Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 15  All

Author Topic: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity  (Read 96856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #175 on: September 03, 2013, 04:34:01 pm »
+5

I am used to design fan cards in the German Dominion forum, where this contest was "promoted" what means that I want to participate here. :)
Due to the long list and all the comments that exist now, I'd like to just comment on the most interesting cards that I consider to vote for.


Quote
Metropolis
Types: Action
Cost: $7
+1 Card. +2 Actions. Treasure cards other than Copper produce an extra $1 this turn.
I like this as a kind of mega-Bazaar, supporting a chain that includes Treasures other than copper. I don't think it is too weak, since it should easily produce $2 (which would be the exspected thing compared to Bazaar) and even more. Maybe it should be "while this is in play".

Quote
Charity (A)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
Worth $4. +1 Buy.

While this is in play, when you buy a card, each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.
With "may gain" and without the possibility to gain Victory cards, I do like that card a lot. Otherwise, a colony would only be worth 4 VP to you - so the Charity would not be worth $7.

Quote
Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $7
Gain two action cards costing less than this and a Gold.
I agree with XerxesPraelor and markusin that this would be a nice "big gain" if it only gains one action.

Quote
Forum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

While this is in play, when you play a Silver, you may trash that Silver. If you do, +1 VP.
Trashing average cards for VP is so cute! But I think this card could also cost $4 or even $3. Also, there is that unclear question about multiple Forums.

Quote
Villa
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Play up to 2 Treasures from your hand. Draw until you have 4 cards in hand.
Has some interactions with other cards referring to Treasures. The nonterminal draw-to-4-effect could also lead to new considerations.

Quote
Charity (B)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Worth $1. When you play this, choose one: Each player gains a Copper; or each player gains a Silver. Either way, put the card you gained into your hand.
Has to be an attack. Why not "Gain a Treasure and put it into your hand. Each other player gains a copy of this Treasure"? It would be strong to gain a Platinum, but the other players would profit even more from it. I'm not sure.
But also in that version, this is a quite nice interactive treasure-gainer to me.

Quote
Savant
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. +1 Action. Each other player draws a card, then reveals and discards one or more cards. He gets +1 VP per Action or Treasure card he discards.
A nice simple answer to the game-end question of VP chips: You don't want them! But I think it is too easy to gain VP for copper, which should be excluded imo. Could also cost $5, then maybe without forcing opponents to discard.

Quote
Indulgence
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Worth $2. +1 Buy. When you play this, the player to your left names a card in the Supply costing between $3 and $6. If you buy that card this turn, +2VP.
Would have loved something like this in the space of Contraband. Instead of deleting buy options, it adds a new buy decision. However, this is not really my favourite. At most times, you get the option to gain a dead card with 2 VP. This is between Estate and Duchy. The card is interesting but not really giving a new touch to the game.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #176 on: September 03, 2013, 04:37:13 pm »
+9

I played a Province game with Indulgence (because the majority of games using any given card are going to be Province games).
It was disappointing.

Of course it is very board dependent, but the fact is that there are only so many +Actions you can have on a board and there will almost always be a $3 to $6 terminal Action to pick that you simply can't afford to purchase more than once. If you get enough Indulgences into play to get good cards named, you probably have the kind of economy that should be buying the superior game ending Provinces anyway. Buying "useful" cards for +2VP will be better in Colony games, however a selection of Actions become significantly worse in Colony games, making it even harder to have good cards named in addition to +2VP being less significant there.

In the particular game I played, I built an engine to draw my deck and by the time I managed to get more than one Indulgence into play to get something decent named, I had $16 (between coin tokens from Plaza, the Indulgences themselves, and my Treasures) so it was so much better to buy 2 Provinces for 12VP than to buy a Navigator and Jester for +4VP, doubly so that it won the game for me.

I'm also sitting here and analyzing a bunch of different boards with Indulgence in them and, to be quite frank, there almost always looks to be something better on the table than trying to get 3 Indulgences into play to buy a decent Action for +2VP-- and in many boards getting those Indulgences and getting them into play is going to be tough.
Here's a randomized game in which I think Indulgence could be used decently (requiring 4 cards from Prosperity because this is supposed to fit in there, right?):
Embargo, Scrying Pool, Watchtower, Workshop, Worker's Village, Indulgence, Rabble, Treasury, Adventurer, Expand
Players would likely name Workshop and Adventurer, both of which could be dealt with for the sake of +2VP, but that's assuming no one embargoes any piles. Watchtower probably isn't worth buying just to try to get Indulgence to work through an Embargo.

I think the card is cute, but it feels a lot like Contraband and looks as though it will too often play as nothing more than a Silver with a +Buy, making me hesitant to put it in ahead of some of the more original cards.
My opinions on the rest of the cards are forthcoming.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #177 on: September 03, 2013, 04:49:08 pm »
0

Interesting analysis, Fragasnap.  I was actually worried it would be too good, but maybe it's just fine.  Even though it seems not always useful in the games where you tested it, I think that's alright.  Not every card needs to be a star all the time.  This can still be great on a board with decent cheap cards, and there are certainly boards that can accommodate a few extra terminals.  Consider that Victory cards like Island and Tunnel are sometimes bought in the late game just for the 2VP; that can justify buying a junky Workshop for the 2VP from Indulgence.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #178 on: September 03, 2013, 05:18:35 pm »
0

Thanks for testing it, Fragasnap. I can see what you mean, but I'm hoping the card can be fixed (if it wins and your experience is borne out over multiple test games).

Before the current version you see in this thread, the creator of Indulgence submitted a village version of the card. Perhaps something in that vein would work better, making it easier to play more of them in a single turn. Even a super-cheap cantrip version of the card might be worth looking into. Of course, naming too many cards would start to slow the game down…

I think it would be a shame to give up on such a promising mechanic too soon.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 05:23:21 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #179 on: September 03, 2013, 05:44:12 pm »
+1

Another potential buff is for the opponent to name two cards, rather than only one.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #180 on: September 03, 2013, 05:50:37 pm »
+1

Another potential buff is for the opponent to name two cards, rather than only one.

A change (not necessarily buff) is to have them name two [different] cards, each of which would grant +1VP.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #181 on: September 03, 2013, 06:10:45 pm »
0

Another potential buff is for the opponent to name two cards, rather than only one.

A change (not necessarily buff) is to have them name two [different] cards, each of which would grant +1VP.

These are definitely both options, but again they may slow the game down quite significantly. The more cards that have to be named, the more AP.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1323
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1379
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #182 on: September 03, 2013, 07:19:38 pm »
0

I've certainly bought Workshop before for the primary purpose of getting $4 engine parts with it, and would certainly do so if it came with 2VP attached from an Indulgence. :)
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!'

Nic

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
  • Respect: +85
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #183 on: September 03, 2013, 07:48:04 pm »
0

I played a Province game with Indulgence (because the majority of games using any given card are going to be Province games).
It was disappointing.

Of course it is very board dependent, but the fact is that there are only so many +Actions you can have on a board and there will almost always be a $3 to $6 terminal Action to pick that you simply can't afford to purchase more than once. If you get enough Indulgences into play to get good cards named, you probably have the kind of economy that should be buying the superior game ending Provinces anyway. Buying "useful" cards for +2VP will be better in Colony games, however a selection of Actions become significantly worse in Colony games, making it even harder to have good cards named in addition to +2VP being less significant there.

In the particular game I played, I built an engine to draw my deck and by the time I managed to get more than one Indulgence into play to get something decent named, I had $16 (between coin tokens from Plaza, the Indulgences themselves, and my Treasures) so it was so much better to buy 2 Provinces for 12VP than to buy a Navigator and Jester for +4VP, doubly so that it won the game for me.

Well, good thing I didn't write up my half-assed ideas on how to nerf the card before you posted that. If I learned anything from reading the old Soothsayer thread, any two playtesters will have three differing opinions about a card. Not only is it a playtest just of that board, but also of the playstyles of the people involved.

I'm sure we'll get more reports to read in the next 13 weeks (it's guaranteed to win one of the Prosperity contests) but I'd really like to hear how it does with strong TfB on the board. With Remodel, Apprentice, or even Procession, buying the . . . sanctified? . . . card every time you play an Indulgence could be a good way to build a fuel-hungry trashing engine. If that's the card's real strength, then it'll be a good card overall, even if it's not a power 5. (Come to think of it, slog boards might be interesting as well, if emptying the Province pile is unrealistic.)

I'll try to get a game or two in this weekend, but that will depend on the opponents. Another request for future playtesters; play a few games where you decide beforehand which player is going to pursue an Indulgence strategy, and which one will avoid them. In general, the player who's tied down to a strategy will lose, but I'd like to know how the gap between their scores compares with the total VP chips collected.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 07:50:03 pm by Nic »
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #184 on: September 03, 2013, 09:09:53 pm »
+3

A card that is sometimes a silver with +buy isn't the worst thing ever. I do expect Indulgence to require the purchase of a card that is functionally an expensive ruins for the vp.

The most comical selection for Indulgence would be Mint.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #185 on: September 03, 2013, 11:05:51 pm »
+10

My thoughts, in an idea blatantly ripped of from which is an homage to Tables, whose accent is approximately 832 times as cool as mine:


A few highlights:
Terribroken cards - my term for cards which are often terrible, but overpowered when they are good - are, as always a problem.

Mediator's main effect can't be that strong. You guys just see terminal gold, but the drawback is basically ALWAYS costing you at least $1. Ok, you can maybe get a weird case where you can always topdeck a good card for next turn, but I feel like for that much work, you can let them have it.

Hunter is probably not too weak - early on, you get better benefits than forge, you get it faster than forge, the loss of gaining cards isn't always even a loss... I dunno, seems pretty much all around better than forge in games you'd want forge - without being too close to strictly better or overpowered.

Philanthropist is surely the weakest card around. Compare to Sea Hag, it's almost strictly worse - they take duchy, and compared to Sea Hag, you have essentially given them a confusion rather than a curse, and you haven't top-decked. And okay, worse than sea hag isn't necessarily condemnation, but there's most often something better to get than duchy..... Basically, I think the opponent is probably even getting a better effect than you fairly often, and we aren't even talking opportunity cost yet...

Indulgence: I feel like this card is too strong. Basically, what card would I not buy for an extra 2 VP? Virtually none of them. Okay, too many terminals you say. But this is a treasure! There aren't many terminals you can just buy too many of straight off the bat, particularly when basically any village just gets you there anyway. I do like the idea of the card, incentivizing you go buy weaker cards, sort of an anti contraband or anti embargo, but I feel like it would be better served being either only 1 vp, or being a terminal action (*possibly* costing 4).

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Respect: +1705
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #186 on: September 03, 2013, 11:42:21 pm »
0

A card that is sometimes a silver with +buy isn't the worst thing ever. I do expect Indulgence to require the purchase of a card that is functionally an expensive ruins for the vp.

The most comical selection for Indulgence would be Mint.
Or Grand Market when you're pretty sure they need coppers to get to $6. Playing Indulgence + Contraband would probably hurt you most of the time, but would also give the player to your left a headache dealing with the mindgames.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #187 on: September 04, 2013, 12:09:24 am »
0

If Fragasnap's experience turns out to be the norm (Indulgence's effect is not worth going for by the time you can play a few), then another possible fix is to make it produce $1 and cost it at $4.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #188 on: September 04, 2013, 12:15:40 am »
+5

Fragasnap had me wondering if it would be weak, and but then WanderingWinder made me second guess that.  Maybe the issue is feeling like you need to make the incentivized purchase every play?  Suppose Thief is the weak link on the board.  You probably don't want to buy 5 Thieves, but if you buy the Thief just once, then the Indulgence was effectively a cheaper Harem with a +1 Buy.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #189 on: September 04, 2013, 08:01:16 am »
+1

Philanthropist is surely the weakest card around. Compare to Sea Hag, it's almost strictly worse - they take duchy, and compared to Sea Hag, you have essentially given them a confusion rather than a curse, and you haven't top-decked. And okay, worse than sea hag isn't necessarily condemnation, but there's most often something better to get than duchy..... Basically, I think the opponent is probably even getting a better effect than you fairly often, and we aren't even talking opportunity cost yet...

Indulgence: I feel like this card is too strong. Basically, what card would I not buy for an extra 2 VP? Virtually none of them. Okay, too many terminals you say. But this is a treasure! There aren't many terminals you can just buy too many of straight off the bat, particularly when basically any village just gets you there anyway. I do like the idea of the card, incentivizing you go buy weaker cards, sort of an anti contraband or anti embargo, but I feel like it would be better served being either only 1 vp, or being a terminal action (*possibly* costing 4).

Interesting thoughts there. I never really considered how Philanthropist can, lategame, kind of be a junking attacking that's not an attack, and be pretty weak at it. But personally, I do like the concept, maybe the numbers just need a little tweaking? I'm sure playtesting would reveal what numbers might work. Perhaps +4 VPs, or they gain a card costing up to $4, or dropping the cost to $3. I feel like +4 VPs is most likely to work out of those, but that feels far too big. I think you're right that it's probably a touch too weak currently. Perhaps making it non-terminal and reducing the numbers (+1 action, +2VPs, each other player may gain a card costing up to $4) would be another possibility.

Indulgence, I think you might be right, but it's going to vary a lot depending on which card is picked and what's already in your deck. +2 VPs is a lot - it's the difference between $3 Silver and $6 Harem, or $4 Smithy and $6 Nobles (ish). Even things like Navigator, Scout and the like, might be worth grabbing when they're also worth 2 VPs (well, it's still probably questionable in Scout's case, depending on the board).

Quick rules question actually: Are the Knights that aren't on top of the pile at that moment 'in the supply'? What about empty supply piles? If not, well... that's one way to destroy the card's value. I suppose you can easily throw the word 'visible' in there to fix that though.
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.

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #190 on: September 04, 2013, 09:34:40 am »
+3

Quick rules question actually: Are the Knights that aren't on top of the pile at that moment 'in the supply'? What about empty supply piles?

No—cf. Band of Misfits.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2816
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3347
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #191 on: September 04, 2013, 11:13:07 am »
0

Ah, yes, good call.
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.

HeavyD

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #192 on: September 04, 2013, 11:46:54 am »
0

Are we supposed to PM Lastfootnote for voting or will the ballots be posted elsewhere?

I'm guessing the later and it hasn't been set up yet?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #193 on: September 04, 2013, 11:49:02 am »
0

My thoughts, in an idea blatantly ripped of from which is an homage to Tables, whose accent is approximately 832 times as cool as mine:


A few highlights:
Terribroken cards - my term for cards which are often terrible, but overpowered when they are good - are, as always a problem.

Mediator's main effect can't be that strong. You guys just see terminal gold, but the drawback is basically ALWAYS costing you at least $1. Ok, you can maybe get a weird case where you can always topdeck a good card for next turn, but I feel like for that much work, you can let them have it.

Hunter is probably not too weak - early on, you get better benefits than forge, you get it faster than forge, the loss of gaining cards isn't always even a loss... I dunno, seems pretty much all around better than forge in games you'd want forge - without being too close to strictly better or overpowered.

Philanthropist is surely the weakest card around. Compare to Sea Hag, it's almost strictly worse - they take duchy, and compared to Sea Hag, you have essentially given them a confusion rather than a curse, and you haven't top-decked. And okay, worse than sea hag isn't necessarily condemnation, but there's most often something better to get than duchy..... Basically, I think the opponent is probably even getting a better effect than you fairly often, and we aren't even talking opportunity cost yet...

Indulgence: I feel like this card is too strong. Basically, what card would I not buy for an extra 2 VP? Virtually none of them. Okay, too many terminals you say. But this is a treasure! There aren't many terminals you can just buy too many of straight off the bat, particularly when basically any village just gets you there anyway. I do like the idea of the card, incentivizing you go buy weaker cards, sort of an anti contraband or anti embargo, but I feel like it would be better served being either only 1 vp, or being a terminal action (*possibly* costing 4).

Listened.  You liked my card, hurrah. ;)

Ignoring the reaction, I don't think Mediator is too strong or too weak, actually.  A good comparison is Horse Traders.  HT gives +$3 (and +1 Buy) in exchange for your worst two cards.  Mediator gives +$3 in exchange for your third worst card.  But Mediator only costs $3 and you can potentially play some tricks  with it to top deck a good card or something.  I think it's actually fine.  My hang up with Mediator is that the connection to Prosperity is weak, IMO.

Interesting thought on Philanthropist, hmm.

I don't think it's really that strong.  Yeah OK, buy a Thief or a Scout for 2VP.  But how many times are you willing to do that?  Probably not a lot, at least until the late game.  And then there's the opportunity cost of what you could have bought instead of that weak action.  I still think that dropping the +Buy would be a good change to make.  But the main concept is interesting and there should be many easy tweaks that would bring it in line.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #194 on: September 04, 2013, 11:59:46 am »
0

Are we supposed to PM Lastfootnote for voting or will the ballots be posted elsewhere?

I'm guessing the later and it hasn't been set up yet?

PM me with your votes. Please indicate in your PM that it's a Prosperity ballot. The polls are now open.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #195 on: September 04, 2013, 12:14:18 pm »
0

Also, please remember to vote for cards that you think could be good with an easy fix that most people seem to want.

Example: Charity (A) where the gain is conditional.
Logged

Just a Rube

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #196 on: September 04, 2013, 01:39:30 pm »
0

Also, please remember to vote for cards that you think could be good with an easy fix that most people seem to want.

Example: Charity (A) where the gain is conditional.
So in this instance would your vote read:

"Charity (A)"
or
"Charity (A) [modified so the gain is conditional]"

Just trying to get the formatting straight.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #197 on: September 04, 2013, 01:46:57 pm »
0

Also, please remember to vote for cards that you think could be good with an easy fix that most people seem to want.

Example: Charity (A) where the gain is conditional.
So in this instance would your vote read:

"Charity (A)"
or
"Charity (A) [modified so the gain is conditional]"

Just trying to get the formatting straight.

Just vote Charity (A). Once a card wins, I plan to have a playtesting and tweaking period.
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #198 on: September 04, 2013, 01:56:09 pm »
0

What I like in a fan card (not hard and fast constraints, though):
-- Main idea of the card is interesting
-- Simple to understand and implement (I strongly prefer cards that have 40 words or less).
-- No difficult “accounting problems” (additional mats, tokens, scorekeeping, side games, etc.)
-- Perceived balance in ability and reasonable (but tweakable) cost.
-- I definitely have a soft spot in my heart for non-attack interaction and positive externalites.
-- If I’d rather play with an existing Dominion card (or another fan card) in the kingdom instead of the card in question, that card can’t get my vote.

Additional things for Prosperity:
-- I tend to vote for weaker cards rather than the next King’s Court or Rebuild. However, some of the strongest cards in Dominion are in Prosperity (e.g. King’s Court, Goons, Bank, Monument) partly because of the high costs involved.
-- I tend to dislike swingy cards. However, Prosperity cards are the swingiest in Dominion (King’s Court, Counting House, and Platinum).
-- Because strength and swinginess are hallmarks of Prosperity as much as “spendy” and “expensive” and “VP chips” these will not be negatives for me this time around unless things are just really crazy.

I like to group the cards together for better side-by-side comparison rather than read them in order, then check comments from others on my most and least favorite cards (and my card), so the videos are not conducive to extracting information and opinions for me. I didn’t watch them.

Here we go:

Favorites:
I don’t think there is a standout card in the bunch, so I will probably vote for most of these:

Quote
Surveyor
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. +1 Action. +$1. You may discard a Province or Colony. If you do, +1 VP. You may return 3 VP to the supply. If you do, gain a Province.

I like this VP-Peddler a lot… until that last sentence. I will vote for this on the condition that it is struck. There is no need for it. (Edit: changed my mind.) The card gives you a cantrip way of gaining VP chips (like Baker gives you coin tokens), but limits when you can get those VP chips. It also drives the game towards completion because you need to build a deck able to buy Provinces or Colonies. I am afraid the card may be dead in Colony games, though, so maybe + more VP for discarding a Colony?

I’ve tried so hard to get a card that is a cantrip VP gainer to work, and I think this comes closer than anything I thought of.

Quote
Forum
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

While this is in play, when you play a Silver, you may trash that Silver. If you do, +1 VP.

I like this a lot. But Bishop may have the trash for VP category pretty much figured out. I am not sure yet if I am going to vote for this.

Quote
Deed
Types: Treasure – Reaction
Cost: $5
Worth $2

When you gain a Victory card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +2 VP.

Interesting. I don’t know if it can beat out some of the other Treasures submitted, though. I am also concerned this doesn’t use VP chips in enough of an alt VP way, though.

Quote
Crown (B)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
Worth $4.

When you gain this, each other player gets +2 VP.

This is an interesting externality, but might be too boring. Another bland Treasure at $7 may not look good alongside Bank. I’m not sure yet, though.

Quote
Standard Bearer
Types: Action
Cost: $7
Trash this card. Put your deck (not including your discard pile) into your hand.

Prosperity’s Madman and different enough from the other $7s in how it would play. Nice and simple. May be too swingy, even for Prosperity, though.

Quote
Savant
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. +1 Action. Each other player draws a card, then reveals and discards one or more cards. He gets +1 VP per Action or Treasure card he discards.
Quote
Hedge Fund
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action.
You may return a VP token. If you do, +3 Cards, +1 Buy, and each other player gets +1 VP.

Setup: Each player gets +2 VP.

I like what both of these cards are trying to do. The plus 3 cards plus 1 action with VP chip externality is a concept that I really like and want to vote for.

I will vote for both of these cards with the hope that a rewording will find a nice, clean middle ground. Getting the strength of the externality right will require a little work, too.

Quote
Queen's Palace
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
You may choose a Treasure card in your hand. Play it three times.

The late addition -- I like it! Really feels like Prosperity. But honestly, I might just like the way Counterfeit changes big money games a little bit better. Still thinking about this one...

These Remind me of another Expansion:
I like these cards a lot, but I am not sure I can vote for them as a Prosperity card.

Quote
Stock Exchange
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
Worth $2.

While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, you may buy any number of VP tokens for $1 per token.

I like this a lot! But it really feels like Overpay. I really wish this could be submitted in the Guilds challenge, but since LF has dictated that VP chips must be a Prosperity card, I think I will have to end up voting for it here.

Quote
Wedding
Types: Action
Cost: $7
+1 Action. Reveal cards from the top you your deck until you reveal an Action card, a Treasure card and a Victory card. If you do reveal a card of each of these types, put an Action card, a Treasure card and a Victory card from among the revealed cards into you hand. Discard the other revealed cards.

I want to see this again in Cornucopia or Intrigue. I really like the idea here, and with some tweaking it could be great. For $4 or $5 it could put the first Victory, Action, and Treasure revealed into your hand. It does not sing Prosperity to me, though.

Quote
Patent
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Worth $2.

While this is in play, when you buy a card that is not a Victory card, you may gain a copy of it, putting it on top of your deck. If you do, trash this.

Clever. However, I want to see this in Hinterlands.

Quote
Indulgence
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Worth $2. +1 Buy. When you play this, the player to your left names a card in the Supply costing between $3 and $6. If you buy that card this turn, +2VP.

I feel like this is an opposite Embargo that uses VP chips. Would I just rather play with Embargo? Maybe. But I’m not sure. It also seems to encourage variety. Even though it uses VP chips, it feels more like Cornucopia to me. While it’s a nice card, I don’t find it as exciting as some of the other entries. I haven’t made my mind up on this one, yet.

The Rest:

Quote
Relic
Types: Treasure
Cost: $6
Worth $2. When you play this, you may trash up to 2 cards from your hand and play area. If you trashed at least one Action card, +$2 and +1 VP.

Too much going on.

Quote
Artist
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+$3. You may trash this. If you do, the first time you buy a Victory card this turn, +3 VP.

While this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, +1 VP.

EDIT: Artist fixed. I had missed that it gives +$3.

Rather just play with Goons.

Quote
Usurer
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Card. +1 Action. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Treasure. Discard the rest. Trash the Treasure; gain a Treasure costing up to $3 more than it, putting it on top of your deck. Each other player may gain a Copper, putting it into his hand.

Rebuild for Treasure? I like the positive externality, but not the card as a whole.

Quote
Treasure Chest
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
Worth $1. When you play this, discard the top card of your deck. If it is a Treasure, gain a Silver

Rather play with Masterpiece.

Quote
Strong Room
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+4 Cards. +1 Action. You may return up to 4 VP tokens. Discard 4 cards, minus 1 card per VP token returned.

In games using this, at the beginning of each turn of the player who went first, each player gets +1 VP.

So much accounting. I like the other versions of non-terminal draw better.

Quote
Metropolis
Types: Action
Cost: $7
+1 Card. +2 Actions. Treasure cards other than Copper produce an extra $1 this turn.

Not exciting enough for a $7.

Quote
Chalice
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
Worth $3.

While this is in play, when you buy a Treasure card gain 2 Coppers, when you buy a Victory card gain a Curse.

Not balanced enough. Would rather play with Quarry.

Quote
Gilded Statue
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
Worth $2. When you play this, you may discard a Treasure. If you do, gain a Gold.

When you gain this, gain an Action card costing up to $4.

Not exciting enough for $7.

Quote
Railway Town
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Card. +2 Actions. +$1. If you have played railway town at least twice this turn, +1 Buy. If you have played it at least three times this turn, +1 VP. If you have played it at least four times this turn, +$1. If you have played it at least five times this turn, +1 Card.

This looks familiar! I still don’t like it. While it tries to use the City-leveling technique, there are too many levels, the card is too wordy, and VP token should be the last bonus awarded.

Quote
Charity (A)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
Worth $4. +1 Buy.

While this is in play, when you buy a card, each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

The externality is probably too strong. The card is not that exciting.

Quote
Palace
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. +$1.

While this is in play, during the Buy phase, Colonies cost $2 less, but not less than $0. While this is in play, when you buy a Platinum, +2 VP.
Setup: Add Colony and Platinum to the Supply.

Rather just play with Bridge.

Quote
Crown (A)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $8*
Worth $1. When you play this, gain 2 Treasure cards.

During your turn, this costs $1 less per 2 VP chips you have.
When you gain this, +2 VP.

Seems unfixable. Give me two Platinums, please.

Quote
Cathedral
Types: Action
Cost: $7
Gain two action cards costing less than this and a Gold.

Rather just play with Stonemason.

Quote
King's Greed
Types: Action
Cost: $10
Put your deck into your discard pile. Look through your discard pile and set aside up to 3 Action cards from it. Play them in any order.

Tries to mix Golem with King’s Court. It would not play different enough to justify its existence, I think.

Quote
Mediator
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $3
+$3. Reveal 3 cards from your hand. The player to your left selects one of them. Discard it or put it on top of your deck.

When another player plays an Attack, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, +1 VP, and at the start of your next turn, discard this.

I don’t like either part of this card.

Quote
Prospector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards into your hand. Discard the rest. Each other player may discard a Treasure. If he does, he draws a card.

Seems interesting, but is too strong as is. While a fixed Adventurer would be a good fit for Prosperity, I don’t think this gets close enough for me to vote for it over the other unique ideas submitted.

Quote
Jeweller
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+2 VP. Gain a Gold.

Big Monument? I decided I don’t like the Monument-like cards that just give you VP chips and some other bonus. Monument is good enough for me.

Quote
Hunter
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Trash any number of cards from your hand. For each card you trash, +1 Card and +$1.

Feels like Dark Ages. I would rather play with almost any other Dark Ages trasher.

Quote
Statue
Types: Action
Cost: $7
Discard up to 3 cards from your hand. +1 VP per card discarded.

What’s the drive to the end of the game? Not very exciting for $7.

Quote
Aqueduct (A)
Types: Action
Cost: $7
+2 Buys. +$2. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards into your hand and discard the rest.

I like Prospector better.

Quote
Philanthropist
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+3 VP. Each other player gains a card costing up to $5.

Another Big Monument that doesn’t seem needed.

Quote
Clearing House
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+2 Cards. +1 Action. You may trash any number of Treasure cards from your hand. +1 Card per card trashed in this way.

This is interesting as a Lab variant, but I like a couple other non-terminal draws that have the VP chip externality better for this expansion.

Quote
Workhouse
Types: Action
Cost: $7
+$4.

Cute. But boring.

Quote
Gemstone
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
Worth $1. Rarity cards cost $6 less this turn, but not less than $0.

Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing $5 or more to the Supply. Cards from that pile are Rarity cards and cost $5 more.

Makes a card have a Potion-like alternate cost. No thank you.

Quote
Ascetic
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash this and any number of Treasures from your hand. +1 VP for each Treasure trashed this way.

I’d rather play with Bishop.

Quote
Dividends
Types: Treasure
Cost: $6
Worth $1. When you play this, gain a Treasure card costing less than this, putting it into your hand.

Not as exciting as Hoard.

Quote
Villa
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Play up to 2 Treasures from your hand. Draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Play treasures outside of the buy phase? No thanks. Black Market is horrible enough.

Quote
Golden Touch
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Trash the top card of your deck. Gain a Gold, putting it on top of your deck.

Interesting enough, but doesn’t feel like Prosperity. For another expansion, it would be too swingy.

Quote
Aqueduct (B)
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. +$2. Discard a card. If you do, +1 Card.

While this is in play, Attack cards you play have no effect on other players.

I don’t get why this card would be interesting.

Quote
Inheritance
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Buy.

While this is in play, Treasure cards costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

Why isn’t this a Treasure like Quarry? This doesn’t really do it for me.

Quote
Griffin
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
When you play this, reveal your hand. This is worth $1 per Victory card revealed.

Once per turn, while this is in play, when you buy a Victory card, +1 Buy and +$1.

This is okay. But the below the line ability is just not needed and makes the card too confusing.

Quote
Charity (B)
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
Worth $1. When you play this, choose one: Each player gains a Copper; or each player gains a Silver. Either way, put the card you gained into your hand.

Externality is too strong.

Quote
Fountain
Types: Treasure
Cost: $6
Worth $0. When you play this, if you have no other Treasures in play, +2 VP. You may trash this immediately. If you do, +$2.

Another Big Monument I don’t really like.

Quote
Mafia
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $7
Each other player reveals the top 3 cards of his deck, trashes a revealed Treasure that you choose, and discards the rest. You may gain any or all of the trashed cards. +1 VP per card you gain this way.

Just rather have Thief.

Quote
Witch's Trove
Types: Treasure
Cost: $6
Worth $2. When you play this, reveal you hand and discard all revealed Curses. +$3 for each Curse discarded. You may gain a Curse.

Doesn’t feel like Prosperity.

Quote
Palladium
Types: Treasure
Cost: $7
Worth $4. +1 Buy. When you play this, trash all Treasures you have in play. +1 VP for each card trashed.

Not as good as other $7 cost offerings.

Quote
Banknote
Types: Treasure
Cost: $6
Worth $2. +1 Buy. If you have 4 or more differently named Treasures in play, +$2.

Feels like Cornucopia.

Quote
Reputation
Types: Treasure
Cost: $10*
Worth $4.

Unless in play, this costs $2 less per card costing $6 or more you have in play, but not less than $0.

I don’t like how this does cost reduction for a Treasure.

Quote
Silk Merchant
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+$2. You may trash two cards from your hand. If you do, +1 VP per token on the Trade Route mat.

Setup: Put a token on each Victory card Supply pile. When a card is gained from that pile, move the token to the Trade Route mat.

Clarification: The Trade Route mat and tokens referred to by Silk Merchant are the same as those referred to by Trade Route.  If both Trade Route and Silk Merchant are in the kingdom and/or Black Market deck, use only one token on each victory card pile.

I like Bishop better.

Quote
Smelter
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card, a Treasure card, and a Victory card. Trash an Action card, a Treasure card, and a Victory card from the revealed cards. If you do, gain 3 Golds.

Awkward to set up and trigger. Doesn’t seem that fun.

Quote
Rosary
Types: Treasure – Attack
Cost: $5
Worth $2. When you play this, each other player may trash a Treasure or Action card from his hand. If he does not, he gains 2 Coppers, putting one into his hand.

Not exciting enough of an attack. I like that it’s a weakish attack, though.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 02:42:31 pm by Polk5440 »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Treasure Chest Design Contest — Card #1: Prosperity
« Reply #199 on: September 04, 2013, 01:58:03 pm »
+2

WW, I enjoyed your analysis of the cards, although I don't agree 100% with your critiques. It seems to me that we have slightly differing priorities when rating cards. Your priorities seem to be Elegant > Balanced >> Interesting. Or maybe Balanced > Elegant >> Interesting. For me it's Elegant > Interesting >> Balanced. Balanced is just as important as Interesting and Elegant, but Unbalanced tends to be waaaaaaay easier to fix than Boring or Clunky. Maybe I'm wrong, so forgive me if I'm off base. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

Let's talk about Indulgence.

Indulgence: I feel like this card is too strong. Basically, what card would I not buy for an extra 2 VP? Virtually none of them. Okay, too many terminals you say. But this is a treasure! There aren't many terminals you can just buy too many of straight off the bat, particularly when basically any village just gets you there anyway. I do like the idea of the card, incentivizing you go buy weaker cards, sort of an anti contraband or anti embargo, but I feel like it would be better served being either only 1 vp, or being a terminal action (*possibly* costing 4).

You claim that the card is too strong, then explain why you'd nearly always buy the named card. But I notice that you never really explain how the latter implies the former. Even if I nearly always buy the named card, how does that make the card too strong? Having it where you almost always want to buy the named card is way better than almost never buying it and probably significantly better than buying it about half the time. Otherwise it's mostly a Silver with +1 Buy.

My question for you is, how often is a strategy that includes Indulgences and buys some cards it doesn't really want better than a well-trimmed engine that doesn't buy Indulgences?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 15  All
 

Page created in 2.289 seconds with 23 queries.