Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Timinou]

Unfortunately, this could be indeed a problem. An easy fix is to change "a copy of it" to "one or more copies of it". It looks a bit tame then, but it is only a $4 cost card. So, better that than allowing too much craziness. Thanks for your suggestion.

I don't see an easy fix either.  It could be based on what the player to your left does rather than all opponents, but that might take some of the fun out of it.

[segura]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

[Carline]

Dispatch | Event | @4 (costs 4 debt)
Set aside an Action or Treasure card from the Supply costing up to $4. At the start of your next turn, play it. Each other player may Exile a copy of that card.

The concept behind dispatch is "I gain now, you gain later." There's certainly some cards that are worth getting in hand T2 -- trashers, sometimes gainers, even a silver on T1 to guarantee you get a 5 on turn 2. If it's the last copy in the Supply, no one else gets one -- it's like a cheap summon! Well, I lied in the beginning, it's not "I gain now." You never "gain" the card, although you get to put in in your Discard pile of next turn's clean-up phase. This means no on-gain triggers happen (like villagers from Lackeys), which means sometimes you want to buy a card, even if it's the last copy in the Supply. Most importantly, if you never gain the card, that means you never get to discard from Exile. So, if my opponent kindly Dispatched out a Village Green on their turn, and on my turn I do the same thing, I don't get to discard my Village Green from Exile.

Pricing this was difficult. At first it was $4, but then I saw that it made a huge unfair difference for 3/4 and 5/2, and I don't like introducing that much varying early on. Then I made it @5, but then this removed fun things like Dispatching a Silver to increase your payload (4/3 means you just open silver/4). At @4, you can now Dispatch a Silver, pay off your debts, and buy a 5 cost card. Everyone gets to open a 5 if this costs @4, and I like that equalizing effect. In order to differentiate it against Summon I removed triggering on-gain effects, and this also made it feel a little better to cost 4 debt. It also can gain treasures to differentiate it against Summon. And also, Summon doesn't give out copies to opponents. So, yeah, it's a different event.

Definitely open to feedback!

It seems weak to me, comparing to Alms.

[segura]

Alms does not set aside and play. Summon is the most similar landscape and to me Dispatch looks pretty strong. All the Messenger tricks work.

[gambit05]

Unfortunately, this could be indeed a problem. An easy fix is to change "a copy of it" to "one or more copies of it". It looks a bit tame then, but it is only a $4 cost card. So, better that than allowing too much craziness. Thanks for your suggestion.

I don't see an easy fix either.  It could be based on what the player to your left does rather than all opponents, but that might take some of the fun out of it.

No, the "one or more copies" is per other player. It doesn't matter what the first opponent does.

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

I think the point is that it is getting stronger with an increasing number of players. In a 2-player game, it is mostly a 1-1 gain (Villager vs Coffers) and one opponent can better adapt to the situation by building a different deck. With more players, the ratios will increase on average, 1-2, 1-3 (per opponent-Magi player), and what I think might be crucial, it is getting increasingly difficult to go for different strategies (means key cards).

[segura]

I think the point is that it is getting stronger with an increasing number of players. In a 2-player game, it is mostly a 1-1 gain (Villager vs Coffers) and one opponent can better adapt to the situation by building a different deck. With more players, the ratios will increase on average, 1-2, 1-3 (per opponent-Magi player), and what I think might be crucial, it is getting increasingly difficult to go for different strategies (means key cards).

I don't get your point. I just showed that the average number of tokens that you get from Magi increases but the curve is concave, i.e. the differences themselves decrease.
Different strategies? Either you need a splitter or you don't, either your Magi suffice or the Villagers you get via other Magi suffice. I don't see how this scales badly with player count. In multiplayer you are actually more likely to freeride on the Villagers, i.e. Magi might ironically be actually be weaker than in 2P in this respect.

To me it looks like a perfect, self-balancing design. It definitely has far less player number scaling issues than official cards like Pirate Ship or Jester.

[Timinou]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

[segura]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.
If I player Jester in a 2P game I might get 1 Laboratory. If I play a 4P game I might get 3 Laboratories. Doesn't mean that Jester is a horrible design (if you do the maths with probabilities, it becomes e.g. obvious that the likeliehood for the last event is fairly small, i.e. Jester behave like a normal junker and as gainer it is slightly stronger than in 2P).

[Gubump]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

[segura]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester which can gain several cards? Or like Pirate Ship whose hitting probability increases with player count? 

[Gubump]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

[Gubump]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship? 

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

[segura]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

True and irrelevant as Dominion is not a solitaire game.

Magi scales far better than many official cards. I think that it scales far better than junkers which are far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games (unless there is really good trashing that can deal with double or triple the Curses coming in).

[gambit05]

I think the point is that it is getting stronger with an increasing number of players. In a 2-player game, it is mostly a 1-1 gain (Villager vs Coffers) and one opponent can better adapt to the situation by building a different deck. With more players, the ratios will increase on average, 1-2, 1-3 (per opponent-Magi player), and what I think might be crucial, it is getting increasingly difficult to go for different strategies (means key cards).

I don't get your point. I just showed that the average number of tokens that you get from Magi increases but the curve is concave, i.e. the differences themselves decrease.

No need to argue here. I agree.

To me it looks like a perfect, self-balancing design. It definitely has far less player number scaling issues than official cards like Pirate Ship or Jester.

Well, difficult to argue against my own card design. I actually like it very much the way I've presented it.

Different strategies? Either you need a splitter or you don't, either your Magi suffice or the Villagers you get via other Magi suffice. I don't see how this scales badly with player count. In multiplayer you are actually more likely to freeride on the Villagers, i.e. Magi might ironically be actually be weaker than in 2P in this respect.

This part is more difficult to answer properly. It is not only about Splitters. It could be an Attack card that the Magi player sets aside with the knowledge (or a high certainty) that the single opponent doesn't have it in hand or deck. In a similar way, it could be a Smithy allowing a big draw at the start of the next turn. Not a good idea if the opponent can make their Smithy non-terminal.

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

[segura]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship? 

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

The likelihood of Pirate Ship hitting increases with the player count. Pirate Ship can actually be pretty decent in 3P and 4P game precisely because of that hitting likelihood (and because more players fight for a fixed number of cards that yield virtual Coins). It is a card which is wrongly evaluated because so many people play 2P games online.

You cannot ignore that Magi gives tokens to the other players. You also cannot ignore that in multiplayer, the village power of Magi becomes less relevant because you get more Villagers via other players' Magi.

[Gubump]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

True and irrelevant as Dominion is not a solitaire game.

Magi scales far better than many official cards. I think that it scales far better than junkers which are far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games (unless there is really good trashing that can deal with double or triple the Curses coming in).

Which is exactly our point. And junkers aren't "far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games." If you're playing a 2P game, both of you having a Witch vs your opponent having a Witch and you not having one is a 5-5 vs 10-0 Curse split. In a 3P game, all players having a Witch vs both opponents having a Witch is a 6.67-6.67-6.67 vs 10-5-5 split. In 2P, getting a Witch avoids 5 Curses and gives them to your opponent, whereas in 3P, getting a Witch only avoids 3.33 Curses and gives 1.67 to each of your opponents. Factor in the fact that the Curse pile runs out faster in 3P than 2P, and the skippability is about equal.

[segura]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

[Gubump]

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship? 

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

The likelihood of Pirate Ship hitting increases with the player count. Pirate Ship can actually be pretty decent in 3P and 4P game precisely because of that hitting likelihood (and because more players fight for a fixed number of cards that yield virtual Coins). It is a card which is wrongly evaluated because so many people play 2P games online.

You cannot ignore that Magi gives tokens to the other players. You also cannot ignore that in multiplayer, the village power of Magi becomes less relevant because you get more Villagers via other players' Magi.

The reward for Pirate Ship hitting doesn't increase with the player count, though. With Magi, the reward and likelihood both increase. And as gambit05 has said multiple times, the ratio of Coffers to Villagers changes in multiplayer. In 2P games, you get the exact same number of Coffers as players get Villagers. In 3P games, you get twice as many Coffers as each player gets Villagers, and so on.

[segura]

Which is exactly our point. And junkers aren't "far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games." If you're playing a 2P game, both of you having a Witch vs your opponent having a Witch and you not having one is a 5-5 vs 10-0 Curse split. In a 3P game, all players having a Witch vs both opponents having a Witch is a 6.67-6.67-6.67 vs 10-5-5 split. In 2P, getting a Witch avoids 5 Curses and gives them to your opponent, whereas in 3P, getting a Witch only avoids 3.33 Curses and gives 1.67 to each of your opponents. Factor in the fact that the Curse pile runs out faster in 3P than 2P, and the skippability is about equal.

As expected, you ignore what I pointed out: tempo. Tempo and cycling matter far, far more than how many Curses you end up with at the end of the day. Getting a trasher after the first shuffle vs. getting a trasher in the opening can make a huge difference not due to static but dynamic aspects.

Gee, that is Dominion 101. You play a game, analyze your decks at the end of the game and Bob wonders why the decks are virtually identical but Alice has 2 more Provinces than him.

[Gubump]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

Also, if Magis are giving out so many Villagers that players can just freely spam whatever cards they want, that's going to make for a boring strategy, regardless of whatever other problems we were talking about.

[gambit05]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Sorry, but this is really hilarious. Are you aware that this looks like you defend Magi against the designer of the card?
I've thought a lot about the self-balancing aspects you've mention when I designed the card. 

[segura]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

I am not nitpicking, I am emphasizing an important element that you ignore: that you get more Villagers on average in a 3P than in a 2P game via others players' Magi and that this makes Magi less attractive (Magi is a splitter dude, not just a Coffers generating thingy!).

That likely only partly compensates what you emphasize, that you get more token if you play Magi in 3P than in 2P. But thise self-balancing make the power of Magi increase concavely and not, as you falsely and with extremy hyperbole claimed, exponetially with player count.

[segura]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Sorry, but this is really hilarious. Are you aware that this looks like you defend Magi against the designer of the card?
I've thought a lot about the self-balancing aspects you've mention when I designed the card.

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

[gambit05]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Sorry, but this is really hilarious. Are you aware that this looks like you defend Magi against the designer of the card?
I've thought a lot about the self-balancing aspects you've mention when I designed the card.

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

I am very grateful for what you are doing, because you do it better than I could and you seem to type faster than I can read.

[Gubump]

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

I am not nitpicking, I am emphasizing an important element that you ignore: that you get more Villagers on average in a 3P than in a 2P game via others players' Magi and that this makes Magi less attractive (Magi is a splitter dude, not just a Coffers generating thingy!).

That likely only partly compensates what you emphasize, that you get more token if you play Magi in 3P than in 2P. But thise self-balancing make the power of Magi increase concavely and not, as you falsely and with extremy hyperbole claimed, exponetially with player count.

You're still ignoring that the ratio of Coffers to Villagers is also higher, so yes, Villagers are given out more frequently in mutliplayer, but that also means that Coffers are given out even more often. And having an excess of Coffers is more powerful than having an excess of Villagers. There's a reason Coffers are harder to get than Villagers.

If everyone is buying Magi in multiplayer, then everyone will end up just being flooded with Coffers and Villagers.