Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 192 193 [194] 195 196 ... 202  All

Author Topic: Interview with Donald X.  (Read 994825 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4825 on: March 10, 2020, 04:45:17 pm »
+8

Did you discover the Penultimate Province rule in playtesting (before the game was published)?
It went way past that. The original end condition was any empty pile. We had the penultimate Lab rule and so on. And a card like Remodel, you better leave 4 of those (there were 12 cards in each pile).
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +363
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4826 on: March 11, 2020, 01:47:05 am »
+2

Do you think there's enough design space left in overpay to bring it back in another hypothetical future expansion? Especially if you can put it on an event (I suppose you could put it on a project, but I personally see no clean way to do so and don't find it compelling enough to force it)
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4827 on: March 11, 2020, 04:31:03 am »
+7

Do you think there's enough design space left in overpay to bring it back in another hypothetical future expansion? Especially if you can put it on an event (I suppose you could put it on a project, but I personally see no clean way to do so and don't find it compelling enough to force it)
These days I am not fond of how wordy the overpay cards are, except for Masterpiece. It's not impossible to avoid that, to have a single-line vanilla top, but. An Event with a variable cost would be better since it doesn't have to also say what the card does. Of course an Event with +Buy is already like this.
Logged

crj

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1415
  • Respect: +1573
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4828 on: March 11, 2020, 07:44:16 pm »
+1

Out of interest, did you consider reducing the wordiness of over-pay with some special symbology, like you did with debt? For that matter, was the terser debt notation borne out of your experience with over-pay?

(I'm liking the idea of an over-pay Event, and even idly pondering the idea of an over-pay Project...)
Logged

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
  • Respect: +480
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4829 on: March 11, 2020, 07:59:48 pm »
0

Out of interest, did you consider reducing the wordiness of over-pay with some special symbology, like you did with debt? For that matter, was the terser debt notation borne out of your experience with over-pay?

(I'm liking the idea of an over-pay Event, and even idly pondering the idea of an over-pay Project...)

Something like, to use the example of Masterpiece, "Gain 1 Silver per [symbol]"?  Perhaps with an up arrow or something similar for a symbol, and a general rule that "you can overpay if, and only if, a card contains an instruction with [symbol]"?
Logged
They/them

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4830 on: March 12, 2020, 12:35:16 am »
+2

Out of interest, did you consider reducing the wordiness of over-pay with some special symbology, like you did with debt? For that matter, was the terser debt notation borne out of your experience with over-pay?

(I'm liking the idea of an over-pay Event, and even idly pondering the idea of an over-pay Project...)
I didn't consider not spelling out overpay on those cards. Debt at times was spelled out on the cards; it was certainly great to just have a symbol and make you go to the rulebook. I don't think overpay was an influence specifically.

To have a symbol instead, you need to make them all work the same way (no Stonemason) and ideally with no parameter (always $1 per effect). It does save about two lines. It would be like:

Masterpiece: Treasure, $3
$1
----------
[symbol]: Gain a Silver.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2696
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4831 on: March 12, 2020, 12:44:15 am »
+1

Did you ever considered overpay with other kinds of currency?  Something like overpaying debt seems interesting.
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

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4832 on: March 12, 2020, 12:56:28 am »
+3

Did you ever considered overpay with other kinds of currency?  Something like overpaying debt seems interesting.
I didn't consider it for Guilds as there was no debt. For Empires I don't know if it came up. Debt had issues, resulting in the specific cards that use it; they aren't first guesses. So it's not like I was looking for a challenge, can I do overpay here. It was enough to get the cards I got, and they weren't lacking in appeal either; I needed no further twist.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4539
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2181
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4833 on: March 12, 2020, 10:40:32 am »
0

Small Castle says

"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."

Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
  • Respect: +1663
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4834 on: March 12, 2020, 12:22:36 pm »
+1

Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

That would allow a hand of Small Castle and KC to gain three Castles, I think. It would also mean Necromancer on a trashed Small Castle would let you gain a Castle (with no other Castle in hand).
Logged

silverspawn

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4539
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +2181
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4835 on: March 12, 2020, 01:27:32 pm »
+1

Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

That would allow a hand of Small Castle and KC to gain three Castles, I think. It would also mean Necromancer on a trashed Small Castle would let you gain a Castle (with no other Castle in hand).

I know, but it doesn't seem obvious that those are bigger problems than for soothsayer. They're stronger but will happen less often. And KC has lots of super-strong combos. If you KC a remodel on a fortress you gain three cards.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
  • Respect: +1663
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4836 on: March 12, 2020, 02:00:09 pm »
+2

Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

That would allow a hand of Small Castle and KC to gain three Castles, I think. It would also mean Necromancer on a trashed Small Castle would let you gain a Castle (with no other Castle in hand).

I know, but it doesn't seem obvious that those are bigger problems than for soothsayer. They're stronger but will happen less often. And KC has lots of super-strong combos. If you KC a remodel on a fortress you gain three cards.

If the goal is economy of text and not some functional change, some new cards (or new version of old cards?) have used the "trash ... to ... (benefit)" pattern.

With that pattern, Small Castle would read like:

"Trash this or a Castle from your hand to gain a Castle"
Logged

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4837 on: March 12, 2020, 02:03:43 pm »
0

Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

That would allow a hand of Small Castle and KC to gain three Castles, I think. It would also mean Necromancer on a trashed Small Castle would let you gain a Castle (with no other Castle in hand).
Based on more recent cards "Trash this or a castle from your hand to gain a castle." would maintain the current behaviour.
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4838 on: March 12, 2020, 02:49:37 pm »
+1

Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

That would allow a hand of Small Castle and KC to gain three Castles, I think. It would also mean Necromancer on a trashed Small Castle would let you gain a Castle (with no other Castle in hand).

I know, but it doesn't seem obvious that those are bigger problems than for soothsayer. They're stronger but will happen less often. And KC has lots of super-strong combos. If you KC a remodel on a fortress you gain three cards.

The difference is that the combo for Castles benefits the player who plays it, whereas the combo for Soothsayer benefits everyone else and not the player who plays it, so nobody will ever be incentivized to use it. Also, I'm pretty sure that with that wording, you can choose to "trash a Castle from your hand" and then not have a Castle in your hand, but still gain a Castle at no cost, regardless of KC/TR/Necromancer/anything else's presence.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 02:50:47 pm by hhelibebcnofnena »
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4839 on: March 12, 2020, 03:51:42 pm »
+4

Small Castle says

"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."

Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.
For Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.

For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4840 on: March 13, 2020, 11:27:41 am »
+2

To have a symbol instead, you need to make them all work the same way (no Stonemason) and ideally with no parameter (always $1 per effect). It does save about two lines. It would be like:

Masterpiece: Treasure, $3
$1
----------
[symbol]: Gain a Silver.

Hmm, what about:

Masterpiece/Doctor/Herald: For each [symbol]: Do the thing
Stonemason: Gain 2 Action cards each costing $1 per [symbol]

Although now you can't get potion-cost cards with Stonemason.

LostPhoenix

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lost Phoenix
  • Your resident lurker
  • Respect: +302
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4841 on: March 13, 2020, 12:15:13 pm »
+1

To have a symbol instead, you need to make them all work the same way (no Stonemason) and ideally with no parameter (always $1 per effect). It does save about two lines. It would be like:

Masterpiece: Treasure, $3
$1
----------
[symbol]: Gain a Silver.

Hmm, what about:

Masterpiece/Doctor/Herald: For each [symbol]: Do the thing
Stonemason: Gain 2 Action cards each costing $1 per [symbol]

Although now you can't get potion-cost cards with Stonemason.

Adding an "X" cost could work.
Masterpiece: Treasure - $3$X
When you buy this, gain a Silver per X spent.

Stonemason: Action - $2$X
When you buy this, gain two action cards, each costing $X.

The downside of this is that it necessitates the adding of another symbol next to the coin cost.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2696
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4842 on: March 13, 2020, 04:40:19 pm »
+5

The downside of this is that it necessitates the adding of another symbol next to the coin cost.

Like a plus?
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

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4843 on: March 13, 2020, 05:49:57 pm »
0

Adding an "X" cost could work.
Masterpiece: Treasure - $3$X
When you buy this, gain a Silver per X spent.

Stonemason: Action - $2$X
When you buy this, gain two action cards, each costing $X.

The downside of this is that it necessitates the adding of another symbol next to the coin cost.

How would you separate that on Masterpiece it means coin while on Stonemason it doesn't?

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4844 on: March 13, 2020, 05:59:35 pm »
0

Adding an "X" cost could work.
Masterpiece: Treasure - $3$X
When you buy this, gain a Silver per X spent.

Stonemason: Action - $2$X
When you buy this, gain two action cards, each costing $X.

The downside of this is that it necessitates the adding of another symbol next to the coin cost.

How would you separate that on Masterpiece it means coin while on Stonemason it doesn't?

Pretty sure this version of Stonemason just wouldn't be able to do Potion stuff, which would probably be just fine.
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

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4845 on: March 13, 2020, 06:14:37 pm »
0

I thought LostPhoenix was trying to solve the potion problem, but I guess he/she was just suggesting another notation.

J Reggie

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
  • Shuffle iT Username: J Reggie
  • Respect: +1214
    • View Profile
    • Jeff Rosenthal Music
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4846 on: March 13, 2020, 06:19:10 pm »
0

Also I'm pretty sure besides symbols introduced in the base set, the only symbols on cards refer to actual physical components.

LostPhoenix

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lost Phoenix
  • Your resident lurker
  • Respect: +302
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4847 on: March 13, 2020, 09:30:08 pm »
0

I thought LostPhoenix was trying to solve the potion problem, but I guess he/she was just suggesting another notation.

This is correct. I missed that last sentence from your post.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2696
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4848 on: March 14, 2020, 12:59:08 am »
+3

Also I'm pretty sure besides symbols introduced in the base set, the only symbols on cards refer to actual physical components.

Like a plus?

(sorry)
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

Hockey Mask

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
  • Respect: +178
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4849 on: March 14, 2020, 06:14:39 am »
+1

How did you decide which animals matched to which Ways actions?
Logged
-The Compulsive Completist
Pages: 1 ... 192 193 [194] 195 196 ... 202  All
 

Page created in 0.123 seconds with 21 queries.