Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?  (Read 35260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2011, 07:38:27 am »
0

This optional cursing makes many mundane versions of cards from the core game even more expensive.
Not if you design them correctly.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4443
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2011, 09:48:16 am »
0

I'm not sure what you mean by "mundane versions of cards".
Logged

roriconfan

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2011, 11:36:29 am »
0

This optional cursing makes many mundane versions of cards from the core game even more expensive.
Not if you design them correctly.
If it offers more options, it is more expensive than if it didn't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mundane versions of cards".
"Plain" cards from the first expansions.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4443
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2011, 01:39:20 pm »
0

...Then what makes them more expensive? Expensive how? Clearly not in the sense of increasing the cost to buy them....
Logged

roriconfan

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2011, 02:39:42 pm »
0

"Draw 3 cards" is a card that is cheaper than a "Draw 3 cards. Gain a Curse, if you do, (benefit)".
The option alone makes it more expensive than if it was JUST "Draw 3 cards. Gain a Curse, if you do, (benefit)".
At the same time, nobody would bother getting the original "Draw 3 cards" anymore, if the optional card had the exact same cost with attached extra aid.   
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2011, 03:14:34 pm »
0

This isn't making the mundane cards more expensive; those are still the same price as they always were.

This is introducing a new card, which has the same power as a preexisting card AS WELL AS some extra potential benefit, at the expense of higher cost. There is nothing wrong with that.

Compare: Village to (Workers Village, Mining Village, City, etc.) Compare Market to Grand Market. Compare Throne Room to King's Court. Hell, compare copper to silver to gold to platinum, or estate to duchy to province to colony. Smithy to Nobles. And so on and so forth. This game is filled with examples where a more expensive card has a strictly better power than a cheaper card and yet they all get used, and work fine.

From this point of view, it is perfectly all right to have a card which is a cursing village, cost 4 or 5, +1 card +2 actions, you may gain a curse, if you do extra stuff happens.  Or a card that is +1 card +1 action, you may gain a curse for [some benefit]. Or, in general, a card that is "Some vanilla stuff, you may gain a curse for something more exciting."

There may or may not be balance issues with this, but that wasn't your point.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 03:16:42 pm by ftl »
Logged

Hamlet

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2011, 09:08:46 pm »
0

I think this is actually something that is going to come up in Hinterlands, or something that could be in the immediacy set.
The actual curse of buying or gaining cursed cards is the moment you buy it. Use a chapel is a way to "repent" of this misdeed. So here is how I see it.
When you buy or gain the card, curse cards should come with it. If it's a Treasure/Curse, it should be powerful and take victory points by itself proportionate to its usefulness. It should also force the player gaining it to take at least two curse cards with it.
The VP chip solution would be funny, too, but that seems like a strictly Prosperity thing.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1325
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1384
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2011, 11:20:39 am »
0

When you buy or gain the card, curse cards should come with it. If it's a Treasure/Curse, it should be powerful and take victory points by itself proportionate to its usefulness. It should also force the player gaining it to take at least two curse cards with it.
Because Watchtower needed to be even more powerful than it already is, obviously.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2011, 12:19:03 pm »
0

I think this is actually something that is going to come up in Hinterlands, or something that could be in the immediacy set.
The actual curse of buying or gaining cursed cards is the moment you buy it. Use a chapel is a way to "repent" of this misdeed. So here is how I see it.
When you buy or gain the card, curse cards should come with it. If it's a Treasure/Curse, it should be powerful and take victory points by itself proportionate to its usefulness. It should also force the player gaining it to take at least two curse cards with it.
The VP chip solution would be funny, too, but that seems like a strictly Prosperity thing.

But what's "proportionate to its usefulness"?  If you pay a flat penalty on purchase at the beginning of the game, you may wind up using it lots of times, reaping great benefits; if not, then you may only play it once or twice, reaping a much smaller benefit.  But the cost in both cases is the same.  It's therefore mathematically impossible for the penalty to be proportionate to its usefulness.

It's entirely possible Hinterlands will come out with its on-gain effects and throw all this theory out the window.  But for the time being, consider what "powerful with a penalty" cards we already have:  Council Room, Bishop, Vault, Followers.  All four provide benefits more powerful than their costs alone can justify.  (In the case of Followers, obviously it isn't actually a monetary cost but rather its power relative to the other prizes.)  But all four incur a penalty of some kind upon use of the card.  In the case of the first three, it's the ability for your opponents to do something that might help them out.  In the case of Followers, gaining an Estate is ostensibly a reward but really a penalty in all but the end game.

Nothing yet is a power card counterbalanced by an on-buy penalty.  Again, it wouldn't surprise me if we see something like that in Hinterlands, but if we do I'm guessing it'll be a slap on the wrist for a card only slightly overpowered.  Not a dramatically overpowered card with an on-buy self-cursing.  But we'll see.
Logged

Hamlet

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 08:37:53 pm »
0

Quote
But what's "proportionate to its usefulness"?
Obviously, the card has to go through the deck a few times. My original idea for this was a treasure card that was worth $4, cost 5 and was worth -2 or -3. By itself, it isn't much but if players buy quite a few of them then problems could occur. What I meant by "proportionate" is the negative number on that specfic card in realtion to it's usefulness.
I do like the curse token theory, but honestly, I would not buy a card that would force me to end up with a permanent -1 chip unless it would guarantee me a ridiculous amount of points later on to compensate, and that could end up broken if I end up being able to play it a lot.. If there was a way to "purge" it, then I would go for it, but a card that says "Remove Curse Chips from the pile" seems a little too easy to use for the amount that you're bringing up. There could be a provision that instead of gaining VP chips you can discard Curse Chips, but even then it seems a little bit too easy to get rid of, compared to the luck factor necessary to trash Curses with a specific card.
I'm not sure which would be the most fair without playtesting it, but this is definetely an idea worth trying.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +938
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2011, 09:17:26 pm »
0

Quote
But what's "proportionate to its usefulness"?
Obviously, the card has to go through the deck a few times. My original idea for this was a treasure card that was worth $4, cost 5 and was worth -2 or -3. By itself, it isn't much but if players buy quite a few of them then problems could occur. What I meant by "proportionate" is the negative number on that specfic card in realtion to it's usefulness.

I know what you meant, but what I'm saying is that it's impossible to have a proportionate penalty if the "bad" value is fixed and the "good" value is variable.  You have three choices:  (1) Both good and bad values are fixed; (2) both good and bad values fluctuate in tandem; (3) you don't have proportional values.

It's absolutely impossible to have a proportional fixed penalty and a non-fixed benefit.  That's just math.

I'm not going so far as to say it's impossible to have a balanced *card* with a fixed penalty, but I have yet to see one that I thought would be.  For this exact reason.  If the card is balanced in the mid-game, then it's an unbalanced must-buy in the beginning, and useless in the end game (ditto again, but lots of cards are useless in the endgame, so that's okay).

To make a balanced card, the penalty would have to be so steep as to be a good opener, okay after the first shuffle, and useless after the second.  That's the only way a fixed-penalty card won't be an immediate must-buy, and therefore unbalanced.  And that's workable (see: Trading Post), but not necessarily a desirable thing.

As for your proposed card of a treasure worth $4 and costing $5, compare that to Contraband, a treasure costing the same but worth only $3 and with a per-use penalty that is probably equal to or steeper than 2-3 VP even if you only incur the penalty once.  (Late game, it will commonly mean you have to buy a Duchy instead of a Province; early game, it will commonly cost you a Gold, a loss that will compound with every shuffle thereafter.)  Even if you put the penalty at like -7 VP, I'm buying that card as soon as I can every single time it's on the board.  In a Colony game or a slow Province game (Ghost Ship games in particular), I'm probably auto-buying a second one at the earliest opportunity thereafter.

Quote
I do like the curse token theory, but honestly, I would not buy a card that would force me to end up with a permanent -1 chip...

Not buying the Valkyrie card I proposed at the start of this thread will cost you a lot of games, then.  I've now playtested it extensively (several dozen games), and if anything it's a bit too strong -- I'm considering removing the +coin and seeing how that plays.

-1 VP isn't actually all that big a deal in comparison to even a fairly modest power boost.  The real harm of Curse cards isn't the penalty but the damage it does to your deck.  I'm pretty sure the penalties on Bishop and maybe Council Room help your opponents more than -1 VP, on average, hurts you.  It's just not as obvious.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 09:56:37 pm by rinkworks »
Logged

Hamlet

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2011, 05:01:26 pm »
0

One thing that will make the card more balanced would be having it as a Action/Curse type; the actual card also being worth -2 or so on top of using the -1 Curse Chips.
Another way you could change this is is to use it opposite of Goons; that is, take a Curse Chip per buy.
The reason I wouldn't buy it would be to see if it could be beaten without it. As it looks, though, it's an insanely powered card. It's reward outweighs it's risk by a lot, but I'm not sure how to weaken it without entirely crippling it.
Logged

ChaosRed

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 387
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2011, 05:17:45 pm »
0

The card I am thinking of, doesn't really make curses "good", it just ignites a trigger, something like...

PLAGUE
Action 4
+1 Card
You may gain a card worth 1$ or less and put it in your hand. Reveal a curse from your hand, if you do, each other opponent gains a curse.

Meh, something like that.

The other thing I was toying with is:

LEPER'S CAMP
Action/Victory
Cost: 3
+1 Card, Worth 1VP if you have at least one curse in your deck.
You may reveal a curse card from your hand, if you do discard it, gain +1VP.

Both could use revisions and ideas, but these were concepts I was toying with.
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2013, 08:44:17 pm »
0

I didn't want to start a new topic, even though this one is a little old... I posted here because I vaguely remembered there being a topic like this. I hope I made the right choice.

I was making some Monty Python cards a few days ago, and one of the ones I came up with actually seems to me like a pretty balanced self-cursing card (not sure if 4 is the appropriate cost... seems right to me, I guess...):

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7617.msg292937#msg292937
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 08:48:45 pm by Minotaur »
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2013, 09:15:13 pm »
+1

It would have been better just to start a new thread, I think.  But no big deal.

For people who can't see the attachment:

Bright Side of Life
$4 - Action
Gain a curse, putting it into your hand. Each player may reveal up to three curses from their hand. Each player who revealed exactly zero/one/two/three curses gains a curse/copper/silver/gold. You put your gained card into your hand.

First of all, you should capitalize all the card names (Curse, Copper, Silver, Gold).  Second, this should probably be an Attack type, because it is sending out Curses and Coppers most of the time.

On the actual idea --

Bright Side of Life (BSoL) looks incredibly weak to me.  You gain a Curse, OK.  And then EVERY player gains something depending on how many Curses they have in hand.  Since you just got to gain a Curse in hand, you should have an advantage over everyone else, right?  But it doesn't really make a big difference. 

Let's say nobody had a Curse in hand to start... everyone ends up getting a Curse, you get an additional Copper.  You got the raw end of the deal there.  OK, you gain the Copper to your hand -- that's like +$1.  Not great.  You also gain the Curse to your hand, so maybe you can get rid of it after... but that's a lot of effort when you could have just not used BSoL to begin with.

So let's say everyone has one Curse in their hand to start.  In the end, everyone else gains a Copper, and you've gained Silver and Curse.  Was that Silver really worth it?  Probably not -- Curses are terrible.

In the best case, when nobody else has a Curse in hand, everyone gains a Curse.  You also get to gain a Treasure, and the best case here is kind of hard to say.  When you are able to gain a Gold, the rest of your hand was really bad so you're not likely to do much that turn.  In the worst case, you gain a Curse and a Copper and everyone else gets like a Silver or something.

And then we can add that since you gain a Curse first, you come out the worst when the Curses run out unevenly (e.g. say there is only one Curse left, you gain it and nobody else gains a Curse).

I can't really think of when this would ever be a good card to play.  Maybe if the Curses are already out and you seriously lost the Curse split, you can use this as a sort of cheap Explorer.  But it's certainly not worth it to gain a Curse to unreliably give others Curses, and probably give yourself a Copper.

So I don't think it is balanced -- it's pretty much always worse for you than for your opponents.  The only practical purpose I can think for it is for when the Curses are already gone, which defeats the point of this being a self-Curser.
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2013, 09:36:13 pm »
0

First of all, you should capitalize all the card names (Curse, Copper, Silver, Gold).  Second, this should probably be an Attack type, because it is sending out Curses and Coppers most of the time.

On the actual idea --

Bright Side of Life (BSoL) looks incredibly weak to me.  You gain a Curse, OK.  And then EVERY player gains something depending on how many Curses they have in hand.  Since you just got to gain a Curse in hand, you should have an advantage over everyone else, right?  But it doesn't really make a big difference. 

Let's say nobody had a Curse in hand to start... everyone ends up getting a Curse, you get an additional Copper.  You got the raw end of the deal there.  OK, you gain the Copper to your hand -- that's like +$1.  Not great.  You also gain the Curse to your hand, so maybe you can get rid of it after... but that's a lot of effort when you could have just not used BSoL to begin with.

So let's say everyone has one Curse in their hand to start.  In the end, everyone else gains a Copper, and you've gained Silver and Curse.  Was that Silver really worth it?  Probably not -- Curses are terrible.

In the best case, when nobody else has a Curse in hand, everyone gains a Curse.  You also get to gain a Treasure, and the best case here is kind of hard to say.  When you are able to gain a Gold, the rest of your hand was really bad so you're not likely to do much that turn.  In the worst case, you gain a Curse and a Copper and everyone else gets like a Silver or something.

And then we can add that since you gain a Curse first, you come out the worst when the Curses run out unevenly (e.g. say there is only one Curse left, you gain it and nobody else gains a Curse).

I can't really think of when this would ever be a good card to play.  Maybe if the Curses are already out and you seriously lost the Curse split, you can use this as a sort of cheap Explorer.  But it's certainly not worth it to gain a Curse to unreliably give others Curses, and probably give yourself a Copper.

So I don't think it is balanced -- it's pretty much always worse for you than for your opponents.  The only practical purpose I can think for it is for when the Curses are already gone, which defeats the point of this being a self-Curser.

First of all, it's not an attack. It's the bright side of life! Not being able to block it could make it stronger.

You have an interesting criticism. Maybe I should consider ultimately adding a little something extra and possibly making it cost 5. But I also have some counterpoints. Mostly, I suppose I should play test this sometime if I really want to see if it works.

In a lot of curse games, it can be really hard to get some golds in your deck. After the curses run out, playing this card gets you more Silvers and Golds while anyone who doesn't buy it is still probably choking on curses and coppers to some extent. If the other players aren't playing Bright Side of Life, then they will have less curses than you, and they might gain a Curse or a Copper on the same turn that you gain a Gold.

It would probably be stronger on boards with no trashing, overall.

Also, you don't have to play the card if your deck already has several curses but your hand has none. The "everyone else gets a gold while you gain a curse and a copper" scenario probably won't ever happen if you play the card judiciously.
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2013, 10:20:50 pm »
0

First of all, it's not an attack. It's the bright side of life! Not being able to block it could make it stronger.

You have an interesting criticism. Maybe I should consider ultimately adding a little something extra and possibly making it cost 5. But I also have some counterpoints. Mostly, I suppose I should play test this sometime if I really want to see if it works.

In a lot of curse games, it can be really hard to get some golds in your deck. After the curses run out, playing this card gets you more Silvers and Golds while anyone who doesn't buy it is still probably choking on curses and coppers to some extent. If the other players aren't playing Bright Side of Life, then they will have less curses than you, and they might gain a Curse or a Copper on the same turn that you gain a Gold.

It would probably be stronger on boards with no trashing, overall.

Also, you don't have to play the card if your deck already has several curses but your hand has none. The "everyone else gets a gold while you gain a curse and a copper" scenario probably won't ever happen if you play the card judiciously.

In Dominion terms, it's pretty much an attack.  It hands out Curses and Coppers most of the time.  Yes it does it to you as well, but it's still attacking others.  If you want to make it a non-attack for thematic reasons, OK.  Then it's still an attack that just doesn't have the Attack type.  And of course being unblockable makes it stronger. :P

I'd already addressed your first counterpoint in looking for a use case for this card -- games that have other cursing, after Curses have run out.  In this case, you can make the most of your junky deck and use BSoL as a cheap Explorer, which is fairly decent.  But as I said, this defeats the purpose of BSoL being a self-curser.  It's actually just a way to deal with Curses, and the self-cursing is irrelevant because you wouldn't want to use it until Curses have run out.  That initial penalty on play actually narrows the use case of BSoL -- you don't want to help your opponent win the Curse split even more, so you don't play it until the Curses are gone.  You're not going to play it until the Curses are gone, so you won't buy it until the Curses are almost gone.  You're buying it so late that you're not going to get much use out of it at all.  Maybe if the initial Curse gain was optional, the card would be a little useful.  Still niche, which is fine.  But again, this defeats the purpose of being a "self-curser" (which I am focused on because of the thread you posted this in).

I note that you say "they will have less curses than you" as if it were good that you have more curses.  OK, you can gain slightly better treasure than them... but you have more curses.  That is explicitly not a good thing.

So when does the self-cursing matter?  On boards with no other cursing.  This is the most important use case for a self-cursing card.  And in this context, BSoL is terrible.  Again, you always give yourself a Curse, and you only sometimes give others a Curse.  That's because your opponents can block it with Curses.  Even in the very best case, where you gain Gold and your opponents all gain Curses... well, you still gained a Gold and a Curse, and that Curse probably isn't worth it.  And again, it's questionable that this is a good case at all because it means you had at least 2 Curses in hand to start, which is pretty bad.

As for your last counterpoint that you don't have to play BSoL if you have no Curses in hand... true.  But then BSoL was itself almost as bad as a Curse, since it's a dead card in your hand.

tl;dr:

BSoL almost always hurts you a lot more than it hurts other players.  It's too weak at pretty much any price.  Its best use case is as a way to deal with already having a deck full of Curses, and for this purpose it is somewhat interesting.  But this defeats the purpose of making it a self-curser.







I know it started off as a Monty Python parody, but if you want to make it a playable card you should ask yourself, "what is the purpose of this card?"

If your goal is to make it a viable strategy to give yourself Curses, this card does not succeed.  If your goal is to provide a way to mitigate the power of Cursing attacks, then you may be onto something.  For the latter, making the self-cursing optional opens up the use cases a bit while still keeping it niche.  I'm personally not a fan of Curses-for-benefit concepts, but some people like it.
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2013, 10:33:55 pm »
0

If your goal is to make it a viable strategy to give yourself Curses, this card does not succeed.  If your goal is to provide a way to mitigate the power of Cursing attacks, then you may be onto something.  For the latter, making the self-cursing optional opens up the use cases a bit while still keeping it niche.  I'm personally not a fan of Curses-for-benefit concepts, but some people like it.

About cards that "should" be an attack, Masquerade definitely feels like an attack, but you can't Secret Chamber yourself or Moat to remove yourself from the rotation. You could argue that Masquerade doesn't always hurt the other players, but then, neither does BSoL.

Making the self-curse optional would break the theme of BSoL.

Another option might be this:

Bright Side of Life
Cost: 4
Each player gains a Curse into their hand.
You may reveal up to three Curses from your hand. If you reveal 1/2/3 Curses, gain a Copper/Silver/Gold, putting it into your hand.


This one is a lot more predictable and probably more balanced. I think my original concept was slightly more thematic, in that *everyone* finds joy in looking on the Bright Side of Life.

Do you think this is closer to a usably good card? (I would probably rename the new version in to something else, though.)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 11:01:03 pm by Minotaur »
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2013, 11:46:36 pm »
0

If your goal is to make it a viable strategy to give yourself Curses, this card does not succeed.  If your goal is to provide a way to mitigate the power of Cursing attacks, then you may be onto something.  For the latter, making the self-cursing optional opens up the use cases a bit while still keeping it niche.  I'm personally not a fan of Curses-for-benefit concepts, but some people like it.

About cards that "should" be an attack, Masquerade definitely feels like an attack, but you can't Secret Chamber yourself or Moat to remove yourself from the rotation. You could argue that Masquerade doesn't always hurt the other players, but then, neither does BSoL.

Making the self-curse optional would break the theme of BSoL.

Another option might be this:

Bright Side of Life
Cost: 4
Each player gains a Curse into their hand.
You may reveal up to three Curses from your hand. If you reveal 1/2/3 Curses, gain a Copper/Silver/Gold, putting it into your hand.


This one is a lot more predictable and probably more balanced. I think my original concept was slightly more thematic, in that *everyone* finds joy in looking on the Bright Side of Life.

Do you think this is closer to a usably good card? (I would probably rename the new version in to something else, though.)

On Attacks -- it's not about always hurting others, it's about usually hurting them.  Pretty much every attack has edge cases where they help rather than hurt -- e.g. Militia can activate Tunnels, Fortune Teller can help cycle good cards, even junkers like Witch can bump up Gardens.

Masquerade and Possession often prompt people to wonder whether they should have the Attack type.  The thing is, attacks usually hurt others.  Masquerade and Possession do not.  Masquerade is usually neutral (everyone passes a bad card) and Possession doesn't affect the "victim" on average.  They can hurt by pure luck (my entire hand is great!) or in conjunction with other cards (discard attack then Masq; Possession-Amb/Masq) but they don't usually hurt other players on their own.

BSoL should be an attack because it DOES usually hurt others.  It usually hands out Curses and Coppers.  Sometimes it gives a gift of Silver or Gold, but that will be rare (unless you've already heavily junked their decks).


The new version is certainly more playable.  Note that this is still an attack, even by your definition. :P

It is still niche -- fairly often you are just gaining Copper -- but there are ways to make it work.  Maybe there's other Cursing that you don't really want to get into; you can use this to mitigate how badly you'd lose the split while also giving yourself some decent Treasure to slog through.  There are probably other odd use cases.  It could combo with Trader, at least.

I'm still not a fan because I just don't like Curse-for-benefit.  But yeah, I can see this working.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2707
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2013, 12:34:24 am »
0

Actually, the old one could work with "you may trash a card from your hand" at the end of it...
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2013, 12:38:49 am »
0

On Attacks -- it's not about always hurting others, it's about usually hurting them.  Pretty much every attack has edge cases where they help rather than hurt -- e.g. Militia can activate Tunnels, Fortune Teller can help cycle good cards, even junkers like Witch can bump up Gardens.

Masquerade and Possession often prompt people to wonder whether they should have the Attack type.  The thing is, attacks usually hurt others.  Masquerade and Possession do not.  Masquerade is usually neutral (everyone passes a bad card) and Possession doesn't affect the "victim" on average.  They can hurt by pure luck (my entire hand is great!) or in conjunction with other cards (discard attack then Masq; Possession-Amb/Masq) but they don't usually hurt other players on their own.

BSoL should be an attack because it DOES usually hurt others.  It usually hands out Curses and Coppers.  Sometimes it gives a gift of Silver or Gold, but that will be rare (unless you've already heavily junked their decks).


The new version is certainly more playable.  Note that this is still an attack, even by your definition. :P

It is still niche -- fairly often you are just gaining Copper -- but there are ways to make it work.  Maybe there's other Cursing that you don't really want to get into; you can use this to mitigate how badly you'd lose the split while also giving yourself some decent Treasure to slog through.  There are probably other odd use cases.  It could combo with Trader, at least.

I'm still not a fan because I just don't like Curse-for-benefit.  But yeah, I can see this working.

In the case of the original card (the one which can give treasures to enemies), the card might actually help the opponent. Anyway, in either version of the card I proposed, it would be way too weak as an attack in any game where it could be prevented. Though in the version that's more stable, it's never good for the other players, so it feels more like a clear attack card.

(Maybe the new one could be called "Cursed Tomb" or something. Sort of off-theme.)
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2013, 12:40:06 am »
0

On Attacks -- it's not about always hurting others, it's about usually hurting them.  Pretty much every attack has edge cases where they help rather than hurt -- e.g. Militia can activate Tunnels, Fortune Teller can help cycle good cards, even junkers like Witch can bump up Gardens.

Masquerade and Possession often prompt people to wonder whether they should have the Attack type.  The thing is, attacks usually hurt others.  Masquerade and Possession do not.  Masquerade is usually neutral (everyone passes a bad card) and Possession doesn't affect the "victim" on average.  They can hurt by pure luck (my entire hand is great!) or in conjunction with other cards (discard attack then Masq; Possession-Amb/Masq) but they don't usually hurt other players on their own.

BSoL should be an attack because it DOES usually hurt others.  It usually hands out Curses and Coppers.  Sometimes it gives a gift of Silver or Gold, but that will be rare (unless you've already heavily junked their decks).


The new version is certainly more playable.  Note that this is still an attack, even by your definition. :P

It is still niche -- fairly often you are just gaining Copper -- but there are ways to make it work.  Maybe there's other Cursing that you don't really want to get into; you can use this to mitigate how badly you'd lose the split while also giving yourself some decent Treasure to slog through.  There are probably other odd use cases.  It could combo with Trader, at least.

I'm still not a fan because I just don't like Curse-for-benefit.  But yeah, I can see this working.

In the case of the original card (the one which can give treasures to enemies), the card might actually help the opponent. Anyway, in either version of the card I proposed, it would be way too weak as an attack in any game where it could be prevented. Though in the version that's more stable, it's never good for the other players, so it feels more like a clear attack card.

(Maybe the new one could be called "Cursed Tomb" or something. Sort of off-theme.)

Yes, and as I said, official attack cards can also help opponents.  But they (and BSoL) usually hurt.
Logged

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2013, 12:41:37 am »
0

Actually, the old one could work with "you may trash a card from your hand" at the end of it...

This would negate the "curse for benefit" nature in a sort of trivial way, and it wouldn't fit the original theme, either.

If the idea is to stock up on Curses, get Golds, and then trash the Curses later, it seems sort of questionable to me. I guess everyone might be forced to play the same game the same way if curses are going out anyway, but it would be more like a Curse card that defends against Curses than it would be a self-Curse-for-benefit card. Likely, you'd gain better treasures because of curses you already had from other players, not because of Curses played on yourself that you accumulated.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 03:48:33 am by Minotaur »
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2013, 03:51:58 am »
0

Yes, and as I said, official attack cards can also help opponents.  But they (and BSoL) usually hurt.

I don't know how you feel about labeling things as "attack" or not based on balance and theme reasons. If it had a name like "Cursed Tomb", then the plot reason for it not being an attack is that the player is just derping around in a cursed place, not actually attacking anyone. The balance reason is simply that if it's too easy to prevent it, then the self-curse is too much of a drawback to be justified. (Though it would still get strongly countered by Watchtower and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting)
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 02:34:31 pm by Minotaur »
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.

Minotaur

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2520
  • Respect: +3961
    • View Profile
Re: Solving the Good Curse Card problem?
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2013, 02:59:23 pm »
0

I thought about it some more. Here's another version which is *sometimes* curse-for-benefit, but probably only in the case when you have exactly two curses in hand:

Shady Character
Action - Attack
Cost: 5

+1 card
Each other player gains a Curse. You may gain a Curse, putting it directly into your hand. If you do so or if the Curse pile is empty, you may reveal up to three curses from your hand. If you reveal 1/2/3 Curses, gain a Copper/Silver/Gold.

(The card draw helps make the treasure gain more likely to work out well, and together with the optional self-Curse helps justify a 5 cost.)

Cursed Tomb
Action - Attack
Cost: 5

+2 cards
Each player gains a Curse. Put your gained Curse directly into your hand. You may reveal up to three curses from your hand. If you reveal 1/2/3 Curses, gain a Copper/Silver/Gold, putting it directly into your hand.

(The +2 cards makes the gain feature a lot more attractive. I don't know whether to put the treasure into your hand or not, in this case. It would be interesting to see whether this beats Witch in an otherwise base Dominion board...)
Logged
Storyteller/Crown is Donald's Vietnam Watergate.  Alchemy is Donald's Vietnam.  Scout is the time Donald choked on a pretzel.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 20 queries.