Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8  All

Author Topic: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenges #1 and #2!  (Read 63370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2012, 10:01:19 am »
0

There's always trade-offs in the voting system. If you go too far one way, like towards LastFootnote's system, you'll knock out the most objectionable cards, which can at some point include the best options. Eventually you're left with cards which nobody hates, but which aren't stellar either. Like, you end up with wishing wells or labs all over the place. Which is fine, but lacks some panache.
On the other hand, if you go too far towards a plurality system, you end up with a card that certainly has panache, but which can be really objectionable to lots of people, potentially even totally broken.
In any single-vote system, you have the problem that the card everyone likes second-best, which, if there are 20 different cards, is probably the best one, can easily get knocked out first. Not really sure about fixing this though, without introducing other problems.
Overall, other than the problem just above, TINAS's suggestion of the Alternative Vote system looks pretty good, except that it could easily take a long time? I guess if you just have people who voted for the eliminated thing change THEIR votes, you can speed it up.

Finally, you have the issue of public vs private voting. Public voting has problems in that you are disincentivized from voting until the last minute, in order to make your vote have the most potential impact. But private voting has the downside that you can easily have large numbers of people casting totally irrelevant votes, and you basically lose their valid opinions on the process. Of course, the public v private thing also has interplay with the voting system you choose.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2012, 10:06:13 am »
0

Sent in my submissions, but the message isn't showing up in my "sent items" folder. I'm always a little paranoid about this sort of thing. Any idea what's up?

Edit: Ah, I didn't check the box to save a copy. Disregard this post.

There is also an option to make that always on in your settings in case you forget again
Weird, I thought I enabled that option for everyone.  Will double-check.

EDIT: now it's default for new users.
Logged

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2012, 10:08:36 am »
+5

AV wouldn't take much longer than any single-round voting system. Just get everyone to order all cards from favourite to least favourite, and in each round of voting count each person's vote for the card highest on their list that is still available. If no cards receive 50% of the votes, eliminate the one with the least votes and repeat until you get a winner. You could probably put together a spreadsheet to do it all for you in next to no time.

And yeah, private voting if AV is used.

Edit: And if people don't want to order the whole list, they don't have to. Just as many as they want to vote for and leave the rest. If all of their preferences get knocked out before a winner is chosen, there's just 1 more no-show on the turnout for future rounds.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2012, 10:27:16 am »
0

If you go too far one way, like towards LastFootnote's system, you'll knock out the most objectionable cards, which can at some point include the best options.

Wait, what? How does this make any kind of sense? Could you give an example of how this could happen?

I'm trying to follow your train of logic. How is it that the most 'objectionable' cards can include the 'best options'? If people think a card is objectionable, they won't vote for it. If they think a card is one of the best options, they will vote for it. If what you mean is that the cards that people vote for aren't actually the best options, then no sensible democratic voting system is going to give you what you're looking for.

If what you're worried about is that everyone will vote for not only the interesting cards they like, but also all the boring cards that they see as 'good enough', then that's a problem with the voters themselves. However, I don't think we have to worry about this, because I think most people will find boring cards 'objectionable' and will therefore not vote for them. If people genuinely like the 'boring' cards, then who are we to argue?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2012, 10:30:57 am »
0

If you go too far one way, like towards LastFootnote's system, you'll knock out the most objectionable cards, which can at some point include the best options.

Wait, what? How does this make any kind of sense? Could you give an example of how this could happen?

I'm trying to follow your train of logic. How is it that the most 'objectionable' cards can include the 'best options'? If people think a card is objectionable, they won't vote for it. If they think a card is one of the best options, they will vote for it. If what you mean is that the cards that people vote for aren't actually the best options, then no sensible democratic voting system is going to give you what you're looking for.

If what you're worried about is that everyone will vote for not only the interesting cards they like, but also all the boring cards that they see as 'good enough', then that's a problem with the voters themselves. However, I don't think we have to worry about this, because I think most people will find boring cards 'objectionable' and will therefore not vote for them. If people genuinely like the 'boring' cards, then who are we to argue?
Possession. I love possession, and it's a great card, but lots of people hate it.
King's Court. Great card, hated card.
Swindler.
Ill-Gotten Gains.

I'm saying you end up with good cards like lab. Everyone likes lab. But it's not GREAT. I mean, I guess the other issue is that it's only up-or-down, with no differentiation between 'well, I like all these, but this is my FAVOURITE.' Because, if people actually vote as you're saying here, you basically end up with... a plurality system, where people don' vote for anything other than their favourite, because they don't want to help anything else beat their favourite, and hence voting for anything else would be a strategic blunder.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2012, 10:31:30 am »
0

Goons.  It's a good card that creates very unique games.  But it's not going to get as many stamps of approval as a Wishing Well, which is definitely balanced but kind of boring.  Some will think Goons stacks too well, or that Goons stacking won't be fun when the attack component is involved at the same time.  But you'd be missing out on a lot.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2012, 10:41:42 am »
0

Why not do it like I do it with my rankings:
Everybody sends in a ranked list of all submissions.
Every submission gets points equivalent to its rank (The 9th ranked submission gets 9 points) and then the submission with the least points wins.
This is very similar to the proposed system but way easier to calculate.

But I also see the problem of "downvoting". So let's say with have 12 votes, and one card gets voted 1st 10 times and 10th (last) 2 times for a total of 30 points.
And there's another card with 7 times 2nd and 5 times 3rd for a total of 29 points. This card would win. But is this the preferred result?

IMO it would be best calculating the median of these points.

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2012, 11:29:33 am »
+3

I think preference lists and multi-round voting systems (whether actually multi-rounds or simulated) would be cool but overkill and beyond what I want to take on.  I wonder if there is a simpler hybrid system that will be good enough.

How about this idea?  Let's say that everybody gets to vote for a favorite and give it 3 points.  This allows people to throw a chunk of points at an attractive but controversial card.  Additionally, voters may award 1 point to any number of other cards, indicating "I think this card is acceptable and works."  If voters want to refrain from awarding any of these additional points (so as to further bolster their top pick), that's their prerogative.  On the other hand, if their top pick isn't one they feel so strongly about that they wouldn't mind seeing a few other cards win instead, they can award some additional points to express that feeling as well.

Ultimately, the winner will probably require BOTH the enthusiastic 3-point votes, plus some 1-point approval votes.

I don't know if 3 and 1 is the right proportion here.  Maybe 2 and 1 would work better.  But that's the idea.  Not quite as optimal or flexible as a fully weighted preference ballot, but simpler to understand and simpler for me to tally.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2012, 01:09:18 pm »
0

If you go too far one way, like towards LastFootnote's system, you'll knock out the most objectionable cards, which can at some point include the best options.

Wait, what? How does this make any kind of sense? Could you give an example of how this could happen?

I'm trying to follow your train of logic. How is it that the most 'objectionable' cards can include the 'best options'? If people think a card is objectionable, they won't vote for it. If they think a card is one of the best options, they will vote for it. If what you mean is that the cards that people vote for aren't actually the best options, then no sensible democratic voting system is going to give you what you're looking for.

If what you're worried about is that everyone will vote for not only the interesting cards they like, but also all the boring cards that they see as 'good enough', then that's a problem with the voters themselves. However, I don't think we have to worry about this, because I think most people will find boring cards 'objectionable' and will therefore not vote for them. If people genuinely like the 'boring' cards, then who are we to argue?
Possession. I love possession, and it's a great card, but lots of people hate it.
King's Court. Great card, hated card.
Swindler.
Ill-Gotten Gains.

I'm saying you end up with good cards like lab. Everyone likes lab. But it's not GREAT. I mean, I guess the other issue is that it's only up-or-down, with no differentiation between 'well, I like all these, but this is my FAVOURITE.' Because, if people actually vote as you're saying here, you basically end up with... a plurality system, where people don' vote for anything other than their favourite, because they don't want to help anything else beat their favourite, and hence voting for anything else would be a strategic blunder.

WW, this is not correct. Approval voting does not lead to people voting for just their most favorite. Approval voting has a very nice property that allows strategic voting: Voters can vote for BOTH a compromise candidate and their favorite without harming the chances that their favorite will win. This is not true with plurality voting.

Any type of rank voting (say, allotting points among candidates or saying "how much" you like a candidate) is vulnerable to extreme strategic manipulation and can result in very bad outcomes. I would definitely not recommend these types of voting systems. In fact, approval voting can be thought of as the limit of rank voting when people vote strategically, another nice property.

There are issues with Alternative Voting that do not occur in Approval Voting: for instance, one can cause a candidate to eventually lose by ranking it too high. Some of these issues actually creep up on American Idol. Also, Alternative Voting may fail to elect the Condorcet winner if it exists (a Condorcet winner is a candidate that wins every possible head-to-head match up) -- approval voting does not.

The Wikipedia pages on Approval and Alternative voting are pretty good, by the way.

I strongly think Approval Voting is the way to go here. It's simple. It's easy. It has nice strategic properties.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2012, 01:16:10 pm »
0

If you go too far one way, like towards LastFootnote's system, you'll knock out the most objectionable cards, which can at some point include the best options.

Wait, what? How does this make any kind of sense? Could you give an example of how this could happen?

I'm trying to follow your train of logic. How is it that the most 'objectionable' cards can include the 'best options'? If people think a card is objectionable, they won't vote for it. If they think a card is one of the best options, they will vote for it. If what you mean is that the cards that people vote for aren't actually the best options, then no sensible democratic voting system is going to give you what you're looking for.

If what you're worried about is that everyone will vote for not only the interesting cards they like, but also all the boring cards that they see as 'good enough', then that's a problem with the voters themselves. However, I don't think we have to worry about this, because I think most people will find boring cards 'objectionable' and will therefore not vote for them. If people genuinely like the 'boring' cards, then who are we to argue?
Possession. I love possession, and it's a great card, but lots of people hate it.
King's Court. Great card, hated card.
Swindler.
Ill-Gotten Gains.

I'm saying you end up with good cards like lab. Everyone likes lab. But it's not GREAT. I mean, I guess the other issue is that it's only up-or-down, with no differentiation between 'well, I like all these, but this is my FAVOURITE.' Because, if people actually vote as you're saying here, you basically end up with... a plurality system, where people don' vote for anything other than their favourite, because they don't want to help anything else beat their favourite, and hence voting for anything else would be a strategic blunder.

WW, this is not correct. Approval voting does not lead to people voting for just their most favorite. Approval voting has a very nice property that allows strategic voting: Voters can vote for BOTH a compromise candidate and their favorite without harming the chances that their favorite will win. This is not true with plurality voting.
This is obviously false. I like candidate A best, but B is, I guess, okay. There's, I don't know, 4 candidates. I vote A and B. B beats A by a single approval. I have harmed the chances that my favourite won by voting for B. Of course, going in, I could have only voted A, but then this makes it more likely I get C or D. Now, I do think people will vote for more than just their favourite, but I was responding to LF's answer to my previous objection, which is my main thrust, and which I believe still stands.

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2012, 01:33:57 pm »
0

Cards must have names, but they won't be shown for voting. Does this mean that the names aren't hugely relevant? We can rename the winning cards as a forum if they're that bad, right?

I don't want to submit "Thing" if it's going to be it's final name in the expansion, you see.

(Note: I am not submitting "Thing" but I can't guarantee my names will be much better than that).
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2012, 01:46:47 pm »
0

I think preference lists and multi-round voting systems (whether actually multi-rounds or simulated) would be cool but overkill and beyond what I want to take on.  I wonder if there is a simpler hybrid system that will be good enough.

How about this idea?  Let's say that everybody gets to vote for a favorite and give it 3 points.  This allows people to throw a chunk of points at an attractive but controversial card.  Additionally, voters may award 1 point to any number of other cards, indicating "I think this card is acceptable and works."  If voters want to refrain from awarding any of these additional points (so as to further bolster their top pick), that's their prerogative.  On the other hand, if their top pick isn't one they feel so strongly about that they wouldn't mind seeing a few other cards win instead, they can award some additional points to express that feeling as well.

Ultimately, the winner will probably require BOTH the enthusiastic 3-point votes, plus some 1-point approval votes.

I don't know if 3 and 1 is the right proportion here.  Maybe 2 and 1 would work better.  But that's the idea.  Not quite as optimal or flexible as a fully weighted preference ballot, but simpler to understand and simpler for me to tally.

If I write you a C program that can calculate the alternative vote system for you, would you use it?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2012, 01:51:53 pm »
0

Cards must have names, but they won't be shown for voting. Does this mean that the names aren't hugely relevant? We can rename the winning cards as a forum if they're that bad, right?

I don't want to submit "Thing" if it's going to be it's final name in the expansion, you see.

(Note: I am not submitting "Thing" but I can't guarantee my names will be much better than that).
We'll all know that "Curse Thing"  is yours. Ditto to "Peddler variant with twist X"

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2012, 01:54:25 pm »
0

I think preference lists and multi-round voting systems (whether actually multi-rounds or simulated) would be cool but overkill and beyond what I want to take on.  I wonder if there is a simpler hybrid system that will be good enough.

How about this idea?  Let's say that everybody gets to vote for a favorite and give it 3 points.  This allows people to throw a chunk of points at an attractive but controversial card.  Additionally, voters may award 1 point to any number of other cards, indicating "I think this card is acceptable and works."  If voters want to refrain from awarding any of these additional points (so as to further bolster their top pick), that's their prerogative.  On the other hand, if their top pick isn't one they feel so strongly about that they wouldn't mind seeing a few other cards win instead, they can award some additional points to express that feeling as well.

Ultimately, the winner will probably require BOTH the enthusiastic 3-point votes, plus some 1-point approval votes.

I don't know if 3 and 1 is the right proportion here.  Maybe 2 and 1 would work better.  But that's the idea.  Not quite as optimal or flexible as a fully weighted preference ballot, but simpler to understand and simpler for me to tally.

If I write you a C program that can calculate the alternative vote system for you, would you use it?

C? How primitive!
I'll do it in Java!
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2012, 02:16:51 pm »
0

If I write you a C program that can calculate the alternative vote system for you, would you use it?

Dude, just let rinkworks use his compromise vote system. It's a good middle ground.

This is obviously false. I like candidate A best, but B is, I guess, okay. There's, I don't know, 4 candidates. I vote A and B. B beats A by a single approval. I have harmed the chances that my favourite won by voting for B. Of course, going in, I could have only voted A, but then this makes it more likely I get C or D. Now, I do think people will vote for more than just their favourite, but I was responding to LF's answer to my previous objection, which is my main thrust, and which I believe still stands.

I guess I don't see this as a drawback. If you voted for Card B, then you have no right to complain when Card B wins. For each card, just ask yourself, "If this card wins, will I be pleased or disappointed?"
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2012, 02:18:34 pm »
0

If you go too far one way, like towards LastFootnote's system, you'll knock out the most objectionable cards, which can at some point include the best options.

Wait, what? How does this make any kind of sense? Could you give an example of how this could happen?

I'm trying to follow your train of logic. How is it that the most 'objectionable' cards can include the 'best options'? If people think a card is objectionable, they won't vote for it. If they think a card is one of the best options, they will vote for it. If what you mean is that the cards that people vote for aren't actually the best options, then no sensible democratic voting system is going to give you what you're looking for.

If what you're worried about is that everyone will vote for not only the interesting cards they like, but also all the boring cards that they see as 'good enough', then that's a problem with the voters themselves. However, I don't think we have to worry about this, because I think most people will find boring cards 'objectionable' and will therefore not vote for them. If people genuinely like the 'boring' cards, then who are we to argue?
Possession. I love possession, and it's a great card, but lots of people hate it.
King's Court. Great card, hated card.
Swindler.
Ill-Gotten Gains.

I'm saying you end up with good cards like lab. Everyone likes lab. But it's not GREAT. I mean, I guess the other issue is that it's only up-or-down, with no differentiation between 'well, I like all these, but this is my FAVOURITE.' Because, if people actually vote as you're saying here, you basically end up with... a plurality system, where people don' vote for anything other than their favourite, because they don't want to help anything else beat their favourite, and hence voting for anything else would be a strategic blunder.

WW, this is not correct. Approval voting does not lead to people voting for just their most favorite. Approval voting has a very nice property that allows strategic voting: Voters can vote for BOTH a compromise candidate and their favorite without harming the chances that their favorite will win. This is not true with plurality voting.
This is obviously false. I like candidate A best, but B is, I guess, okay. There's, I don't know, 4 candidates. I vote A and B. B beats A by a single approval. I have harmed the chances that my favourite won by voting for B. Of course, going in, I could have only voted A, but then this makes it more likely I get C or D. Now, I do think people will vote for more than just their favourite, but I was responding to LF's answer to my previous objection, which is my main thrust, and which I believe still stands.

You're right. I misstated what is true. It should have simply read: Under strategic voting in equilibrium, approval voting does not necessarily lead to all people voting for only their most favorite.

The gist of the result is that people will vote for compromise candidate and better (weighing benefits and costs), but I was completely incorrect to say there is no harm from doing so.
Logged

Dubdubdubdub

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +124
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2012, 02:41:28 pm »
0

Back to the challenge: fantastic idea, Rinkworks! I just finished my designs.
Logged

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2012, 03:19:08 pm »
0

Cards must have names, but they won't be shown for voting. Does this mean that the names aren't hugely relevant? We can rename the winning cards as a forum if they're that bad, right?

I don't want to submit "Thing" if it's going to be it's final name in the expansion, you see.

(Note: I am not submitting "Thing" but I can't guarantee my names will be much better than that).
We'll all know that "Curse Thing"  is yours. Ditto to "Peddler variant with twist X"

I was under the impression the card names wouldn't be announced until designer names were announced; after the voting?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2012, 03:20:06 pm »
+1

Cards must have names, but they won't be shown for voting. Does this mean that the names aren't hugely relevant? We can rename the winning cards as a forum if they're that bad, right?

I don't want to submit "Thing" if it's going to be it's final name in the expansion, you see.

(Note: I am not submitting "Thing" but I can't guarantee my names will be much better than that).
We'll all know that "Curse Thing"  is yours. Ditto to "Peddler variant with twist X"

I was under the impression the card names wouldn't be announced until designer names were announced; after the voting?
Sorry. That was a joke.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2012, 03:29:20 pm »
+1

I can't tell whose joke is going over whose head here.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2012, 03:31:09 pm »
0

Cards must have names, but they won't be shown for voting. Does this mean that the names aren't hugely relevant? We can rename the winning cards as a forum if they're that bad, right?

I don't want to submit "Thing" if it's going to be it's final name in the expansion, you see.

(Note: I am not submitting "Thing" but I can't guarantee my names will be much better than that).

No reason to lock ourselves into a final name; I just mostly figured that names are fun and would make the results that much more interesting.  Plus I didn't want to have to juggle a bunch of "Unnamed Card" cards when tabulating the results.
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2012, 10:50:09 am »
0

I have so many ideas I don't  know which one to submit!

We should probably have a "these are my rejected ideas from last week" thread.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2012, 11:15:08 am »
+1

I have so many ideas I don't  know which one to submit!

Wow, really? I already submitted a cursing card, but so far I'm drawing a blank on a Peddler variant. The necessity of +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, but never more than that seems really restrictive. Not that that makes it a bad category for this contest. Probably I'm just not good at coming up with that sort of card.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2012, 11:23:55 am »
0

I have so many ideas I don't  know which one to submit!

Wow, really? I already submitted a cursing card, but so far I'm drawing a blank on a Peddler variant. The necessity of +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, but never more than that seems really restrictive. Not that that makes it a bad category for this contest. Probably I'm just not good at coming up with that sort of card.

I have problems with the peddler variant too. The curser is simpler.

For clarification: Ironworks wouldn't work as peddler variant because I can get +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1 but not all together, right?
But would an Ironworks variant with an additional +1$ - which you always get - work? Because if you gain a Great Hall, you have met all requirements. I hope I assume right.

gman314

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 1!
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2012, 11:31:14 am »
0

I have so many ideas I don't  know which one to submit!

Wow, really? I already submitted a cursing card, but so far I'm drawing a blank on a Peddler variant. The necessity of +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, but never more than that seems really restrictive. Not that that makes it a bad category for this contest. Probably I'm just not good at coming up with that sort of card.

I also have three different cursing attacks. I only submitted the least brutal one. With the Peddler though, I can't think of anything.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8  All
 

Page created in 0.112 seconds with 23 queries.