like the on gain penalty and am surprised there isn't an official card with it. This doesn't seem to fit neatly into any kind of deck I can imagine unfortunately. Engines aren't really that fond of Gold, it takes 3 shuffles for a single one to get the main benefit (not good for BM and Slogs), and I can't think of any good combos with it. Theme is nice.

The Grinch by grrgrrgrr

Very original. There are 13 imps so you will have 1 more than your opponents except in 5 player (if you're the first to buy). The best way to make good use of being flooded with Imps is a deck with good variety. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Gift Exchange by Snowyowl

I like the theme of this, and it's nice and simple. In practice I think it will largely be "Gain a Gold, each other player trashes a card from their hand", but that sounds like a good card (I'm a fan of Leprechaun). There's a lot of potential for politics, but that sounds about right for Christmas.

Papa Noel by spineflu

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really like the combination of effects here. It may be non terminal with Capitalism, but in most games it is terminal. Effects for other players are basically "+1 Card, +1 Action, (effect)", but with no opportunity cost. The opportunity cost for you on the other hand, is big. I like the Victory -> VP effect but it's not really carrying the card. I'm also not getting a lot of theme.

Sub for Santa by mail-mi

Thinking about theme here (Christmas), this card can be way too mean; gain a $2 with it and it's basically a Mountebank. I think it would be better if the Curse and other card were optional (gain a curse to gain the card - I had a fan card that did something similar). The 5/4 gap is very big and I think that makes this card too good.

Ghosts of Christmas by somekindoftony

While I did say I focused more on theme I was hoping that each card would satisfy the competition criteria (something positive for your opponents), and this does no such thing.

Looking at theme, I think what you're going for here is that the Ghost of Christmas Future scares you but gives you another chance at Christmas. This is a nice idea and the cards work well with it. I think it can best be compared with a Journey token card as an interesting spin on chapel which plays a bit with the early game (do you really want to use your oneshot gold now?)

I think on theme alone you'd be competitive, but it would be better with some sense of the idea of "giving" in the theme (even if you wanted to stick with "A Christmas Carol")

Winter Wonderland by scolapasta

I like it. You'll probably want to pick one up but you can make not picking one up work well for you too. Late game I think it mitigates greening a bit too well and the +VP may not really be necessary.

Magic Workshop by Something_Smart

This is very strong, and I think there are far too many situations where you can come up with a card other people don't want.

Christmas and a whole lot of other things, by anordinaryman

I asked people to go hard on theme, and nobody went harder than you.
I really like "Naughty" although to make it work as intended, I think a better every player should start with "Nice", with "flip this to Naughty when you play an Attack" written on it. Maybe something obscure but not unavoidable like "Trash an attack" would be good for getting back to Nice (which is an important part of Christmas IMO - you aren't naughty forever, forgiveness is possible).

Probably the best aspect of this card is that it works well when everyone chooses to be nice. Once someone's mean, you can flood them with coal.

Only issue is that there might not be $4 cards in the kingdom you want to gain a lot of. This would ultimately benefit the "naughty" player who is happy to get $4 Labs, and you end up with coal flying everywhere.

Still, this was the sort of thing I had more in mind when I came up with the competition.

RESULTS

Winner - Gift Exchange by snowyowl

Runner Up - The Grinch by grrgrrgrr
Logged

[TP] Inferno

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +68
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4330 on: December 25, 2019, 09:38:27 pm »
0

Santa's Workshop/Gift by [TP] Inferno

Workshop variants are on the weaker/situational side as far as cards go, so putting a penalty on one needs to have something to balance it out, and I don't think being non terminal with +buy is quite enough. I think this is a very good approach to the theme, and I like Gift, but I don't think the card as a whole adds enough interesting.

It will be very helpful to know that about Workshop variants, even though I won with one. Thanks lots for the feedback.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1550
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4331 on: December 25, 2019, 10:48:42 pm »
0

Santa's Workshop/Gift by [TP] Inferno

Workshop variants are on the weaker/situational side as far as cards go, so putting a penalty on one needs to have something to balance it out, and I don't think being non terminal with +buy is quite enough. I think this is a very good approach to the theme, and I like Gift, but I don't think the card as a whole adds enough interesting.

It will be very helpful to know that about Workshop variants, even though I won with one. Thanks lots for the feedback.

Workshop is a solid "Depends on the kingdom" card. It has powerful combos with Alt-VP cards, and it's good when you there are cards you want quite a lot of under $4. The main thing to remember about these kinds of cards is the $4-$5 gap.

Workshop is in the bottom half of $3 cards. My understanding however might be out of date. Being non terminal is a nice bonus - and Ironworks and Devil's Workshop are both in the top half of the $4 cards.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2019, 05:55:53 am by NoMoreFun »
Logged

majiponi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +449
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4332 on: December 25, 2019, 11:13:26 pm »
+1

Gift Exchange has a problem.

Play Apprentice to trash Province.
Play Gift Exchange to gain Province.

...too overpowering. Cost restriction is needed.
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4333 on: December 26, 2019, 04:31:48 am »
+3

Gift Exchange has a problem.

Play Apprentice to trash Province.
Play Gift Exchange to gain Province.

...too overpowering. Cost restriction is needed.

Treasurer does something similar with gold. It's fine.
Logged

faust

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2588
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +3567
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4334 on: December 26, 2019, 12:23:45 pm »
0

Gift Exchange has a problem.

Play Apprentice to trash Province.
Play Gift Exchange to gain Province.

...too overpowering. Cost restriction is needed.

Treasurer does something similar with gold. It's fine.
Treasurer also costs $5, and cannot cause wild VP swings from gaining a Swindled/Locusted etc. Provinces. I agree that there should be a restriction - cost or type.
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.

naitchman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4335 on: December 26, 2019, 02:44:47 pm »
0

Don't we usually say you have 48 hours to start the next contest?
Logged

Gubump

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 722
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4336 on: December 26, 2019, 03:15:45 pm »
0

Don't we usually say you have 48 hours to start the next contest?

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

spineflu

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 418
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +211
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4337 on: December 26, 2019, 03:39:27 pm »
0

i think we make a sui generis extension of a day, considering the holiday.

Abel_K

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • Respect: +20
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4338 on: December 26, 2019, 04:22:46 pm »
0

snowyowl  is a very recent member. Perhaps didn't he understand the "urgency" to open a new contest ?
Logged

naitchman

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4339 on: December 26, 2019, 05:41:13 pm »
0

I think we should wait until 72 hours and then let grrgrrgrr take over (considering the holiday)
Logged

Snowyowl

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4340 on: December 26, 2019, 07:47:53 pm »
+2

Hi! Sorry for the delay, I'm out for the holiday. I don't have time to run the next contest, can grrgrrgrr take over?
Logged

Abel_K

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • Respect: +20
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4341 on: December 27, 2019, 08:15:57 am »
+3

So, let us graciously, gratefully grant grrgrrgrr to grave a great contest, to ground grimly our grievous gresearches !!!
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4342 on: December 27, 2019, 01:04:46 pm »
+1

Very well. Next challenge will be

CHALLENGE #56 - WHAT'S YOUR NEXT ADVENTURE

Design a card shaped object that uses one of the tokens that were introduced in the Adventures expansion.
Logged

spineflu

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 418
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +211
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4343 on: December 27, 2019, 01:34:20 pm »
0

can we use more than one of the adventure tokens? also do we have to maintain all of the regular functionality for the trash/estate tokens or can we come up with new functionality and just say "don't use this with plan/inheritance"?

asking specifically on those two because everything else is pretty straightforward on how it works
« Last Edit: December 27, 2019, 02:45:28 pm by spineflu »
Logged

grrgrrgrr

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4344 on: December 27, 2019, 03:21:15 pm »
+2

can we use more than one of the adventure tokens? also do we have to maintain all of the regular functionality for the trash/estate tokens or can we come up with new functionality and just say "don't use this with plan/inheritance"?

asking specifically on those two because everything else is pretty straightforward on how it works

a) You can definitely use multiple tokens.
b) You have to stick with the original functionality of the token. (otherwise, I might as well add the ability to create custom tokens)
Logged

spineflu

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 418
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +211
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4345 on: December 27, 2019, 04:56:57 pm »
0

Withdrawing this - it's got stuff yall're gonna complain about like "why do i take my 1 Card token" (the answer is it's an additional price for unlocking additional functionality) and "i don't know if the Villa/Hammer effect is a good call" (i really don't either - I'd be interested to see how broken it could get). New entry is gonna be downthread.



Quote
Order $4 Event
Move your $2 cost token to a non-Victory pile. If cards from that pile cost $0, gain a Carpenter and take your 1 Card token.
Quote
Carpenter $3* Action
You may gain a card costing up to $4. You may trash a card from your hand. If you did both, you may take the Hammer or Nails, then return this to the Carpenter pile.
(This is not in the Supply)
Quote
Hammer Artifact
When you buy a card from the pile with your $2 cost token, +1 Action and you may return to your Action phase.
Quote
Nails Artifact
During your turn, cards cost $1 less.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 09:08:55 am by spineflu »
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1550
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4346 on: December 27, 2019, 05:04:59 pm »
+1

Tramway
Action - $3
+2 Actions
If you have your -1 Card token on your deck, +1 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Cards and put your -1 Card token on your deck.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2019, 08:35:56 pm by NoMoreFun »
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
  • Respect: +541
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4347 on: December 27, 2019, 11:36:14 pm »
0


Quote
Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$1. Move your +1 Card token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Card.) At the start of Clean-Up, remove it from the Supply.
Logged
Dominion: Greed 1.0, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards

Aquila

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
  • Respect: +267
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #56: Adventures tokens
« Reply #4348 on: December 28, 2019, 07:18:55 am »
+2


Lots of brevity here to make room for all the instructions. Cantrip trasher that powers up if you trash better things. It might be crazy, though it's at $6 cost.
Logged

somekindoftony

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: +40
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4349 on: December 28, 2019, 08:59:24 am »
+1

I've changed this from what is pictured below. Will figure out how to link to later post but skip to next page to see that as most final version.



I think the overall effect of a bunch of Usurpers will be to cancel each other out. The cost plus debt is so that they can come out early and have an effect rather than being a finishing move for the player already in the lead. I would even consider giving them a lower cost ($3 and 4 debt) as I think they might not be particularly strong. Its a terminal attack whose benefit is primarily when first played after all.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2019, 07:32:45 pm by somekindoftony »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 172 173 [174] 175 176 ... 197  All
 

Page created in 0.111 seconds with 21 queries.