Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  All

Author Topic: Mini-Set Design Contest, Challenges #3 and #4!  (Read 62902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DWetzel

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 246
  • The Human Edge Case
  • Respect: +272
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #100 on: July 16, 2012, 06:09:43 pm »
0

I don't think Rhinoceros is that weak at all; I really like it! Do realize you can play more than one in a turn, and get the penalty only once. It's not my card, by the way :)

That's true, but drawing only three cards next turn is a huge penalty--worse than getting ghost shipped--and its cost makes it only slightly easier to buy than smithy. To put it in perspective, a single rhino nets you +0 cards, possibly doing more harm than good since it converts non-terminal draw (from the clean-up phase) to terminal draw. This means big money + rhino will suck. Probably worse than pure big money. But it's also bad for engines since you're likely to have a dead turn after every rhino play.

On the other other hand, you get the 7 card turn before the 3 card turn (unlike, say, Tactician), and immediately after you buy it (because of the "put on deck when you get it" ability) -- and what if that 3 card turn never comes, either because you keep playing this every turn in a BM setup, or because the game ends?
Logged

iangoth

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #101 on: July 16, 2012, 06:27:07 pm »
0

Well, then at best it's a smithy.
Logged

brokoli

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
  • Respect: +786
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #102 on: July 16, 2012, 07:08:20 pm »
+1

I love the canal / Gannet idea. But museum and Herald are nice too... congrats to the winners.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #103 on: July 16, 2012, 07:29:48 pm »
+1

I can't believe I won.  Rinkworks - after this expansion is done you might want to rethink your voting system. 

I think my card is fine (it's simple, and it explores a currently unexplored space (VP For treasure) - but it's far from flashy.  I think it got votes primarily because it's unoffensive.

Hehe.  Well, being a broadly-approved card isn't a bad thing.  But you got passion votes too, or you wouldn't have wound up on top, even in a tie.  You sell yourself short -- the rest of this post shows the work that went into devising and balancing the card, and I think that work shows.  It probably also helps that a lot of Treasure-counting Victory fan cards exist, most or all of them with problems you found a way to address.

As for how much flashiness counts, it's worthwhile for truly great ideas, but it's easy to overdo them.  I think it's great that a card like Soothsayer won -- and, more generally, that a card like that can win.  But a whole set of similarly complex cards wouldn't be a very good set.  You need cards like Almoner and Herald, too, cards even simpler than yours, and fortunately those are winning too.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #104 on: July 16, 2012, 07:33:16 pm »
+1

I love the canal / Gannet idea. But museum and Herald are nice too... congrats to the winners.

I liked Canal better than my own empty-pile-based card.  It seems like there is more strategic potential there, as the Canal player wants to get close to three-piling while still ending on Provinces.  But if someone is too heavily invested in Canals, it's an incentive to the opponents to foil that plan.  Very tricky balance.  The only thing I'm not sure of is if it would play as great in practice as it does in theory.  But I'm very tempted to experiment with it in my own live games.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #105 on: July 16, 2012, 08:44:39 pm »
+1

I love the canal / Gannet idea. But museum and Herald are nice too... congrats to the winners.

I liked Canal better than my own empty-pile-based card.  It seems like there is more strategic potential there, as the Canal player wants to get close to three-piling while still ending on Provinces.  But if someone is too heavily invested in Canals, it's an incentive to the opponents to foil that plan.  Very tricky balance.  The only thing I'm not sure of is if it would play as great in practice as it does in theory.  But I'm very tempted to experiment with it in my own live games.

I am glad you (and others) liked it!

I really wanted a card whose strategic purpose changes based on the style of game being played and focusing on Provinces/Colonies vs piles was an easy way to do that. I also like cards that create interesting interaction and wanted more ways of being able to directly affect your opponents' VP count without actually "attacking" them yet remain balanced with different numbers of players. I think Canal meets these criteria.

I know Gannet/Canal got a couple of comments that it might not be playable or interesting often enough, but I think there are a lot of end game situations where it could shine even if there are not any piles out -- for instance, sometimes you just want a clean VP option at $6 that is worth more than a Duchy. This gives it a leg up over other alt VPs -- too often for my tastes in the endgame when you are trying to green, alt VPs STILL aren't worth buying (over say, Duchy).

The only way to know for sure is to play with it, I guess!

FYI, I chose the name "Canal" because canals are more beneficial the more land you have, and games that end with the Province of Colony pile out means players have acquired a lot of large tracts of land! If it ends on piles, you probably don't have as much land in your Dominion, and building canals is not going to be as beneficial.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #106 on: July 16, 2012, 09:04:17 pm »
0

...means players have acquired a lot of large tracts of land!

How could you resist:
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #107 on: July 16, 2012, 09:21:03 pm »
0

There was an observation that my card allowed you to steal someone elses duration card.  A simple fix of the wording is to reword to say, "When you buy this, return a card that you have in play on top of your deck"

How about this wording, templated from Herbalist?

Quote
"When you buy this, you may put one of your cards from play on top of your deck."

Also, is there any reason this can't be on-gain rather than on-buy?  I'm not thinking of any problem with that right now, but sometimes on-gain quandaries can be very tricky to root out.
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #108 on: July 16, 2012, 09:27:36 pm »
0

There was an observation that my card allowed you to steal someone elses duration card.  A simple fix of the wording is to reword to say, "When you buy this, return a card that you have in play on top of your deck"

How about this wording, templated from Herbalist?

Quote
"When you buy this, you may put one of your cards from play on top of your deck."

Also, is there any reason this can't be on-gain rather than on-buy?  I'm not thinking of any problem with that right now, but sometimes on-gain quandaries can be very tricky to root out.

It gets weird if you gain it off turn - like swindler?

Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #109 on: July 16, 2012, 09:33:08 pm »
+3

There was an observation that my card allowed you to steal someone elses duration card.  A simple fix of the wording is to reword to say, "When you buy this, return a card that you have in play on top of your deck"

How about this wording, templated from Herbalist?

Quote
"When you buy this, you may put one of your cards from play on top of your deck."

Also, is there any reason this can't be on-gain rather than on-buy?  I'm not thinking of any problem with that right now, but sometimes on-gain quandaries can be very tricky to root out.

It gets weird if you gain it off turn - like swindler?

Put a Haven back and trap that Copper... FOREVER!
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #110 on: July 16, 2012, 09:48:00 pm »
0

Now I just have to wait for my terminal drawer to end up with one point (because I voted) :D.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

shark_bait

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
  • Shuffle iT Username: shark_bait
  • Luckyfin and Land of Hinter for iso aliases
  • Respect: +1868
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #111 on: July 16, 2012, 09:53:16 pm »
0

I considered gain/buy for a little while.  My consensus was that on buy forced a strategic decision of buying the card as opposed to something else.  Gaining the card meant that you could just KC or TR something like WS or IW and then put back multiple actions of your choice.  I wanted to make this a card that you had to strategically purchase.  The on gain clause would also have forced a weird wording in regards to other players forcing you to gain it with the likes of Swindler/Ambassador.
Logged
Hello.  Name's Bruce.  It's all right.  I understand.  Why trust a shark, right?

Is quite curious - Who is the mystical "Celestial Chameleon"?

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #112 on: July 16, 2012, 10:06:09 pm »
0

There was an observation that my card allowed you to steal someone elses duration card.  A simple fix of the wording is to reword to say, "When you buy this, return a card that you have in play on top of your deck"

How about this wording, templated from Herbalist?

Quote
"When you buy this, you may put one of your cards from play on top of your deck."

Also, is there any reason this can't be on-gain rather than on-buy?  I'm not thinking of any problem with that right now, but sometimes on-gain quandaries can be very tricky to root out.

It gets weird if you gain it off turn - like swindler?

Put a Haven back and trap that Copper... FOREVER!

Eek!  Yeah, what happens in that case?  Or, indeed, in the case of any Duration card?  Technically, the effects of the Duration card should still be active, despite that the card itself isn't out any more.  (Exception:  Lighthouse's defensive power only lasts while the card is physically in play.)  So if you play Fishing Village, then buy a Herald, if you then returned Fishing Village to your deck, you'd still get the extra coin and action next turn, but you wouldn't have the card out to remind you.

This is actually something of a big deal, because I'm not sure how to fix it.  We could change the card to specifically exclude Duration cards (thereby axing the possibility of returning a next-turn Fishing Village too), but what about Throne Rooms and King's Courts that get left out because they modify a Duration card?

Another way would be to mimic the way Scheme does it, waiting for clean-up, but that's a lot messier with a on-buy effect, because the bought card isn't "in play" anymore and able to serve as an active agent in making stuff happen.  I'm open to suggestions.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #113 on: July 16, 2012, 10:10:43 pm »
0

What?  There's no reason you can't mimic Scheme.  When you Throne Room Scheme the first use of it isn't in play, but the effect sticks around and you topdeck two actions.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #114 on: July 16, 2012, 10:16:58 pm »
0

What?  There's no reason you can't mimic Scheme.  When you Throne Room Scheme the first use of it isn't in play, but the effect sticks around and you topdeck two actions.

Yes, but this is an on-buy effect.  You buy Herald at some point in your turn (might even be your Action Phase, via Black Market), and then it goes into your discard pile.  At the end of your turn, you have to remember that you can top-deck something from play, even though there is no visual reminder anywhere that you can do it.  Since actually buying the Herald, you might have played and resolved any number of Action cards (following Black Market) or special Treasures that take time to resolve.  I guess this happens a minority of the time, since all Treasures are normally played before any purchases, but it's still a situation you have to take into account.

I'm not saying that there is any logical or functional reason Scheme's wording can't be used as an on-buy effect, but it is, shall we say, inelegant and demanding of mental bookkeeping in an unDominionlike way.

Unfortunately, the only alternative I can think of off-hand is to restrict it to Treasures, like Herbalist, which would be unfortunate.  We already have Mint and Mandarin as precedents for removing Treasures from play before the cleanup phase, so that's probably safe enough.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #115 on: July 16, 2012, 10:21:13 pm »
0

You'll usually buy it right before you topdeck something.  That's pretty reasonable memorywise.  Black market is a pain, but it's an edge case.  "From the supply" could knock it out.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #116 on: July 16, 2012, 10:39:47 pm »
0

Quote
So if you play Fishing Village, then buy a Herald, if you then returned Fishing Village to your deck, you'd still get the extra coin and action next turn, but you wouldn't have the card out to remind you.

That's how I would read it.

Mining Village asks you to trash it immediately, but you have to remember you still have 2 actions to play and get $2 later. In person for our group this usually amounts to turning the card on its side to remind ourselves that we still get two actions, $2, and need to trash the card. So we don't put it in the trash immediately like it's supposed to and usually wait until cleanup since it's much easier to remember what is going on. You can't pull this same trick as easily with top-decking a duration card, though, because it should be in your hand (usually) by the time you resolve its effect, unless you turn it on its side to remind you to put it there after it resolves? I, too, am a little confused on how the card would be practically implemented, but I don't think there are any explicit rules clashes as worded.

Also, pops is right: strategically there usually won't be any problem because you'll buy the card when you want to top-deck something (that's resolved). edit: hmmm. As rinkworks mentions below, I guess putting an unresolved Duration on top of your deck is a good way of doubling the benefit (play it again the same turn it resolves)...
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 09:15:23 am by Polk5440 »
Logged

One Armed Man

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Respect: +88
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #117 on: July 16, 2012, 11:39:00 pm »
0

Based on the wording for Scheme: When you buy this card, at the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose a card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn put it on your deck.
Logged

rspeer

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +877
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #118 on: July 17, 2012, 02:35:50 am »
+1

I think that's considerably more confusing than Scheme, and just unpleasantly convoluted wording to make a relatively simple thing happen. I like the solution of just adding "non-Duration".
Logged

Titandrake

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2210
  • Respect: +2854
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #119 on: July 17, 2012, 03:26:58 am »
0

Doesn't adding "non-Duration" change the functionality?

Honestly, I don't see the problem with "return a card that you have in play".
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

brokoli

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
  • Respect: +786
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #120 on: July 17, 2012, 04:22:12 am »
0

Too bad I missed the two first contests… when will be the 3rd ?
Logged

Dubdubdubdub

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +124
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #121 on: July 17, 2012, 04:48:43 am »
+1

Too bad I missed the two first contests… when will be the 3rd ?

The third is already running, in the tread 'Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 3!' Deadline is thursday, so get in on it while you can!
Logged

Adrienaline

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #122 on: July 17, 2012, 05:40:19 am »
0

Someone voted for Blacksmith/Lark? Not my best work, but I'm cool with that :)
Logged

brokoli

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
  • Respect: +786
    • View Profile
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #123 on: July 17, 2012, 07:09:58 am »
0

Too bad I missed the two first contests… when will be the 3rd ?

The third is already running, in the tread 'Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 3!' Deadline is thursday, so get in on it while you can!

Oh, thanks !   :-[ :)
Logged

rinkworks

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Mini-Set Design Contest, Part 2!
« Reply #124 on: July 17, 2012, 07:35:03 am »
0

Doesn't adding "non-Duration" change the functionality?

Honestly, I don't see the problem with "return a card that you have in play".

Play Fishing Village, Wharf, Wharf, buy three Heralds, return Fishing Village, Wharf, Wharf.  Next turn, play Fishing Village, Wharf, Wharf, and receive first-turn AND next-turn benefits from the exact same three Duration cards.  It's just weird.  And quite difficult to track, especially if your opponent(s) take long turns in between.

rspeer:  What about Throne Room and King's Court that had been played on a Duration?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 07:36:19 am by rinkworks »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  All
 

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 21 queries.