Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 208  All

Author Topic: Interview with Donald X.  (Read 1444425 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

allanfieldhouse

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +305
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3175 on: July 03, 2016, 09:11:54 am »
+2

And there was a Chancellor-style Event outtake in Adventures, as stated in the secret history. Chancellor existing sure isn't what killed it.

That just sounds terrible unless it gave another bonus along with it.
That sounds great for two and it gives you a buy. Trigger all the shuffles and don't care.

It cost $1 and (I think?) gave +1 Buy. But it didn't really add enough gameplay. It was mostly just: do you have a spare $1? If so, buy it.
Confirmed.

What are your thoughts about purposely doing something along this line just to make games with this event play out differently? Even if it was a completely mindless decision (which I don't think this example is), having your deck constantly cycling would make the rest of your decisions different than a standard game. Seems like it could be interesting.

I guess Delve sort of falls along these lines with pseudo-redefining the cost of Silver.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5939
  • Respect: +23900
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3176 on: July 03, 2016, 01:42:41 pm »
+3

And there was a Chancellor-style Event outtake in Adventures, as stated in the secret history. Chancellor existing sure isn't what killed it.

That just sounds terrible unless it gave another bonus along with it.
That sounds great for two and it gives you a buy. Trigger all the shuffles and don't care.

It cost $1 and (I think?) gave +1 Buy. But it didn't really add enough gameplay. It was mostly just: do you have a spare $1? If so, buy it.
Confirmed.

What are your thoughts about purposely doing something along this line just to make games with this event play out differently? Even if it was a completely mindless decision (which I don't think this example is), having your deck constantly cycling would make the rest of your decisions different than a standard game. Seems like it could be interesting.

I guess Delve sort of falls along these lines with pseudo-redefining the cost of Silver.
The general idea of "this Event makes the game different but is some level of automatic" is good enough, for the right Events, that I did it multiple times. Chancellor was not one of them; we gave it a chance and everything.
Logged

LaLight

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 771
  • Shuffle iT Username: LaLight
  • Because I'm a potato
  • Respect: +963
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3177 on: July 05, 2016, 07:30:34 am »
0

Were there any cards that were meant to be played only by two or only by more than two players? Such as in the rules you say "This card can only be in the supply if there are exactly 2 players"
« Last Edit: July 05, 2016, 07:59:38 am by LaLight »
Logged
Wins: 15, 10
Losses: 11, 5, 1
Draws: 1
MVPs: 4
Mod/Co-mod: 18

I always have a limited access to forum on weekends.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3178 on: July 05, 2016, 12:56:12 pm »
+4

Were there any cards that were meant to be played only by two or only by more than two players? Such as in the rules you say "This card can only be in the supply if there are exactly 2 players"

If I had to guess, such a card would cause complaints. People who only play 2 player Dominion would be upset if there's a card that can only be used in 3+ player games. People who only play 3+ player Dominion would be upset if there's a card that can only be used in 2 player games.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7350
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10342
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3179 on: July 05, 2016, 01:59:03 pm »
+4

Were there any cards that were meant to be played only by two or only by more than two players? Such as in the rules you say "This card can only be in the supply if there are exactly 2 players"

If I had to guess, such a card would cause complaints. People who only play 2 player Dominion would be upset if there's a card that can only be used in 3+ player games. People who only play 3+ player Dominion would be upset if there's a card that can only be used in 2 player games.

In fact, this is the very reason Castles has 8 different cards rather than 12.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5939
  • Respect: +23900
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3180 on: July 05, 2016, 02:55:24 pm »
+3

Were there any cards that were meant to be played only by two or only by more than two players? Such as in the rules you say "This card can only be in the supply if there are exactly 2 players"
No. The game tries hard to be reasonable with 2-5 (not as much with 6). Some cards will vary in power level or good-to-existness (e.g. due to being slow) with the player count, but I don't want anything to be just unplayable or game-ruining.

I can imagine a game where I might think "this thing should be in it and only works with 2 players and can just say that." Dominion does not look like that game to me.
Logged

Loschmidt

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • Respect: +61
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3181 on: July 06, 2016, 04:39:39 am »
0

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3182 on: July 06, 2016, 08:20:33 am »
0

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
If you destroyed all their treasure with Theif or something they couldn't do anything if they had debt.
Logged

tailred

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
  • Shuffle iT Username: ceviri
  • Respect: +368
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3183 on: July 06, 2016, 08:44:37 am »
0

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
If you destroyed all their treasure with Theif or something they couldn't do anything if they had debt.
If you destroyed all their treasures and couldn't do anything with debt they wouldn't be able to do anything without debt anyways. Most of the time.
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3184 on: July 06, 2016, 08:58:25 am »
0

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
If you destroyed all their treasure with Theif or something they couldn't do anything if they had debt.
If you destroyed all their treasures and couldn't do anything with debt they wouldn't be able to do anything without debt anyways. Most of the time.
They can always buy coppers and curses. Unless if those piles are gone too.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3842
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2420
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3185 on: July 06, 2016, 09:27:21 am »
+1

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
If you destroyed all their treasure with Theif or something they couldn't do anything if they had debt.
If you destroyed all their treasures and couldn't do anything with debt they wouldn't be able to do anything without debt anyways. Most of the time.
They can always buy coppers and curses. Unless if those piles are gone too.

You can't buy anything if you have debt, including Coppers and Curses.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3186 on: July 06, 2016, 10:16:22 am »
+1

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
If you destroyed all their treasure with Theif or something they couldn't do anything if they had debt.
If you destroyed all their treasures and couldn't do anything with debt they wouldn't be able to do anything without debt anyways. Most of the time.
They can always buy coppers and curses. Unless if those piles are gone too.

You can't buy anything if you have debt, including Coppers and Curses.

Exactly. He was explaining why having debt it worse than not having debt in that situation.

Giving out debt as an attack is a terrible idea. It's just Bridge Troll or Cutpurse without the built-in limitations that stop it from being an awful experience. If you can give out debt as an attack, you can create a pin. You would just need to build an engine that gives more debt than the other player can produce in coins each turn.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 10:23:25 am by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +775
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3187 on: July 06, 2016, 10:23:49 am »
0

'Everyone who does not has debt, gets a debt token.'
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3188 on: July 06, 2016, 10:31:37 am »
0

'Everyone who does not has debt, gets a debt token.'

Which is essentially the same thing as "Everyone takes their -$1 token".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +775
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3189 on: July 06, 2016, 10:34:21 am »
+1

With that difference that it stacks with the token!
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3190 on: July 06, 2016, 10:46:12 am »
0

This makes me think of an actual question.

Donald, when determining the mechanics for debt, did you consider making the rule match the $-1 token? Instead of "paying off debt" and "can't buy a card while you have debt"; just say that buying a debt card gives a number of $-1 tokens with the same rule that already existed for those tokens.

The biggest differences would be that you could still buy $0 cards and events.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5939
  • Respect: +23900
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3191 on: July 06, 2016, 04:11:08 pm »
+2

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
I considered such an attack multiple times, but did not ever try one. One issue is making sure it isn't too oppressive; another is, given that, making it not too much like Bridge Troll. I might have managed to make one meeting those needs but had no obligation, and hey there's already Bridge Troll. And I did do Tax.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5939
  • Respect: +23900
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3192 on: July 06, 2016, 04:14:57 pm »
+3

Donald, when determining the mechanics for debt, did you consider making the rule match the $-1 token? Instead of "paying off debt" and "can't buy a card while you have debt"; just say that buying a debt card gives a number of $-1 tokens with the same rule that already existed for those tokens.

The biggest differences would be that you could still buy $0 cards and events.
I did not ever consider doing that.

Debt version one was "Debt (You may buy this for $0, but can't buy more cards until paying it off.)" You took 10D when buying a card with Debt that cost $10.

Debt version two was "When you gain this during your turn, take 8D." The cards typically cost $0.

Debt version three was a cost of 8D in the corner, which is how it ended up.

In all cases the Debt tokens themselves worked the same. I did briefly try letting you buy Events while in Debt.
Logged

Loschmidt

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • Respect: +61
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3193 on: July 06, 2016, 09:09:57 pm »
0

Was there ever an attack that gave out debt? It seems like a pretty basic idea so I assumed you tried it. I suppose it either ends up boring or dominant like most obvious ideas.

Oh wait -  it would be too similar to Bridge Troll?
I considered such an attack multiple times, but did not ever try one. One issue is making sure it isn't too oppressive; another is, given that, making it not too much like Bridge Troll. I might have managed to make one meeting those needs but had no obligation, and hey there's already Bridge Troll. And I did do Tax.

Yeah I think Tax is a much more interesting take on the attack :) Gives bastard like me the joy of dismantling someone's strategy by taxing key cards but doesn't actually bury someone under an impossible amount of debt.

I still think there's something cute about the debt version of bridge troll, where the defensive play is to just already be in debt. But I suppose you still get that interaction with the self-inflicted -1 token.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3194 on: July 07, 2016, 02:32:55 pm »
0

Quote
I tried a Treasure - Duration. To not be wonky with cards like Counterfeit, it had to have an "if this is in play" clause on the next turn's +$2.

Can you explain this? What makes this any different from Procession with Action-Durations?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7350
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10342
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3195 on: July 07, 2016, 03:03:54 pm »
0

Quote
I tried a Treasure - Duration. To not be wonky with cards like Counterfeit, it had to have an "if this is in play" clause on the next turn's +$2.

Can you explain this? What makes this any different from Procession with Action-Durations?

There are more ways to remove Treasures from play than there are to remove Actions from play, and unlike Procession (which stays in play to remind you, or at least used to), Herbalist/Mint/Mandarin don't have any tracking mechanism.

It's not that it couldn't have been done, it just seemed not-great to do. That's my recollection, anyway.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5939
  • Respect: +23900
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3196 on: July 07, 2016, 03:58:42 pm »
+6

Quote
I tried a Treasure - Duration. To not be wonky with cards like Counterfeit, it had to have an "if this is in play" clause on the next turn's +$2.

Can you explain this? What makes this any different from Procession with Action-Durations?
It's bad that Procession has a tracking-poor interaction with durations. And there was no fix for it (saying "non-duration" doesn't catch Throne Rooms on duration cards). I could do Procession or not. It seemed sufficiently fun to do anyway.

It was bad that that Treasure-Duration had a tracking-poor interaction with various cards. But I could just fix it so I did. Fixing it was better than not fixing it! Then the card wasn't fun enough to make the set, but that's not so related.
Logged

arcee

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
  • Shuffle iT Username: rchandra
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3197 on: July 11, 2016, 04:47:14 pm »
+2

Do you give any thought to the alphabetic distribution of cards in sets?  For example, Empires has 7 piles beginning with C, and 2/3 of its cards in the first half of the alphabet.  Cornucopia has most of the set beginning with F and H.

(Also, did you have to put Empires in between Dark Ages and Guilds?  Those two were sharing a binder page, since small sets take 1.5 pages.  Worked well for Alchemy / Cornucopia, too)
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5939
  • Respect: +23900
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3198 on: July 11, 2016, 05:18:34 pm »
+3

Do you give any thought to the alphabetic distribution of cards in sets?  For example, Empires has 7 piles beginning with C, and 2/3 of its cards in the first half of the alphabet.  Cornucopia has most of the set beginning with F and H.
I do not give that any thought at all.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #3199 on: July 12, 2016, 01:16:08 pm »
+1

So I taught this to someone recently who really loved it (and she's not a gamer). She wanted to know if there was a Dragon card or something similar. I said that you tend to keep it within reality and not fantasy, but she pointed out Witch. And then there's also Scrying Pool, Transmute, Transmogrify... a few things that are more fantasy than reality. So my question is, would Dragon be the type of thing that could exist on a card, or does that seem outside of the theme for you?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0
Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 208  All
 

Page created in 0.097 seconds with 22 queries.