Print

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

[Thisisnotasmile]

I disagree on pretty much every point.

[Davio]

I disagree on pretty much every point.

Thanks for your motivation.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Wasn't trying to motivate anything, but you're welcome. Just stating my opinion. It is different to yours.

[Davio]

Wasn't trying to motivate anything, but you're welcome. Just stating my opinion. It is different to yours.

I don't mind that your opinion differs, but I'd like to know why as to learn from our differences.

[Fangz]

Nerf Alchemy altogether, it's so sad they made cards which require Potions. I think these cards would have been perfect with normal costs. This expansion is so crappy, it isn't even funny. Sure it has some good cards (University, Familiar, Golem), no denying that, but the whole Potion deal is awful and the fact there are only 13 cards in the box. Swing and miss imho.

The alchemy cards generally require the use of potions to work as they do. If they just cost coins, then they would play very differently. For example, the whole point of vineyard is that it's good for an otherwise treasure less deck and require exactly one somewhat difficult to obtain card to play. Making it $4 would make it the same as gardens. In general, the potions there is to introduce an additional form of cost - you don't just use up a turn you could have bought something else with, you also risk gumming up your deck with potions that you can't use to buy other things with, plus the potion requirement slows down the aquisition of these very powerful cards to usually 1 per reshuffle. And the alchemy cards are very powerful - the prices you give are very wrong. For example, $4 for scrying pool, a spy that draws good cards more often than not and with the right setup can draw half your entire deck? $4 for apothecary, a scout that self replaces and draws coins as well? $2 for transmute, almost guaranteeing a turn 3/4 gold? (Compare potion transmute, which requires much more turns to acquire, and possibly a lot of wasted money if you draw a 1 potion and a ton of coins.)

King's Court is a beast and the main cause for lop siding a lot of games. You draw KC with Chapel? Bad luck. I draw it with Mountebank and you have no Curses in hand? You lose. I think the difference between TR and this is bigger than $3, would like to see this costing $8, but this makes it another problematic target for Swindled Provinces.

I don't think $1 will make much of a difference. The lop sidedness is more a factor of the card's expense and power - you get a KC early if you are lucky, and that enables you to get more KCs, until you chain a half dozen KCs per hand and so win the game. As a possibility, how about increasing the KC's cost according to how many KCs you already own? This will cut down on the massive KC chaining.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Okay, I feel that Alchemy is a great expansion. Potions add a whole new dimension to the game and offer a lot of interesting choices to players, and I think this is a positive aspect. I accept that some people believe that "change is bad" , but I disagree. Some cards that have potions in their cost could not exist in their current form with non-potion costs. I am thankful for potions so that cards such as Golem, University and Scrying Pool can exist. Also, Possession is fine. It being annoying does not qualify it to be withdrawn from the game. I find Ambassador annoying, but I would never suggest it be removed from Dominion.

Making all cursing attacks dead cards after curses have run out is a ridiculous idea. That is called Sea Hag. Other cursing attacks which have extra effects cost more. They're balanced because of it.

I'm not really sure why we're discussing +buy being removed from Grand Market. Maybe it was suggested earlier in this topic and you're following on from that? Either way, it's Grand Market, not Grand Peddler.

Ambassador is one of my least favourite cards, but even so I don't think it needs changing. Returning 3 cards is something you will hardly ever be able to or want to do, so that doesn't really change the card much. Pricing at $5 simply to have this added possibility that will very rarely be used is crazy.

King's Court is one of my favourite cards. Yes, it is powerful, but it is also situational like Bank, for example. If you draw Bank and a copper and a load of actions, your Bank isn't very useful. If you draw KC and a Chapel and a load of treasures, you're in a similar situation. Does Bank need nerfing? No. If you play with either of these cards, you have to build your deck with it in mind. That is not a problem.

Changing Chapel from 4 to 3 cards trashed just makes it a terrible card. Chapel isn't a great cards as it is. It's a good card. Chapel + BM only barely beats straight BM. It's there as a support card, and taking away its ability to support the decks that it supports just makes it useless.

[Davio]

Well, why I dislike Alchemy so much is the fact that it doesn't mix as well with other expansions. There are only 10 Potion cards among the 135 total kingdom cards. This means there are a lot of setups with exactly one Alchemy card for which you have to include Potion and you always wonder if you really need the Potion for just that card. Of course, all Alchemy cards are pretty powerful, so it's often a trade-off between an extra Silver or a Potion for only that card and there's always the chance you draw Potion-Copper-Copper-Blank-Blank when you need Familiars.

This is one of the weaknesses of Potion: you buy it for that special card, but when you draw it with too few real Treasure, it's worthless and you need to wait an entire cycle for it to come back around. And later in the game, you're still stuck with that Potion when you'd wish it was a Silver.

I just don't like how the set mixes with other sets because of the Potion. Swindling an Alchemist is not useful.

If they would make another set which uses Potion for a lot of cards, I may be more forgiving about this set.

[Fangz]

Er, wha? Chapel is incredibly powerful. One of the reasons to play double BM is to increase your chances of getting the only chapel in a game without good trashers.Oops I misunderstood. In any case, Chapel makes almost any other deck better. The fact that it even improves BM is an asset, and the way it more or less obseletes all the other trashers makes it overpowered.

The rarity of potion using cards is a balancing aspect.

[Reyk]

I don't think chapel via Black Market is so strong. It comes quite late than plus you have some terminals already.

Chapel doesn't make other trashers useless. Many of them can get rid of chapel later and simultaniously do other useful things like acting as the (only) pseudo plus buy. In the base game there was this funny turbo remodel 5 card deck.

Last but not least you might want to read this thread:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=336.0

On a side note: If we use BM for "Big money" and "Black market" in the same thread this is quite irritating. So we could write some more letters for better reading ;-)

[Thisisnotasmile]

Yes, Chapel improves decks. However, it only slightly improves them in most cases (see: Chapel-BM) and some strategies are too quick for Chapel to keep up with at all. There are many cards which, when you play BM with that 1 single card, are better than Chapel-BM. Chapel isn't the be all and end all.

[Reyk]

Well, why I dislike Alchemy so much is

It's funny that your current forum rank is "alchemist" ;-)
I know you don't chose it but still ...

[Davio]

Hehe, funny coincidence.

It's not that I hate the Alchemy set, but it just feels a little underachieving to me, the set only has 12 kingdom cards, 10 of which use Potions.
Another full fledged set with up to 18 Potion cards can really complement this and make both of them great.

[kn1tt3r]

Well, why I dislike Alchemy so much is the fact that it doesn't mix as well with other expansions. There are only 10 Potion cards among the 135 total kingdom cards. This means there are a lot of setups with exactly one Alchemy card for which you have to include Potion and you always wonder if you really need the Potion for just that card. Of course, all Alchemy cards are pretty powerful, so it's often a trade-off between an extra Silver or a Potion for only that card and there's always the chance you draw Potion-Copper-Copper-Blank-Blank when you need Familiars.

In most cases one single Alchemy card is worth buying a Potion. So that's not an issue, but it's the reason I strongly dislike this potential "3-card rule" because this really makes Alchemy dominate every single setup with Potions. Alchemy heavy games with endless action chains can be somewhat annoying, that's true - but one single Alchemy card doesn't change the game flow that much but just adds another dimension.

And sure, Familiars cause some randomness, but that's a Familiar thing and not an Alchemy thing.

[rinkworks]

Many of the Cursers are so strong that they're must buys. Maybe give them all a clause so they only work while the Curses have not run out: Every other player gains a Curse, if at least one player does, do your bonus thing.

The bonuses is so minor anyway.  Witches become Moats without the reaction effect -- even less than a $2-cost power.  Familiar becomes a cantrip that does nothing at all.  Sea Hag becomes a dead card already.  Mountebank retains some power after the curses run out, but by that time the curses that are already out there will defend against it, so it sort of nerfs itself.

I really don't see what you're going for here.  Or, for that matter, what problem you're trying to solve.  Must-buy cards aren't inherently a problem.

Tournament brings these problems to the table:
1. They are too cheap for an early Peddler / Treasury

Totally disagree.  If Peddler didn't have its idiosyncratic cost, it would cost $4, no question.  It's a Market without the +Buy.  It's a Bazaar without the extra action.  It's a Treasury you can't top-deck after every early-game turn.  It's a Conspirator that earns less but doesn't have the activation requirement.  There are so many reasons it would be naturally priced at $4 that it's unthinkable it would cost anything different.

So an early Tournament behaving like a Peddler for the same $4 sounds about right.

I think your other arguments about Tournament have more merit, though.  I might disagree anyway, but I can see where you're coming from.

[timchen]

Chapel: actually I don't think a trash-3 chapel will be unplayable. Just think of those games where you draw the chapel with silver or not drawing it until turn 5. Against a not-chapeling opponent, not all is lost.

Alchemy: the only part that annoys me so much is in a setup with Familiar and no other cursing card. You must open potion, even when you know you will be screwed when you draw 2+P. Sometimes a similar situation exists for Alchemists.

[rspeer]

Chancellor and Woodcutter are both crappy in the vast majority of situations. What would be a lot more playable and more fun would be to make them the same card.

Chancecutter
Cost $3
+$2
+1 Buy
You may put your deck into your discard pile.

I don't even think it would have to cost more.

[Censure]

This is mostly a compilation of other posts but, here goes:




BUFFS


Adventurer:
Should be priced at $5. No changes otherwise.

Loan:
When playing loan, you may opt to trash the Loan instead of hunting through your deck. This change actually does very little to alleviate the cards issues, but does just enough IMO to keep it at the $3 mark.

Trading Post
$4 cost instead of $5 cost.

Thief
In a 2-player game, you may choose not to trash any revealed cards from the thief.

Wishing Well
$2 cost instead of $3 cost.

Woodcutter:
+2 Buys instead of +1 Buy. This would make it the ultimate card for "building" your deck". And honestly, the card needs whatever buff it can get. I'd even suggest +3 Buys, but that would make a Gardens strategy too overpowering and be pretty useless otherwise to have so many +Buys.



NERFS


Pirate Ship
When you use this card to add +$, remove one coin from your pirate ship mat (unless in a 2-player game)

Hunting Party
Limit the "indefinite hunting:" to 3 cards from the top of the deck. If you go  3 cards and only find duplicates, too bad, so sad. You only got +1 Card +1 Action. This will be extremely rare of course, but should hopefully eliminate the Hunting Party > Lab ideology.

[DStu]

Chapel: actually I don't think a trash-3 chapel will be unplayable. Just think of those games where you draw the chapel with silver or not drawing it until turn 5. Against a not-chapeling opponent, not all is lost.

Someone once said:

Chapel: This started out "trash any number of cards" and went to the ever-so-slightly weaker "trash up to 4 cards." I tested a version with "trash up to 3 cards." It was horrible. Just, way slower than the current version, like you wouldn't believe.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=115.0

[timchen]

Yes I've read that one. But I am speaking on my own experience, instead of just taking the words for granted.

Also, it is conceivable to be too slow in the base set, which heavily inclines towards BM+x. I believe if you are to run a treasure heavy strategy a trash-3 chapel is not going to help much. However, in action heavy setups, I can even accept slow trashes from steward. I don't see how a trash-3 chapel can be so much worse than a multi-but-trash-only-two steward. And it costs less.

[Davio]

Many of the Cursers are so strong that they're must buys. Maybe give them all a clause so they only work while the Curses have not run out: Every other player gains a Curse, if at least one player does, do your bonus thing.

The bonuses is so minor anyway.  Witches become Moats without the reaction effect -- even less than a $2-cost power.  Familiar becomes a cantrip that does nothing at all.  Sea Hag becomes a dead card already.  Mountebank retains some power after the curses run out, but by that time the curses that are already out there will defend against it, so it sort of nerfs itself.

I really don't see what you're going for here.  Or, for that matter, what problem you're trying to solve.  Must-buy cards aren't inherently a problem.

Well, I think any "must-buy" is sort of a problem, because it takes some strategy out of the game. It's very hard to win if you're not actively competing in the Curse race, especially when playing multiplayer. I'd like to see some good examples of games in which one player buys a Curser, the other doesn't and the non-Curser wins. This may cure my addiction to Cursers.

Sure, most of the Cursers don't do much after the Curses have run out, but then the damage has already been done. You have 10 cards that clog up your deck, let alone the -10 VP that you have to fix.

Councilroom lists these stats (Card - Win rate with - Win rate without):

Mountebank - 1.09 ± 0.00 - 0.82 ± 0.01
Witch - 1.08 ±0.00 - 0.85 ± 0.01
Familiar - 1.05± 0.01 - 0.90 ± 0.01
Sea Hag - 1.04 ± 0.01 - 0.94 ±0.01

Disregarding Prizes, VP Cards and Treasures, these are all in the top 10 highest win rate with.
If we sort on win rate without, only Sea Hag falls out of the top 10.


How to nerf these cards? Well, I have always thought it would be nice to have some Curses that are also regular cards, like a card that has -2 VP, but also maybe +1 Card / +1 Action (or just +1 Card if it's too strong) that players can choose to take. Of course, when Swindled, the Swindling player may still choose regular Curses for the others to receive.

[DStu]

I also don't think it's a problem. Of course, if there are cards that you always buy lots of times, this is a problem. But this is not the case here. You want to buy 1 Chapel, and (except Familiar) 1-max. 3 Cursers, and that's it. Afterwards, there is enough room for decisions, let alone the situations where ignoring the Curser is the right move. Which might be rare with Witch and Mountebank, but is quite common with Sea Hag and Young Witch.
On the other side, while reducing the strategy in the first turns, they add a different type of game. Exaggerated, without Chapel, Witch, Goons you decide at the beginning if you want to play BigMoney+X or build and Actionchain and then play it. Or maybe play Workshop/Gardens, which of course is also overpowered. All these "overpowered" cards add a different type of game, which by itself as strategic variations. So summing all up they lead to more strategy in the game.

Regarding Tournament. I can't play it. I have an Effect With -1.02, Effect Without +1.56 with 75% (of 32) games played with Tournament. Followers Effect With is -2, Princess is -2 Trusty Steed is -1.5, the other two are also negative. So even when I win the Tournaments I suck with it. So at least there must be a little bit skill involveds in playing Tournaments, otherwise I should do better. And I'm always getting a little bit sad when everybody says that Tournament is so overpowered... ;(

[Reyk]

I am a little apprehensive.  Topics like these never turn out well...

This is mostly a compilation of other posts but, here goes:
...

Theory was right. Despite Fixing the Throne bug (what Donald probably would love to do if the card wasn't already printed) I wouldn't take any of these changes.

[Davio]

Well, I guess even if you run into some games from time to time which are less fun than others, the game is designed to play fast and have enough possibilities to be more challenging the next time.

In my book, that core feeling hasn't changed.

TR is fine the way it is, you just have to anticipate and worry about drawing some trashers or ambassadors.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Well, I guess even if you run into some games from time to time which are less fun than others, the game is designed to play fast and have enough possibilities to be more challenging the next time.

In my book, that core feeling hasn't changed.

TR is fine the way it is, you just have to anticipate and worry about drawing some trashers or ambassadors.

It's fine... on Isotropic.

It has problems IRL when you play a TR with an ambassador in your hand and decide that you'd rather not give your opponents 2 good cards so you hide it under your other cards when you discard it.

[HockeyHippo]

Well if you think about the basic idea of the game, it's choosing the best way to get the most Victory points the fastest. You win by choosing your cards carefully. It is in the choosing that determines who is the better player. For this reason, when considering balancing options, I look at cards that are 'must buys' because these simply do not belong in the game. If there are cards that need to be bought or you lose, then the game's philosophy is flawed. The balancing in this game, overall, is exceptional but I found a couple of cards that are bought a little too often .

Chapel - This card is severely under priced at $2. There are more threads on the rare occasions that you should not pick up a chapel rather than ones where you should. I buy it in nearly every set up of cards that includes it. Raised to 3$ would solve the 5/2 Chapel imbalance. Raised to $4 might have people contimplating not picking it up. Reducing 4 trashed cards to 3 could work too.

Mountebank - So powerful that if someone gets to $5 first and doesn't buy it, I'm fairly confident I have won the game. Raised to 6 would have people contemplating it with Gold. Perhaps reducing +2$ to +1$ could help a lot too.

I can't think of too many other must buys.

I guess you could go to the other side of the spectrum and look at cards that are never bought, or never buys. However at the current state of the game, it is rare that there are cards that are never actually helpful. The only card that I think that could fall into this category is Pearl diver. It's relatively weak but at $2 it can give you some useful deck information.

Woodcutter is weak overall, but in a game with no other +Buys it becomes a good buying option.

Chancellor has a niche with Counting House, other than that, it's not an amazing card.

These two cards are weak but there are a couple of situations where they are decent, if not good buys. Which is why I don't think they're imbalanced, just a little weaker than other options.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that there shouldn't be cards that you feel you must buy(or must not buy) regardless of the set up. If there are, those cards are imbalanced.