Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: horatio83 on July 03, 2015, 10:16:41 am
-
First of all, I know how tricky 8$ cards are. There is only one official one ... and we all know Donald's opinion concerning promos. Prince is fairly board-dependent and it is only worthwhile if you are lucky to draw it together with a decent card that you wanna "prince." The other pseudo-8 card is Possession and like Prince it is also pretty game-changing.
My idea about an 8 card is the very opposite, more or less a vanilla card, a variation of Grand Market:
(http://i.imgur.com/0HeaCer.jpg)
Here is a version of the card. As it does not provide a lot of VPs and as the Coin tokens seem to be the main asset of the card I decided to slightly weaken it like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Fsysytl.jpg)
If we compare it with Donald's Grand Market development precursor, a card that did provide +1 Card, +1 Action, +2 Coins and did cost 7, King costs one more and provides 1 VP token, Grand Market's extra buy and instead of the second virtual money a Coin Token.
My feeling is that the card is too strong for 7 and too weak for 8 (not to mention its vanilla-ish lacklusterness if we compare it with Prince and Possession) so I considered making it an Action-Victory card (just 1VP) but due to formating issues I decided to drop it.
Please feel free to rip it apart.
-
Robert Baratheon = best king ever ^^
okay, more seriously... I would buy this, as this is better than Grand Market, but only in Colony games ! In Province games, Prince would be usually better because you need less cash and to go faster.
Am I wrong ?
-
Robert Baratheon = best king ever ^^
okay, more seriously... I would buy this, as this is better than Grand Market, but only in Colony games ! In Province games, Prince would be usually better because you need less cash and to go faster.
Am I wrong ?
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare it to Prince because the cards do completely different things and usually Prince isn't available when this is, and vice versa.
-
You forgot Peddler!
I think this is too strong. Monument can already create degenerate games where the correct move for both players is to generate a bunch of VP tokens and never progress the game towards a win condition, though it's rare. Bishop can do the same when Fortress is on the board. Putting +VP token on a cantrip (as this card) makes it much easier and more likely for this kind of stalemate to occur. Note how all of the VP token cards are terminal and do not draw.
-
Robert Baratheon = best king ever ^^
okay, more seriously... I would buy this, as this is better than Grand Market, but only in Colony games ! In Province games, Prince would be usually better because you need less cash and to go faster.
Am I wrong ?
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare it to Prince because the cards do completely different things and usually Prince isn't available when this is, and vice versa.
I mean it would be fine. And I'm not sure it would be totally broken neither.
Well, I tried once a "+1 card +1 action +1 vp" card and I was kinda blamed (though it was a contest) but it didn't have money.
eHalcyon, do you have an example of games that degenrate with Monument and tons of +actions ?
A cantrip (not even a non-terminal card) can do so if it doesn't trash or gain cards, if the cards are split 5/5 or 3/3/3+1 in the trash for instance ("I won't empty piles !!!")
-
I don't have a link, but I remember hearing anecdotes from forum regulars. One theoretical setup is where both players have KC-Monument in a very delicate engine.
-
Instead of +1VP,
have it be "Gain an Estate." no, even better: "Choose a Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. Each other player gains a copy of it." So you start off giving everyone else Estates, then Duchies... and then there's only one more pile to empty. Because Kings grant titles to their subjects!
EDIT: This is in addition to the +1VP, not replacing it. So you're accumulating VP while throwing Estates at everyone else.
-
Seems much better than Province if there is any trashing. But VP chip cards are sometimes alternate ending conditions from Province and that can be fine. Colony is an alternate ending condition from Province. You do want to make sure an ending happens though. Goons does so by giving you so much +buy you can pile out curses or estates (although when they are evenly split Goons can get kinda stalematey when no one wants to be first to wreck their deck with a copper stack). Monument does a better job by giving you twice as much money as it does VP chips and being terminal, that tends to make buying Provinces attractive. Bishop is.. Bishop usually works out okay, I don't honestly fully understand why. I've seen Golden decks and I could say "well if your opponent makes a Golden deck, obviously you can't make one as a reaction because you're behind", but I've actually built a double Golden Deck before. And then a triple Golden deck could beat that, if you're playing with Intrigue treasures. But most of the time it is just so hard to abuse Bishop without Fortress, and Fortress breaks everything so that doesn't count.
So well, this gives you twice as much cash as VP like Monument, but is also nonterminal. Will the game end? I think it probably doesn't have too much issue ending because of that combination of coin tokens and plus buy. If you're both looping, one player will get a stack of coin tokens, and play 3 kings in one turn, and then alpha strike the Province pile for 4 provinces and be making so much progress on emptying that stack that it will be ok if he now has less VP chip income than his opponent. So I think it's fine.
I actually think swapping the coin token for another 1$ would generate a really huge problem, but the coin token can actually makes this healthier than Monument on one of the dimensions we're interested in.
-
Bishop is usually fine because it needs stuff to trash, which means you will be buying stuff and progressing closer to a game ending condition. Monument is more likely to be problematic than Bishop.
I didn't notice the coin token. That does make it better.
-
Bishop is usually fine because it needs stuff to trash, which means you will be buying stuff and progressing closer to a game ending condition. Monument is more likely to be problematic than Bishop.
I didn't notice the coin token. That does make it better.
Pretty sure the coin token is a really smart solution to the problem of VP tokens being a way to avoid ending the game. Between that and the +buy, this card would strongly encourage you to end the game eventually. You could be getting a few vp tokens per turn for a while, but then you could just buy all the Provinces at once.
-
To me, this just looks like a dull collection of all of the vanilla bonuses lumped together on a card. Maybe its fine at 8, maybe not. But it certainly isn't the exciting sort of card that I would hope for if I'm going to be playing with something that costs 8. Grand market is fine, but I don't think the game is in need of a grand market+.
I wouldn't have said this, except that a lot of people are discussing the card as if it is interesting and that pushed me toward pointing out that this card is very simple and, besides bridging the simplest of the prosperity and guilds expansion themes, does nothing new.
-
To me, this just looks like a dull collection of all of the vanilla bonuses lumped together on a card. Maybe its fine at 8, maybe not. But it certainly isn't the exciting sort of card that I would hope for if I'm going to be playing with something that costs 8. Grand market is fine, but I don't think the game is in need of a grand market+.
I wouldn't have said this, except that a lot of people are discussing the card as if it is interesting and that pushed me toward pointing out that this card is very simple and, besides bridging the simplest of the prosperity and guilds expansion themes, does nothing new.
But you have to have some vanilla cards. Lost City doesn't do anything new either, but DXV saw fit to include it. I like it. It should be called something else, though, all $8 cards begin with P. P-Diddy? Pope?
-
Palace, perfumer, painter...
-
I like this card. I like new simple cards.
Then again, I think a $1 action that gives +$2 is interesting. :)
-
I still think this is too strong though. This is strictly better than Grand Market (barring edge cases) but $8 is usually easier to hit than Grand Market's $6 without Copper.
-
I still think this is too strong though. This is strictly better than Grand Market (barring edge cases) but $8 is usually easier to hit than Grand Market's $6 without Copper.
What about my suggestion of handing out Victory cards to everyone else?
-
I still think this is too strong though. This is strictly better than Grand Market (barring edge cases) but $8 is usually easier to hit than Grand Market's $6 without Copper.
What about my suggestion of handing out Victory cards to everyone else?
That makes it stronger while handing out Estates and maybe weaker while handing out Duchies (depends on the rest of the board). $8 is probably still too low, I think, even if it's weaker due to the Duchy part.
That said, it probably can't hand out VP cards and do all those vanilla bonuses, simply due to lack of card space.
-
Thanks for all the reactions. Consensus seems to be that the card is too strong for 8.
I think that a price of 9 would be too high (in general for an action card) and create the further problem that now the card would have to be compared directly to Platinum.
So King has to be nerfed and perhaps a "when you gain this card" thingy is an idea (as eHalcyon has pointed out, while the spreading of VP cards fits thematically it makes the card better while the estate pile is not empty yet and worse otherwise which is really too swingy / game-state dependent for my taste). I'd like to stick to the vanilla-ish bonuses the card provides so a Coin token and/or VP token for each other player is the first thing that comes to mind.
-
Maybe you can't buy it without having at least $10 to spend. It makes it basically cost more but still keep the price. (And have synergies)
-
The problem with that is that you rarely hit 10 in non-Platinum games. I think that I am going for "When you gain this, each other player + 1VP token".
-
Being a dominant alternative to Province isn't really an issue for 8$ cards. If "what do I do with my 8$" was supposed to be a meaningful choice, virtually every kingdom ever used is bad and most of the recommended kingdoms are bad.
Cards like Colony, Prince, Platinum, Goons, Tournament, Nobles, and Forge pose more of a question of, how significant are the moments I hit 8, and how do the contents of my deck matter differently when I start to hit 8? They are more like rule benders than items on a menu that are there to present a meaningful choice. They are brutally dominant a lot of the time, and that doesn't usually upset us. The decision price points are 3$, 4$, 5$, and sometimes 6$ (it's often ok if we lose that one). 6-8$ cards tweak the way we evaluate 3-5$ cards by their presence in the kingdom rather than presenting meaningful choices themselves. "Is Navigator better than Militia when I can accelerate an incredibly early Platinum? Is Smithy a stronger opening than Plaza even though I know Nobles will be coming into my deck this game? Baron spikes are good, but don't I need a more sustainable way to hit 6$ over and over to reach Goons critical mass? Or is the trashing enough? Why can't Baron be obviously better than X like it usually is?"
King's not different from that.
-
Being a dominant alternative to Province isn't really an issue for 8$ cards.
[...]
King's not different from that.
Nope. King is different and during the game it will be directly compared with Province. This is why Donald never made a non-promo 8$ card.
Have you ever played with Prince? When you hit 8 and Prince is in the deck the first question that runs through your mind is whether you should buy Province or Prince. If it is early in the game and you have decent cards that you can "prince" you might go for the Prince whereas if you have "to be princed" cards or it is late in the game you buy the Province.
To buy or not buy the Prince actually becomes one of the most critical decisions of the game, partly because Prince is a risky card and partly because you forgo a Province.
Of course the issue becomes more complex in a Colony game or in the presence of 7$ cards as a 7$ card might be preferred to King or as King might be even bought at 9 instead of Platinum.
I actually only thought about the latter. King should be decent enough that you buy it sometimes instead of a Province in a normal game and decent enough that it is nearly as good as Platinum in a Colony game but rarely bought instead of Platinum.
-
The problem with that is that you rarely hit 10 in non-Platinum games. I think that I am going for "When you gain this, each other player + 1VP token".
Just in case you want to do something that hasn't been done before, giving free VP on gain was done before. I don't know about others, but i did it rather recently.
Either way, i'm not exactly a fan of King, but i'm not sure it needs to be nerfed. 8$ IS a very high opportunity cost.
-
I don't think it's too powerful either. It's basically a Grand Market that gives +VP. The coin tokens and buy it gives out prevent it from going infinite, but it's perfectly fine at $8 I think.
-
I don't think it's too powerful either. It's basically a Grand Market that gives +VP. The coin tokens and buy it gives out prevent it from going infinite, but it's perfectly fine at $8 I think.
Again, I contend that $8 is quite often a cheaper price point than Grand Market's $6 without Copper. That's the issue I see.
-
Only in a few exact situations. It's generally much easier to hit 6 - you just need two golds or three silvers, and action cards help out there too.
-
The problem with that is that you rarely hit 10 in non-Platinum games. I think that I am going for "When you gain this, each other player + 1VP token".
Just in case you want to do something that hasn't been done before, giving free VP on gain was done before. I don't know about others, but i did it rather recently.
Either way, i'm not exactly a fan of King, but i'm not sure it needs to be nerfed. 8$ IS a very high opportunity cost.
I wasn't aware of that. I only vaguely had your VP token gainer cantrip with the self copper spamming vaguely in mind when I designed King.
-
Only in a few exact situations. It's generally much easier to hit 6 - you just need two golds or three silvers, and action cards help out there too.
You also need them to line up, and in the kind of deck that really appreciates GM, 3 Silver is terrible. I find that the general case is that hitting $8 is much easier. I can do that earlier and with more consistency than reaching $6 without Copper. You need the exact situation (usually heavy trashing) to make GM easier to get. A simple way to see this is that when you buy GM, you often also have a couple of Copper held back in hand which you could have played for Province anyway, or you hit $8+ even without Copper.
-
Only in a few exact situations. It's generally much easier to hit 6 - you just need two golds or three silvers, and action cards help out there too.
You also need them to line up, and in the kind of deck that really appreciates GM, 3 Silver is terrible. I find that the general case is that hitting $8 is much easier. I can do that earlier and with more consistency than reaching $6 without Copper. You need the exact situation (usually heavy trashing) to make GM easier to get. A simple way to see this is that when you buy GM, you often also have a couple of Copper held back in hand which you could have played for Province anyway, or you hit $8+ even without Copper.
I do not directly disagree with you but roll with Donald's Grand Market precursor (+1 card, +1 action, +2 coins) that cost 7. No idea how much he playtested it and whether it was balanced at 7 but I doubt that this card would have been worth 8. And even with the extra buy it probably would not have been worth 8 so Grand Market without the copper clause is probably a good 7 card.
Let's also not forget that reaching the first Grand Market is hard but after you have reached this threshold it becomes much easier to buy further Grand Markets. This would not be the case if the card did cost 8.
-
Only in a few exact situations. It's generally much easier to hit 6 - you just need two golds or three silvers, and action cards help out there too.
You also need them to line up, and in the kind of deck that really appreciates GM, 3 Silver is terrible. I find that the general case is that hitting $8 is much easier. I can do that earlier and with more consistency than reaching $6 without Copper. You need the exact situation (usually heavy trashing) to make GM easier to get. A simple way to see this is that when you buy GM, you often also have a couple of Copper held back in hand which you could have played for Province anyway, or you hit $8+ even without Copper.
I do not directly disagree with you but roll with Donald's Grand Market precursor (+1 card, +1 action, +2 coins) that cost 7. No idea how much he playtested it and whether it was balanced at 7 but I doubt that this card would have been worth 8. And even with the extra buy it probably would not have been worth 8 so Grand Market without the copper clause is probably a good 7 card.
Let's also not forget that reaching the first Grand Market is hard but after you have reached this threshold it becomes much easier to buy further Grand Markets. This would not be the case if the card did cost 8.
Grand Market without the copper clause is an extremely powerful $7 card and would be great at $8 too. And getting the first GM would still make it easier to get more even if the card costs $8 since it always increases your money density.
-
I think that GM without the buy is balanced at 7 and with the buy a good 7 card. But it is certainly not worth 8. I agree that in a Colony game you might be sometimes willing to pay 8 for a GM but certainly not in a Province game.
Ignoring TR/KC, GM is just a double Peddler with an extra buy and buying two Peddlers for 4 (or Peddler variants like Tournament) is easier than buying one double Peddler for 8. The benefits of a card are not linear but convex in the costs, i.e. an 8 card must be worth more than two 4 cards (a simple example: unless there is Feudum on the board, one gold is virtually always better than two silvers).
-
I think that GM without the buy is balanced at 7 and with the buy a good 7 card. But it is certainly not worth 8. I agree that in a Colony game you might be sometimes willing to pay 8 for a GM but certainly not in a Province game.
Ignoring TR/KC, GM is just a double Peddler with an extra buy and buying two Peddlers for 4 (or Peddler variants like Tournament) is easier than buying one double Peddler for 8. The benefits of a card are not linear but convex in the costs, i.e. an 8 card must be worth more than two 4 cards (a simple example: unless there is Feudum on the board, one gold is virtually always better than two silvers).
The situation where you have $8, but two Coppers, and decide not to play the Coppers to get GM happens quite frequently. This alone shows that GM would be okay at $8. Not great probably, but okay.
Your example doesn't really help the case you're trying to make; on the contrary. You argue that playing GM=playing two Peddlers, and that that would not be good enough. Then you compare with Gold/Silver. But clearly playing Gold<playing two Silvers, so that comparison doesn't work at all.
-
Your example doesn't really help the case you're trying to make; on the contrary. You argue that playing GM=playing two Peddlers, and that that would not be good enough. Then you compare with Gold/Silver. But clearly playing Gold<playing two Silvers, so that comparison doesn't work at all.
Nope. Peddlers are cantrips and except for the extra buy two peddlers are nearly equivalent to one GM (for convexity reasons it is of course more useful to have the GM as you get the two coins during one move whereas the Peddlers might be spread over several turns.)
Treasure cards on the other hand are not cantrips which is which folks who have 6 coins and 2 buys rarely buy 2 silver instead of a Gold.
I hate to be blunt but deck composition and cost convexity are fairly fundamental issues and it is tedious to explain the hyperobvious.
-
I'm revisig my statement from earlier. King is too automatic. Play a single King six times, and you are having a Province that doesn't clog your deck, actively helps you getting more of them, and sets up a megaturn. From there on it's strictly better, but before its bonuses make it at least equal to Province.
The problem with that is that you rarely hit 10 in non-Platinum games. I think that I am going for "When you gain this, each other player + 1VP token".
Just in case you want to do something that hasn't been done before, giving free VP on gain was done before. I don't know about others, but i did it rather recently.
Either way, i'm not exactly a fan of King, but i'm not sure it needs to be nerfed. 8$ IS a very high opportunity cost.
I wasn't aware of that. I only vaguely had your VP token gainer cantrip with the self copper spamming vaguely in mind when I designed King.
Totally fine, i'm not claiming copyright or something. It was more about, if you want something only your card does, consider this. I can live with sharing the penalty.
-
I'm revisig my statement from earlier. King is too automatic. Play a single King six times, and you are having a Province that doesn't clog your deck, actively helps you getting more of them, and sets up a megaturn. From there on it's strictly better, but before its bonuses make it at least equal to Province.
You forgot to add that this is only likely to happen in a Colony game with trashing. Here 6 VPs are not that significant so the card is hardly an automatic buy (given that there is always Platinum at 9 and perhaps some good 6/7 Prosperity cards in the deck).
In a Province game with trashing it takes quite some time until you reach 8$ so I doubt that you could play a king 6 times.
Goons probably provide on average more VPs (as you can buy it earlier and as the extra buys happen more often than King+TR/KC).
Anyway, I am gonna leave the card as it is and playtest once it is printed.
-
I think that GM without the buy is balanced at 7 and with the buy a good 7 card. But it is certainly not worth 8. I agree that in a Colony game you might be sometimes willing to pay 8 for a GM but certainly not in a Province game.
Ignoring TR/KC, GM is just a double Peddler with an extra buy and buying two Peddlers for 4 (or Peddler variants like Tournament) is easier than buying one double Peddler for 8. The benefits of a card are not linear but convex in the costs, i.e. an 8 card must be worth more than two 4 cards (a simple example: unless there is Feudum on the board, one gold is virtually always better than two silvers).
The situation where you have $8, but two Coppers, and decide not to play the Coppers to get GM happens quite frequently. This alone shows that GM would be okay at $8. Not great probably, but okay.
No, GM at $8 would be much stronger I think. You could buy one much earlier with 2 Silvers and 4 Coppers, etc.
-
No, GM at $8 would be much stronger I think. You could buy one much earlier with 2 Silvers and 4 Coppers, etc.
You would still want to get rid of most of your Coppers before getting a Grand Market, though.
-
I think that GM without the buy is balanced at 7 and with the buy a good 7 card. But it is certainly not worth 8. I agree that in a Colony game you might be sometimes willing to pay 8 for a GM but certainly not in a Province game.
Ignoring TR/KC, GM is just a double Peddler with an extra buy and buying two Peddlers for 4 (or Peddler variants like Tournament) is easier than buying one double Peddler for 8. The benefits of a card are not linear but convex in the costs, i.e. an 8 card must be worth more than two 4 cards (a simple example: unless there is Feudum on the board, one gold is virtually always better than two silvers).
You continue to ignore that it is often a good idea to buy GM for $8 (i.e. with $6 and 2 Coppers in hand). GM is better than two Peddlers because of that +Buy. Buying two $4 cards isn't necessarily easier than buying one $8 card because the two cards also requires one extra Buy. Your Gold/Silver example isn't really relevant. Gold is often better than 2 Silver because of space requirements, but if you are overdrawing your deck then the 2 Silvers would be better... which doesn't really relate to the discussion anyway.
Costs don't work that way in Dominion anyway. There is no concept of "convexity" in the costs. There isn't a magic formula to pricing cards. Chapel costs only $2 despite being one of the most powerful cards in the game.
Here are the points:
1. King is almost strictly better than Grand Market.
2. $8 is usually easier to achieve than $6 without Copper.
I don't think you disagree with either point, so I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you suggesting that GM is undercosted? That it's OK for King to be easier to buy despite being better?
Edit:
To be clear, I am not sure if it is too strong for $8; I think it's on the line and needs testing to tell. My criticism is that is is near strictly better than GM and cheaper too. It's like how the original Dungeon (Lab, discard 1) was too strong for $4 but couldn't be $5 because Lab exists. I contend that King as it is should not exist because of Grand Market. My recommendation would be to increase the cost to $9 or to nerf it somehow. Remove the +$1 or +1 Buy, or maybe both. With both gone, I think it would still be very viable at $8. Cantrip coin token and VP still sounds amazing.
-
Card benefits are convex in the costs. Just take a look at the basic Treasure and Victory cards. And in the case of action cards it is the same. A deck with 5 2$ cards is certainy worse than a deck with 2 5$ cards.
Making King a 9$ card would be nonsensical as it would rarely be bought instead of Platinum. It is pretty difficult to reach a Colony with one or two Kings whereas it is much easier with one or two Platinums.
And in a Province game you rarely wanna buy an action card instead of Province unless it is early in the game. If you had ever played a game with Prince you would be aware of this.
About the proper worth of GM without the copper restriction, it is probably slightly above 7 as Donald priced it at 7 without the extra buy during development. It surely isn't 8.
Your claim that a +1 card, +1 action, +1 VP token, +1 coin token, is worth 8 shows that you have not really thought about the issue.
Your hypothetical 8$ card is just a Baker with +1 VP token. The latter hardly justifies a price increase of 3 given that Monument has a price increase of 2 (assuming that a hypothetical terminal silver is worth 2, Duchess is the benchmark for this claim).
An average King will most likely lead to fewer VPs than an average Goon or Bishop.
-
An $8 card that doesn't start with P is unacceptable, please revise immediately.
-
Card benefits are convex in the costs. Just take a look at the basic Treasure and Victory cards. And in the case of action cards it is the same. A deck with 5 2$ cards is certainy worse than a deck with 2 5$ cards.
A deck with 5 Fool's Golds is better than a deck with 2 Outposts.
Making King a 9$ card would be nonsensical as it would rarely be bought instead of Platinum. It is pretty difficult to reach a Colony with one or two Kings whereas it is much easier with one or two Platinums.
And in a Province game you rarely wanna buy an action card instead of Province unless it is early in the game. If you had ever played a game with Prince you would be aware of this.
King would be bought at $9. If Herbalist can be bought at $11, King can certainly be bought at $9. You are underestimating the value of +Buy and coin tokens.
It can definitely be worthwhile to buy an action card over a Province in the mid-game, depending on the deck-type. Mega-turn strategies don't green until the very last turn, and many strong engines will not green until late.
About the proper worth of GM without the copper restriction, it is probably slightly above 7 as Donald priced it at 7 without the extra buy during development. It surely isn't 8.
GM is easily worth $8 and is often bought with $8 in hand. Seriously. The $7 buyless version you are talking about is not relevant because it's from an early version in development and Donald made no comment about its balance at that time. A later version had +Buy and no Copper clause at $7. It didn't stay that way.
Your claim that a +1 card, +1 action, +1 VP token, +1 coin token, is worth 8 shows that you have not really thought about the issue.
Your hypothetical 8$ card is just a Baker with +1 VP token. The latter hardly justifies a price increase of 3 given that Monument has a price increase of 2 (assuming that a hypothetical terminal silver is worth 2, Duchess is the benchmark for this claim).
Yes the hypothetical card is Baker with a VP token. I did think about that. I think it's a good starting point because a cantrip VP token card is powerful and dangerous. The price increase of Monument over Duchess has no bearing here. Those are terminals and these are cantrips. Your comparison shows that you don't understand how cards are priced. Smithy is $2 increase over Moat for just +1 card more, but Lab is $3 up over Great Hall.
Maybe this hypothetical card really would be too weak for $8. If so, add back in one thing or the other, or put it at $7. Or start testing there. King with all the bonuses is almost certainly too strong for $8, and Grand Market is the proof.
An average King will most likely lead to fewer VPs than an average Goon or Bishop.
If so, it would be because you can get Goons/Bishop earlier and they can accumulate more VP in a single play (Goons with multiple buys and stacking, Bishop by trashing high cost cards). So what? Those are terminals, King is not.
-
Oh man, I was holding off on ripping this card apart. Now I just realized that the OP is the same guy that accused me of creating a trap kingdom when I beat him up in a game today.
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150706/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1436203424338.txt
Anyway Horatio, I agree with iguanaiguana. Your card is Boring with a capital Z. Yawn.
-
About the proper worth of GM without the copper restriction, it is probably slightly above 7 as Donald priced it at 7 without the extra buy during development. It surely isn't 8.
Your claim that a +1 card, +1 action, +1 VP token, +1 coin token, is worth 8 shows that you have not really thought about the issue.
Your hypothetical 8$ card is just a Baker with +1 VP token. The latter hardly justifies a price increase of 3 given that Monument has a price increase of 2 (assuming that a hypothetical terminal silver is worth 2, Duchess is the benchmark for this claim).
Even if I agree with your basics, it still suggests that King is too cheap at $8.
You said that Grand Market is worth slightly more than $7. OK then. And you say that adding +VP token is worth a $2 cost increase based on Monument and Duchess. So now King is worth more than $9, and that's before considering the coin token! If you take Baker vs. the standard $4 cantrip coin, then King should cost more than $10.
Edit: Oh, I guess there's the convexity thing. Well, that justifies giving a discount, so we are back down to $9.
-
Oh man, I was holding off on ripping this card apart. Now I just realized that the OP is the same guy that accused me of creating a trap kingdom when I beat him up in a game today.
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150706/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1436203424338.txt
Anyway Horatio, I agree with iguanaiguana. Your card is Boring with a capital Z. Yawn.
Gee, LFN, you are better than this.
-
Oh man, I was holding off on ripping this card apart. Now I just realized that the OP is the same guy that accused me of creating a trap kingdom when I beat him up in a game today.
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150706/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1436203424338.txt
Anyway Horatio, I agree with iguanaiguana. Your card is Boring with a capital Z. Yawn.
Gee, LFN, you are better than this.
Sorry. I guess it got to me—more than I wanted to admit to myself—that he was accusing me of wrongdoing just because I won a game against him. I wasn't trying to scam you, Horatio!
Anyway, I tend not to like cards that are basically a collection of vanilla bonuses, and King is no exception. But that's my personal bias. Obviously many folks find the card interesting enough to discuss, so that's a point in its favor right there.
-
Oh man, I was holding off on ripping this card apart. Now I just realized that the OP is the same guy that accused me of creating a trap kingdom when I beat him up in a game today.
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150706/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1436203424338.txt
Anyway Horatio, I agree with iguanaiguana. Your card is Boring with a capital Z. Yawn.
Gee, LFN, you are better than this.
Sorry. I guess it got to me—more than I wanted to admit to myself—that he was accusing me of wrongdoing just because I won a game against him. I wasn't trying to scam you, Horatio!
Anyway, I tend not to like cards that are basically a collection of vanilla bonuses, and King is no exception. But that's my personal bias. Obviously many folks find the card interesting enough to discuss, so that's a point in its favor right there.
Part of it is probably that vanilla cards are easier to discuss.
-
Oh man, I was holding off on ripping this card apart. Now I just realized that the OP is the same guy that accused me of creating a trap kingdom when I beat him up in a game today.
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150706/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1436203424338.txt
Anyway Horatio, I agree with iguanaiguana. Your card is Boring with a capital Z. Yawn.
Gee, LFN, you are better than this.
Sorry. I guess it got to me—more than I wanted to admit to myself—that he was accusing me of wrongdoing just because I won a game against him. I wasn't trying to scam you, Horatio!
Anyway, I tend not to like cards that are basically a collection of vanilla bonuses, and King is no exception. But that's my personal bias. Obviously many folks find the card interesting enough to discuss, so that's a point in its favor right there.
Part of it is probably that vanilla cards are easier to discuss.
Man, I am trying to put a positive spin on this!
-
I agree with everything that eHalcyon said. I assume he's an expericenced player (at least, he's been around the forum for a long time) and knows what he's talking about. His main point, that Grand Market would often be bought with $8 in hand and that GM could be worth $8 without the Copper clause, is totally valid judging from my own experience with GM. Comparing King to Prince makes little sense because the latter is much more dependent on the rest of the kingdom than King.
Anyway, I also think King looks absurdly powerful and kinda boring at the same time. Werothegreat made a good suggestion that you should really consider.
Instead of +1VP, have it be "Gain an Estate." no, even better: "Choose a Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. Each other player gains a copy of it." So you start off giving everyone else Estates, then Duchies... and then there's only one more pile to empty. Because Kings grant titles to their subjects!
EDIT: This is in addition to the +1VP, not replacing it. So you're accumulating VP while throwing Estates at everyone else.
This would make King much more interesting and sufficiently different from any original card. I still would remove the +$1 or the coin token from it because I don't like having both on the same card.
-
I agree with everything that eHalcyon said. I assume he's an expericenced player
I'm mediocre. :P
-
An $8 card that doesn't start with P is unacceptable, please revise immediately.
Clearly, this card should be Potentate. Or Plutocrat. Or for a Roman feel, Praetor. The game doesn't have any Indian cards; you could try Pundit. Or you could even go democratic and have it be President. Or go with a Catholic feel and get either Protopriest (2 P's), Pontiff, or Pope. This card is just crying out for some Pflavor.
-
Oh man, I was holding off on ripping this card apart. Now I just realized that the OP is the same guy that accused me of creating a trap kingdom when I beat him up in a game today.
http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?20150706/log.50675f6afca284ca61206e88.1436203424338.txt
Anyway Horatio, I agree with iguanaiguana. Your card is Boring with a capital Z. Yawn.
I am not playing boardgames online. Thanks for your constructive input though.
By the way, aren't you the guy who designed a slightly weaker Peddler (Clerk: Action, $2 +1 Card. +1 Action. Look through your discard pile. You may reveal a Copper from it and put it into your hand.) at 2? So much about boring and mispriced cards. 8)
-
About the proper worth of GM without the copper restriction, it is probably slightly above 7 as Donald priced it at 7 without the extra buy during development. It surely isn't 8.
Your claim that a +1 card, +1 action, +1 VP token, +1 coin token, is worth 8 shows that you have not really thought about the issue.
Your hypothetical 8$ card is just a Baker with +1 VP token. The latter hardly justifies a price increase of 3 given that Monument has a price increase of 2 (assuming that a hypothetical terminal silver is worth 2, Duchess is the benchmark for this claim).
Even if I agree with your basics, it still suggests that King is too cheap at $8.
You said that Grand Market is worth slightly more than $7. OK then. And you say that adding +VP token is worth a $2 cost increase based on Monument and Duchess. So now King is worth more than $9, and that's before considering the coin token! If you take Baker vs. the standard $4 cantrip coin, then King should cost more than $10.
Edit: Oh, I guess there's the convexity thing. Well, that justifies giving a discount, so we are back down to $9.
See, once you actually think about price increases in a structured fashion and keep in mind that card benefits are not linear but convex in costs (I am well aware that your comment as ironical which is why this discussion is so pointless; cost convexity is one of the very fundamentals of the game and the first thing anybody who is not a mathematical ignoramus notices when he first plays Dominion) you actually make some sense.
Once the card is printed I will test three version of it: as it is now, in a weaker form: "When you gay this, each other player gets a VP token.", and as you suggsted with a higher cost of 9.
-
I agree with everything that eHalcyon said. I assume he's an expericenced player (at least, he's been around the forum for a long time) and knows what he's talking about. His main point, that Grand Market would often be bought with $8 in hand and that GM could be worth $8 without the Copper clause, is totally valid judging from my own experience with GM. Comparing King to Prince makes little sense because the latter is much more dependent on the rest of the kingdom than King.
Try to evaluate arguments independently of who made them instead if appealing to authority. Many nobel price laureates talk bullshit.
About GM getting bought at 8, as I already pointed out nobody would constantly buy GMs at 8 as after four GMs you would have a nearly won game. You ignore the treshold element of GM, i.e. the first one is difficult to get whereas further ones become easier to get compared to the case where the card would cost 7 (which is how Donald unsurprisingly priced it without the extra buy; naturally a double Peddler has to cost slightly less than two Peddlers) and buying frequency would not increase as much.
I did not directly compare King to Prince. As you rightly pointed out Prince is more deck-dependent and also a far riskier card. But like in the case of Prince you will compare King to a Province.
Grand Markets increase the chance that the game is a Colony game so the game will be longer and the card will be played more often. King is not a part of Prosperity so it does not increase the chance of being present in a Colony game. In a Province game the card will not be played that often and I want the decision to buy or not buy a King as difficult as to but or not buy a Prince (which can be extremly strong and would perhaps even be fairly prices at 9 or 10 in a Colony game).
So perhaps one solution to the card being worth more in a Colony game would be a simple houserule that increases its price by 1 or 2 in a Colony game.
About the Estate/Duchythingy, as I already said the problem with that is that the Estate spamming improves the card whereas the Duchy spamming makes the card worse (assuming that it is already late in the game when the Estate pile is empty which seems most likely).
Now in and of itself this is not a problem, like with all spammers it merely incentives people to buy King while the spamming card pile is still full. But then some of the bonuses of the card would have to be deleted and the card becomes quite complex to evaluate. Furthermore the question of whether it should be an Attack card would arise (probably it should not for thematic reasons, the King is generous and grants gifts) and so on.
Even if I liked this very thematic idea (on this level the idea is really great and brings out the theme far better than my card which is also about a generous King, hence my choice of Robert Baratheon, but only generous to the player who plays him) I doubt that I could balance the card well. Plus there is the mundane issue of card space.
-
This discussion is turning out to be The Bomb 8)
-
This discussion is turning out to be The Bomb 8)
Although, this card is still a lot better than Bomb was.
-
What was bomb ?
How should I use the research engine to find it ?
-
What was bomb ?
How should I use the research engine to find it ?
It was probably the most iconic card from the fan set Dominion: Gunpowder.
-
What was bomb ?
How should I use the research engine to find it ?
Though iguanaiguana is probably more referring to the... controversy... that took place in the corresponding thread.
-
I am not playing boardgames online.
Oh man, I'm sorry! :-[ I feel like a real jerk. It was wrong to assume, just because you have the same username as the person I played online, that you were the same person. And you're the real victim here! Either by coincidence—or possibly malice—the horatio83 on Goko is ruining your reputation. Thanks for setting the record straight. If you do ever start playing online, make sure you post your Goko username in your profile so that we know that you aren't the one using the horatio83 username online. You might want to put a note in your signature now in order to make it clear that this Dominion Online horatio83 isn't you.
-
Horatio was such a popular baby name in '83. You really should have known better LF.
-
Horatio was such a popular baby name in '83. You really should have known better LF.
I do feel badly. I've never met a person named Horatio in real life, but I should have recognized that cultural bias. I'm guessing it's way more common elsewhere.
-
I totally would have assumed you are the same person. For malice, why would somebody steal a person's username just to harm his reputation in a forum where he has posted <30 times? And for coincidence, i wouldn't estimate the pool of Horatios that do Dominion-related stuff online, are born in 1983 AND would base their username of these facts as overly big. Edit: But i too have no clue how popular the name is elsewhere.
That doesn't say anything about whether LF's reaction was appropriate or whether yours is now.
-
We could also go back to discussing King and be done with the poop flinging.
-
We could also go back to discussing King and be done with the poop flinging.
Maybe it should be called Peking? Also, poop flinging would make a perfectly fine 8 cost event.
-
See, once you actually think about price increases in a structured fashion and keep in mind that card benefits are not linear but convex in costs (I am well aware that your comment as ironical which is why this discussion is so pointless; cost convexity is one of the very fundamentals of the game and the first thing anybody who is not a mathematical ignoramus notices when he first plays Dominion) you actually make some sense.
Once the card is printed I will test three version of it: as it is now, in a weaker form: "When you gay this, each other player gets a VP token.", and as you suggsted with a higher cost of 9.
Ha! Yeah, if you say it enough times it'll become true! Please continue to ignore all the examples that prove your "cost convexity" theory is wrong, or at least far too simplified to continue using as an argument. If it's a fundamental of the game, please do point out any article where Donald X talks about it.
It's great that you plan to test more than one version though.
Try to evaluate arguments independently of who made them instead if appealing to authority. Many nobel price laureates talk bullshit.
About GM getting bought at 8, as I already pointed out nobody would constantly buy GMs at 8 as after four GMs you would have a nearly won game. You ignore the treshold element of GM, i.e. the first one is difficult to get whereas further ones become easier to get compared to the case where the card would cost 7 (which is how Donald unsurprisingly priced it without the extra buy; naturally a double Peddler has to cost slightly less than two Peddlers) and buying frequency would not increase as much.
And King has no threshold element, which is a problem if you want to compare costs this way. It's much easier to get at first, and only slightly more difficult to get later compared to GM, if at all. The coin token from King probably makes getting subsequent Kings easier than GM helps with GM, actually.
By the way, it is charming how you appeal to authority here in the same post where you warn against it. And as already pointed out, it's not even an accurate appeal because Donald made NO comment that the card was balanced at $7, it was his FIRST try, and the lack of +Buy is as important a gating effect as the $6 cost for GM becoming easier to buy as you get more.
-
I totally would have assumed you are the same person. For malice, why would somebody steal a person's username just to harm his reputation in a forum where he has posted <30 times? And for coincidence, i wouldn't estimate the pool of Horatios that do Dominion-related stuff online, are born in 1983 AND would base their username of these facts as overly big. Edit: But i too have no clue how popular the name is elsewhere.
I don't think any of this matters. Is it possible that f.DS horatio83 and Goko horatio83 are not the same person? Obviously it is possible. f.DS horatio83 has stated that this is the case and I have no reason to doubt him.
That doesn't say anything about whether LF's reaction was appropriate or whether yours is now.
Clearly my reaction was unnecessary and petulant, but I want to be clear that I wasn't trying to publicly shame or blackball Goko's horatio83; I was just expressing my displeasure to him and unfortunately chose to do so in a public setting. It's doubly unfortunate that this horatio83 isn't even the person I was trying to address! But anyway, everybody deserves second chances and although I have personally blacklisted Goko's horatio83, I was NOT encouraging others to do so. Everybody has off days and there's no reason to believe that his toxic behavior in this one game is indicative of his general demeanor.
-
My last post was unnecessary and not helpful at all. I apologize for that.
-
Collective hug time?
-
I'm hugging Asper, LastFootnote and Pacovf :)
-
We could also go back to discussing King and be done with the poop flinging.
I do like the idea of King giving out Victory cards/VP chips to other players. The fact that it would leave less room for vanilla bonuses is a feature for me.
-
See, once you actually think about price increases in a structured fashion and keep in mind that card benefits are not linear but convex in costs (I am well aware that your comment as ironical which is why this discussion is so pointless; cost convexity is one of the very fundamentals of the game and the first thing anybody who is not a mathematical ignoramus notices when he first plays Dominion) you actually make some sense.
Once the card is printed I will test three version of it: as it is now, in a weaker form: "When you gay this, each other player gets a VP token.", and as you suggsted with a higher cost of 9.
Ha! Yeah, if you say it enough times it'll become true! Please continue to ignore all the examples that prove your "cost convexity" theory is wrong, or at least far too simplified to continue using as an argument. If it's a fundamental of the game, please do point out any article where Donald X talks about it.
It's great that you plan to test more than one version though.
Of course there are cards that self-synergize like Fool's Gold. Deck composition and situational / deck-dependent value of cards has nothing to do with cost convexity. The former is complex and makes Dominion an interesting game whereas the latter is fairly mundane and basic.
In case you still don't see that action card benefits are convex in costs (I hope that you do not deny this for basic VP and treasure cards because then this whole discussion would be even more pointless) you might wanna consider why Tactician can be a good card even in a BM deck (in the case of an engine increasing the likelihood of action cards that match becomes another reason to buy Tactician). The whole reason is convexity, it is better to have one move with 8 coins and 2 buys than two moves with 4 coins and one buy. Of course later in the game Tactician is mainly used to get VP cards (here cost convexity is obvious) but it is also a decent card in the early game when you buy action cards.
Or think about 5/2 vs 4/3 start hands. As long as a 5 and 2 card exist the former is on average (again deck composition issues complicate the matter, there is usually more selection of 3 and 4 cards which makes such a starting hand more flexible and there are on average more trashers priced at 3 and 4 than at 2 and 5 and some 5 cards are not something you immediately want (astupid example would be Mint)) a better starting hand than the latter.
Again, I do not want to be rude but I simply fail to see how you can not see something as basic and fundamental as cost convexity in Dominion.
About the card, should be finished printing soon and I hope to get to playtest it (as I said, at 9, at 8 and at 8 with the caveat that every player gets a VP token when you gain the card) during the next weeks. I doubt that it is overpowered (do not wanna drag out the convexity issue too long but the curve is really steep at high prices if one considers that the jump from 8 to 11 is the equivalent of 3 VP) but of course I have to play some Colony and Chapel (or other quick-trashing games). I am pretty sure than on average the card provides definitely far less VPs than Goons and probably also less VPs than Bishop so at least the nerfed version at the cost of 8 should work.
But in the end it is an empirical matter and I simply have to test it.
-
My point there is that card cost is a lot more complex than you are making it out to be. The Fool's Gold example was a direct counterpoint to your statement that "A deck with 5 2$ cards is certainy worse than a deck with 2 5$ cards", which is clearly untrue. You've made several arguments where you try to add up costs based on cost increases between official cards (such as your comparison between Duchess and Monument) which simply doesn't work in the general case.
My other point is that Grand Market's copper restriction makes it about as expensive as an $8 card, quite often more difficult to hit than just $8, which is why King should really cost more or be weakened in some way. In other words, King is both cheaper and near-strictly better, which surely you cannot find acceptable. So $8 is too low for King, and I suspect that $8 with VP token to others is not an adequate fix (it's still easier to get than GM, and after a single play the penalty is neutralized, putting it right back in "cheaper and better than GM" territory). $9 might be too high a threshold, sure, and if that is the case then maybe the right solution is to impose a cost restriction like Grand Market.
-
Of course there are cards that self-synergize like Fool's Gold. Deck composition and situational / deck-dependent value of cards has nothing to do with cost convexity. The former is complex and makes Dominion an interesting game whereas the latter is fairly mundane and basic.
In case you still don't see that action card benefits are convex in costs (I hope that you do not deny this for basic VP and treasure cards because then this whole discussion would be even more pointless) you might wanna consider why Tactician can be a good card even in a BM deck (in the case of an engine increasing the likelihood of action cards that match becomes another reason to buy Tactician). The whole reason is convexity, it is better to have one move with 8 coins and 2 buys than two moves with 4 coins and one buy. Of course later in the game Tactician is mainly used to get VP cards (here cost convexity is obvious) but it is also a decent card in the early game when you buy action cards.
Or think about 5/2 vs 4/3 start hands. As long as a 5 and 2 card exist the former is on average (again deck composition issues complicate the matter, there is usually more selection of 3 and 4 cards which makes such a starting hand more flexible and there are on average more trashers priced at 3 and 4 than at 2 and 5 and some 5 cards are not something you immediately want (astupid example would be Mint)) a better starting hand than the latter.
Is Tactician actually a good card to have in a BM deck? I think it's pretty bad—not compared to nothing but compared to most other $5 cards you could buy and maybe even Silver. Like, I'd expect Explorer-BM to beat Tactician-BM.
I agree with eHalcyon that the power curve is not strictly convex. It's more complex than that.
Often I would rather have e.g. a Hamlet and a Menagerie than a Laboratory. Part of this is that usually a buy is part of a card's cost, too. Copper doesn't cost $0; it costs 1 Buy. Laboratory costs $5 and 1 Buy. Hamlet + Menagerie costs $5 and 2 Buys.
-
In Colony Games, Tactician should be better than Explorer for BM because it can get you an early Platinum, and lategame can get you a Colony or two Provinces.
-
I really don't care that much about whether the card ist too strong or too weak - the major problem is, no one will really have fun using it. If you want this to happen it either has to
1.) be tricky how to play it
2.) be a game-changing decision whether you take it or not
3.) change the style of the game in an innovative way
Well, 1.) obviously doesn't hold, but that's not a crime ...
2.) is more problematic, because compared to e.g. market, which is boring at play as well, the decision to buy "market or outpost" changes your deck. Whereas "King or province" can be broken down to the decision "will I play this card twice or more often?". If yes, King is probably better, if not, Province is; but even if this decision is sometimes not an easy one, it won't really affect the nature of what you do. If the decision is close, that means we are in the endgame, and you can no longer decide to adapt your deck to the King you purchased.
3.) Now suppose you want that king, yeah. What does that mean? It might make you go engine, and it might even be the tiebreaker that makes you go for it from the beginning. But the engine you will build will probably look exactly the same as with other Payloads. It's hard for me to think "Oh, it will be a kings engine, there's an interesting specific way I have to build it".
tl;dr: At 8$, a card has to be gamechanging like Prince or Possession, otherwise, it's too boring.
-
My other point is that Grand Market's copper restriction makes it about as expensive as an $8 card, quite often more difficult to hit than just $8, which is why King should really cost more or be weakened in some way. In other words, King is both cheaper and near-strictly better, which surely you cannot find acceptable. So $8 is too low for King, and I suspect that $8 with VP token to others is not an adequate fix (it's still easier to get than GM, and after a single play the penalty is neutralized, putting it right back in "cheaper and better than GM" territory). $9 might be too high a threshold, sure, and if that is the case then maybe the right solution is to impose a cost restriction like Grand Market.
"Great Grand Market" - $7 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+$1
+1 VP
Take a Coin token.
***
You may not buy this if you have any Copper or Silver in play.
I have no idea if that would work.
-
That probably costs more than nine.
-
That probably costs more than nine.
You're probably right. I'm not particularly serious about it. Even at $6 the no Copper or Silver restriction seems tough. And you can't price it at 5, that looks way too janky in comparison to original Grand Market.
-
Found this. It seemed relevant.
Have you ever seriously considered pricing a kingdom card at more than 8$? I mean, aside from Possession.
I had an $8 action very early on (a relative of Grand Market). I don't really remember playing with it but I am guessing it was quickly obvious that that's a bad cost.
It's fine to have an expensive trick cost, e.g. Peddler (and that could go over $8). It's bad to have super-expensive cards otherwise, because for many players Province is too compelling, and at the same time I don't want many narrow cards (which a super-expensive card is likely to be). Colony/Platinum provide a way around this, and yet still I just went up to $7 in Prosperity (not counting). Prince didn't set out to cost $8 and well I guess that worked out.
-
Played one 2P game with heavy trashing (Transmogrify, Governor, Doctor and we did not even use Remodel and Trading Post) game with King so far. One player bought 5 kings and gained 15 VP tokens whereas the other bought 3 kings and gained 5 VP tokens (the last King this player bought was a mistake).
The card was strong due to moderately thing decks, quick deck cycling (Governor) and little money (Training "Peddler-ified" action cards, Governor for one player and Familiar, gained via Recruiter for the other player). As I expected the VP tokens were the smallest asset of the card. 3 VP tokens on average per card for the guy who bought Kings early and 1.7 for the guy who bought them later is less than an average Bishop, Monument or Goon nets. As other folks here have already said, the coin tokens make a delaying of the game to gain VP tokens unlikely. It also makes it tricky to evaluate when to switch from Kings to Provinces.
So yeah, the clear strength of the card over Grand Market or other DoublePeddlers like Conspirator are the coin tokens so I guess the card would be OK for 8 even without the +1VP token.
During the next games I will play it with "When you gain this card each other player +1 VP token", making the VP token thingy even weaker (in this game it would have reduced the extra VP tokens from 15 to 10 and from 5 to 2). I think the card would also work decently at 9 but only in Province games and in Colony games with trashing (then an early King can be useful) KC/TR (obviously making the card superstrong). Otherwise Platinum is superior to King as it is the quicker way towards Colonies.
At 8$, a card has to be gamechanging like Prince or Possession, otherwise, it's too boring.
Nope. A card does not have to be anything except well balanced. Whether one likes a card or not is purely subjective.
People who do not want to play with vanilla-ish card do not have to and as I have already said in my initial post, this is simply what King is, a vanilla-ish card and nothing game changing like Price or Possession. For me the Province/King trade-off, making the "when to switch from building your engine to going to explot it" decision (which is at the core of Dominion and nothing one can truly master) even more tricky, is sufficient to make the card moderately interesting.
Kudos to folks who can come up with a great idea for an 8$ card that is as exciting as Prince or Possession and the stamina to actually playtest it until it works (far more difficult and time-consuming than with a vanilla-ish card), it is beyond my abilities.
I don't want many narrow cards (which a super-expensive card is likely to be).
I am aware that an 8$ card is narrow in two senses. First, it can break the game if one player gains it early (Prince relaxes this via its high randomness, sometimes you cannot play Prince ocne you first draw it as it matches no cheap/decent action card). Second, it is bought less frequently over different decks / less often during one game than other cards.
Donald is totally right that there should be no 8$ card in a normal Dominion set, they are just too wacky. But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
There's nothing that makes it inherently impossible for a fan to come up with a card as good as or better than one Donald will come up with. Fans have on various occasions had idea practically identical to existing cards, and Donald has at some (rare) occasions let really bad cards slip through. It's really quite possible, i think.
This has nothing to do with arrogance, though. Donald has created an insane amount of cards, with a very low deviation in quality, and it's amazing that he manages to do that. There's some ability and experience there, and it would in fact be arrogant to claim we could keep up with that. The difference is just the position from which we create cards. We can create one card at a time. We can put any amount of time into improving it. We can focus on it as much as we want. Donald can't. He has to rely on his ability and experience from some point onward, and even he sometimes misses out something when time is short, as happened with Rebuild. Sure he feels bad about the card, but well, sooner or later it had to happen. You can't endlessly do cards without doing one that sucks sooner or later.
A fan has no excuse for doing a Rebuild. He has the time, he has the focus, and he can improve any card to death. If he wishes. Of course you don't have to, i guess you have a live beyond Dominion fan cards, but there's nothing that makes it inherently impossible for you to improve your card until it is equally good to an existing Dominion card.
-
One Card to rule them all, One Card to find them,
One Card to bring them all and in the network bind them
In the land of F.DS where the fan cards lie.
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
There's nothing that makes it inherently impossible for a fan to come up with a card as good as or better than one Donald will come up with. Fans have on various occasions had idea practically identical to existing cards, and Donald has at some (rare) occasions let really bad cards slip through. It's really quite possible, i think.
This has nothing to do with arrogance, though. Donald has created an insane amount of cards, with a very low deviation in quality, and it's amazing that he manages to do that. There's some ability and experience there, and it would in fact be arrogant to claim we could keep up with that. The difference is just the position from which we create cards. We can create one card at a time. We can put any amount of time into improving it. We can focus on it as much as we want. Donald can't. He has to rely on his ability and experience from some point onward, and even he sometimes misses out something when time is short, as happened with Rebuild. Sure he feels bad about the card, but well, sooner or later it had to happen. You can't endlessly do cards without doing one that sucks sooner or later.
A fan has no excuse for doing a Rebuild. He has the time, he has the focus, and he can improve any card to death. If he wishes. Of course you don't have to, i guess you have a live beyond Dominion fan cards, but there's nothing that makes it inherently impossible for you to improve your card until it is equally good to an existing Dominion card.
This. Also, if you're not even trying to make your cards as good as official cards (i.e. fun to play), why are you making them at all? What's the point?
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
There's nothing that makes it inherently impossible for a fan to come up with a card as good as or better than one Donald will come up with. Fans have on various occasions had idea practically identical to existing cards, and Donald has at some (rare) occasions let really bad cards slip through. It's really quite possible, i think.
This has nothing to do with arrogance, though. Donald has created an insane amount of cards, with a very low deviation in quality, and it's amazing that he manages to do that. There's some ability and experience there, and it would in fact be arrogant to claim we could keep up with that. The difference is just the position from which we create cards. We can create one card at a time. We can put any amount of time into improving it. We can focus on it as much as we want. Donald can't. He has to rely on his ability and experience from some point onward, and even he sometimes misses out something when time is short, as happened with Rebuild. Sure he feels bad about the card, but well, sooner or later it had to happen. You can't endlessly do cards without doing one that sucks sooner or later.
A fan has no excuse for doing a Rebuild. He has the time, he has the focus, and he can improve any card to death. If he wishes. Of course you don't have to, i guess you have a live beyond Dominion fan cards, but there's nothing that makes it inherently impossible for you to improve your card until it is equally good to an existing Dominion card.
Looks like I was wrong about my arrogance assumption.
First, Donald is the auteur, it is his baby, so he has more insight into his game than anybody else. Second, like any game designer he has done serious playtesting. I seriously doubt that anybody here has playtested his cards as much as Donald. Big difference between a hobby (which for most of us consists of far more games than just Dominion) and a job.
Third, people who do design games that are mechanically sound have a particular talent. One obvious example is Stefan Feld. I am not a big fan of anything but his early games but it is undeniable that he is incredibly good at making well-balanced games.
If anybody of us here had even half the skills of an outstanding game designer he or she would design his or her own game instead of fan cards for an existing game.
Gee, I have recently printed about 40 cards from this site and play Dominion with them so if I am biased in any way it is towards and not against fan cards. But I can transcend my love for the game and all these nice fan cards, use my mind and be honest about the natural limitations of all of us who design Dominion fan cards.
Of course this doesn't imply that a particular fan card cannot be as good as official card. But it is more of a needle in a haystack effect than the result of serious playtesting.
-
This. Also, if you're not even trying to make your cards as good as official cards (i.e. fun to play), why are you making them at all? What's the point?
Reading skills are essential. I never claimed that one should not strive to improve one's cards but that is arrogant to assume that one's creation could match that of a guy who has actually published games. It is as if somebody wrote fan fiction and thought that he is the next Fitzgerald or whatever.
-
King of all trades
Action - $(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)
Gain a Gold.
Look at the top 3 cards in your deck. Discard one, put the rest back in any order.
Draw until you have 7 cards in hand.
You may trash a card from your hand that is not a treasure. If you do, +1 Buy.
-
Gee, I have recently printed about 40 cards from this site and play Dominion with them so if I am biased in any way it is towards and not against fan cards. But I can transcend my love for the game and all these nice fan cards, use my mind and be honest about the natural limitations of all of us who design Dominion fan cards.
Of course this doesn't imply that a particular fan card cannot be as good as official card. But it is more of a needle in a haystack effect than the result of serious playtesting.
Dude, I can tell you right now—from experience—that the official Dominion cards don't get as much testing as you seem to believe. Some of the later cards in Dominion: Adventures had maybe one to two dozen plays before being finalized, not hundreds. I mean they could have been changed if a problem had been discovered after finalization and before printing, but there really wasn't much testing during that period. I can tell you right now that many Enterprise cards have had more playtesting than several of the Adventures cards.
You're really mythicizing Donald and the official cards. There's nothing magical about them other than that they've been tested and found to be fun and balanced. Making good cards is a process of coming up with new ideas, testing them, tweaking them, and being willing to let them go if they don't work out. Obviously not everybody has the time or skills to do it, but more than one person does.
P.S. I find Feld's games to be tedious, point-salad snoozefests. I guess Castles of Burgundy was OK.
-
This. Also, if you're not even trying to make your cards as good as official cards (i.e. fun to play), why are you making them at all? What's the point?
It is as if somebody wrote fan fiction and thought that he is the next Fitzgerald or whatever.
Dude, there is some really great fan fiction out there and some really terrible published stuff as well. Having talent for something doesn't mean you'll end up doing it for a living, and doing something for a living does not mean you are any good at it. And you are underestimating how much testing is done by some of the fan card makers here.
-
Dude, there is some really great fan fiction out there and some really terrible published stuff as well. Having talent for something doesn't mean you'll end up doing it for a living, and doing something for a living does not mean you are any good at it. And you are underestimating how much testing is done by some of the fan card makers here.
Nope. First, to get actually good at writing, as with anything in else in life, you have to do it constantly over years. This is why people who only do it for a few hours a week in their spare time cannot become good at it.
Second, if you compare fan fiction, something which is derivative and unimaginative, to proper literature you are direly begging to not be taken seriously.
Same with Dominion fan cards. If any of us were good at designing games they would, big surprise, actual design their own game and not do derivative work. Then again I am not really surprised that fan(atic)s overestimate their skills.
Dude, I can tell you right now—from experience—that the official Dominion cards don't get as much testing as you seem to believe. Some of the later cards in Dominion: Adventures had maybe one to two dozen plays before being finalized, not hundreds. I mean they could have been changed if a problem had been discovered after finalization and before printing, but there really wasn't much testing during that period. I can tell you right now that many Enterprise cards have had more playtesting than several of the Adventures cards.
Great that you were in the group with which Donald playtested his Adventure cards. Ridiculous of you to imply that your cards are more balanced and better than official cards.
Back to the card.
I am considering to make the card a bit weaker via "When you gain this, each other play gains a Coin token and +VP token", thus converting King into a Market when it is first played, and wonder what the folks who think that the card is seriously overpowed think about this.
-
Nope. First, to get actually good at writing, as with anything in else in life, you have to do it constantly over years. This is why people who only do it for a few hours a week in their spare time cannot become good at it.
Second, if you compare fan fiction, something which is derivative and unimaginative, to proper literature you are direly begging to not be taken seriously.
Same with Dominion fan cards. If any of us were good at designing games they would, big surprise, actual design their own game and not do derivative work. Then again I am not really surprised that fan(atic)s overestimate their skills.
Okay, let me stop you right there. First, writing a lot does not mean you will become good at it. If you write trash and are successful, people will buy it, you will write more of the same trash and not have improved at all. There are plenty of examples for that out there.
Second, it's not like everyone needs to put in the same amount of work to become good at something. Some people are more talented than others. There are examples of very well-written and successful newcomer authors, which in your world should not be possible.
To our second point: All art is derivative. There's always inspiration taken from somewhere. You can call Tolstoy's War and Peace fan fiction for the Napoleon wars. By dismissing all fan fiction as "unimaginative", you are behaving much more arrogant than anyone else in this thread.
Your last point also does not hold water. I can be good at two things, big surprise.
-
You see, nobody here is making a claim to the likes of "Yo, i could've invented Dominion". What we are saying is that, given a finished game, it's not hard to expand on it. I happen to make my own game with a friend (surprise), and now that the basic mechanic stands, new ideas fly in every day. It would be easy for anyone who knew our game to come up with cards or abilities for it, and they could easily be as good as ours. The same applies for Dominion. Donald had to invent Dominion, and then Duration cards and Embargo before i could make up that pretty-much-Swamp-Hag i did four years ago.
Creating a working game concept is very hard work. Expanding on it isn't, and everyone who is ra bit talented can do it. Why do you think there are so many Dominion knockoffs? Because, given the mechanic Donald X invented, it's easy to build something that works. What you are claiming is either that we confuse ourselves with people that would have come up with Dominion, or that we are moronic half-monkeys incapable of expanding on a given principle. Both claims are as insulting as untrue.
Edit: Of course that doesn't say creating good fan cards, or any fan material, is trivial. You still need a bit of a hand for it, and the will to test and improve. But it's far from developing a boardgame from scratch.
-
Another thing I think is that the skill required to make a game and the skill required to expand on it are not qualitatively the same. From my personal experience, I've tried to design dozens of games and put hours and hours of work into each one. None worked.
On the other hand, I've made custom cards for Android: Netrunner, custom quests for LOTR:LCG, and those have gone great and my group often even prefers playing my custom quest over the official ones. For Dominion it's more complicated, but I still some of my fan cards (I hope most) are better designed than Scout.
In short, you say "If you can make good Dominion cards, why not go out and make your own game?". I say that the skill needed to make good Dominion cards is not the same as the skill needed to make Dominion (or even something less creative like Trains).
-
Ridiculous of you to imply that your cards are more balanced and better than official cards.
Of course I never implied this. I just stated that some of my cards have been tested more than some of the Adventures cards before the set was finalized. That's a fact.
-
I'm kind of surprised at how little playtesting you report, LF. I'm working as a playtester right now (can't say for whom) and a lot more is getting done than a few dozen playthroughs. I guess different games do it different ways.
-
I'm kind of surprised at how little playtesting you report, LF. I'm working as a playtester right now (can't say for whom) and a lot more is getting done than a few dozen playthroughs. I guess different games do it different ways.
Well, don't read too much into it. Most of the cards in Adventures got way more testing—most were in well over 100 games. But if a card shows up late and is super-unlikely to break the game (e.g. Raze), it doesn't need that much testing. Just enough to make sure it's fun and not obviously broken.
Also some games need more testing than others. Any game with individual player powers would probably require WAY more testing to make sure all of them are very closely balanced. In Dominion it's fine if this $4 card is stronger than this other $4 card as long as it's not making the game worse (i.e. the strategy is always to load up on just that card).
EDIT: Also, it's possible that your playtesting project is for some big company like Wizards of the Coast. In that case of course it's easy to do a ton of testing. Dominion is much smaller scale.
-
Well, don't read too much into it. Most of the cards in Adventures got way more testing—many were in over 100 games. But if a card shows up late and is super-unlikely to break the game (e.g. Raze), it doesn't need that much testing. Just enough to make sure it's fun and not obviously broken.
Memory is flawed and just to do the due diligence I went back and checked to make sure I wasn't full of crap. It looks like the last Kingdom card that changed significantly was Relic. The previous version was much different and the final version was only around for about two weeks before testing effectively ended. Near as I can tell it was played in about 30 games, but in many of them (at least half a dozen) Relic wasn't bought and some of the others may have been isotropic games using the old version (understandably there's a delay until Doug has time to update the cards). So Relic, not tested all that much. But we already had a good handle on how the attack effect played out (it had been on other cards/events) and it just didn't need that much testing.
EDIT: Oh, Raze was tested way more than I thought. Over 50 games for sure. And extrapolating, many early cards (e.g. Port) were easily tested in hundreds of games.
-
Dude, there is some really great fan fiction out there and some really terrible published stuff as well. Having talent for something doesn't mean you'll end up doing it for a living, and doing something for a living does not mean you are any good at it. And you are underestimating how much testing is done by some of the fan card makers here.
Nope. First, to get actually good at writing, as with anything in else in life, you have to do it constantly over years. This is why people who only do it for a few hours a week in their spare time cannot become good at it.
Second, if you compare fan fiction, something which is derivative and unimaginative, to proper literature you are direly begging to not be taken seriously.
Same with Dominion fan cards. If any of us were good at designing games they would, big surprise, actual design their own game and not do derivative work. Then again I am not really surprised that fan(atic)s overestimate their skills.
You assume that fanfic authors don't write constantly. Some do. Some are even published authors themselves.
There is great fan fiction. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is a fanfic, but it is a huge departure from the books and enormously creative.
There are derivative and unimaginative "original" works. I actually enjoyed reading through Eragon way back when, but it's some of the most generic fantasy writing I've ever seen. And it was still successful.
There are some horrendous published works that have had baffling success. Do you think Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey are paragons of great literature? 50 Shades started off as a (bad) fanfic too, but it was published all the same.
There are unpublished works that are amazing. Worm is one example there. Harry Potter could be another example, at least for the first dozen attempts. Did it magically become better the moment it received validation by a publisher?
Getting published and becoming a commercial success requires more than just skilled writing and creativity. Luck is a major factor, as is perseverance and knowing the right people. Marketing savvy can help too. There are certainly talented writers who aren't published because they lack in other departments. There are bad writers who yet succeed because of those other things. Likewise for game designers. Sometimes these talented people are content not to seek out commercial validation, and that doesn't diminish their ability at all.
And just to bring in another area, do you also think fan art is derivative and unimaginative? Because many of the great masterpieces in art history are works of fan art. And not even fan art done by a fan! Rather, they are commissioned pieces. Think about it.
I am considering to make the card a bit weaker via "When you gain this, each other play gains a Coin token and +VP token", thus converting King into a Market when it is first played, and wonder what the folks who think that the card is seriously overpowed think about this.
I don't think I've called it overpowered, at least not seriously so. I've just pointed out that it was more powerful than Grand Market while effectively costing less. If GM didn't exist, I would have just waited to hear the results from testing.
Does that new text even fit on a card? I think it's over-complicating what was supposed to br a simple design. It sounds OK for testing, but it doesn't seem worthwhile.
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
I never said there wasn't.
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
I never said there wasn't.
And when it's bad... It's really really bad...
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
I never said there wasn't.
And when it's bad... It's really really bad...
Yeah, sure. I gave 50 Shades as an example right in that post. :P
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
I never said there wasn't.
And when it's bad... It's really really bad...
Yeah, sure. I gave 50 Shades as an example right in that post. :P
http://fanfiction.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_fan_fictions_considered_the_worst
I've spent days reading awful fanfiction. It's appeal is in that it's awful.
-
Nope.
This is my favorite (most hated) trait about you. You'll sit and hear people try to speak reason to you, and instead of actually considering hmmm, maybe this person has something insightful to say. I might be able to learn from them you decide to dismiss them immediately
If it wasn't for injokes I'm not sure how long an argument consisted of you vs. f.DS would have lasted
...
As for "on topic" discussion, I remember once reading a piece of My Little Pony fanfiction that involved dutch ovens as the main plotpoint, nay the entire story even
-
Nope.
This is my favorite (most hated) trait about you. You'll sit and hear people try to speak reason to you, and instead of actually considering hmmm, maybe this person has something insightful to say. I might be able to learn from them you decide to dismiss them immediately
If it wasn't for injokes I'm not sure how long an argument consisted of you vs. f.DS would have lasted
...
As for "on topic" discussion, I remember once reading a piece of My Little Pony fanfiction that involved dutch ovens as the main plotpoint, nay the entire story even
Sure, there's good fan fiction. But get ready for an amazing pun...
It's canon fodder...
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
It's not bad. It's art. Beautiful absurdist art.
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
It's not bad. It's art. Beautiful absurdist art.
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20030312-2.gif)
-
There is great fan fiction.
...and there is bad (https://www.fanfiction.net/game/Tetris/) fan fiction...
It's not bad. It's art. Beautiful absurdist art.
[---]
A witty and/or slightly gross image proves nothing.
-
Getting published and becoming a commercial success requires more than just skilled writing and creativity. Luck is a major factor, as is perseverance and knowing the right people. Marketing savvy can help too. There are certainly talented writers who aren't published because they lack in other departments. There are bad writers who yet succeed because of those other things. Likewise for game designers. Sometimes these talented people are content not to seek out commercial validation, and that doesn't diminish their ability at all.
Getting published and becoming a commercial success requires more than just skilled writing and creativity. Luck is a major factor, as is perseverance and knowing the right people. Marketing savvy can help too. There are certainly talented writers who aren't published because they lack in other departments. There are bad writers who yet succeed because of those other things. Likewise for game designers. Sometimes these talented people are content not to seek out commercial validation, and that doesn't diminish their ability at all.
In my gaming club there are two game designers. One is a well-known author who has produced numerous games and the other one never published a game. Based on his stories it seems to have mainly been due to bad luck / bad timing but then again I seriously doubt that this games (never played one of his prototypes so it is just guesswork) are better than those of the guy who has published plenty of games.
Anyway, my original point was that official cards are better than fan cards and I stand by this. Even LastFootnote admitted that many official cards got a lot of playtesting. More time, more folks to play with it, the abilities of the game designer, well, if anybody here thinks he can top that he is ludicrous. Individual fan cards (they are mostly Peddler, Village or Lab variant) can of course be as good as existing cards .
I don't think I've called it overpowered, at least not seriously so. I've just pointed out that it was more powerful than Grand Market while effectively costing less. If GM didn't exist, I would have just waited to hear the results from testing.
Does that new text even fit on a card? I think it's over-complicating what was supposed to br a simple design. It sounds OK for testing, but it doesn't seem worthwhile.
Probably gotta use a smaller font and skip the long line which is used to seperate "When you gain this .." from the normal text. My goal is obviously not make the card messy but just to balance it (I don't think that GM's copper restriction would make much sense for an 8 card which is mostly buyed in heavy-trashing games and even if it would make sense I wouldn't wanna copy it).
-
In my gaming club there are two game designers. One is a well-known author who has produced numerous games and the other one never published a game. Based on his stories it seems to have mainly been due to bad luck / bad timing but then again I seriously doubt that this games (never played one of his prototypes so it is just guesswork) are better than those of the guy who has published plenty of games.
How is that relevant? Yes, some people don't get published because their games suck. There are also good designers who don't get published due to lack of opportunity or even lack of desire (see: various free, well-reviewed PnP games), and there are also published games that are terrible.
I really don't know what you're trying to say with the example, but even if it were applicable, the plural of anecdote is not data. And you admit that you haven't even played his prototypes, so it's an anecdote without any basis whatsoever. ???
-
In my gaming club there are two game designers. One is a well-known author who has produced numerous games and the other one never published a game. Based on his stories it seems to have mainly been due to bad luck / bad timing but then again I seriously doubt that this games (never played one of his prototypes so it is just guesswork) are better than those of the guy who has published plenty of games.
How is that relevant? Yes, some people don't get published because their games suck. There are also good designers who don't get published due to lack of opportunity or even lack of desire (see: various free, well-reviewed PnP games), and there are also published games that are terrible.
I really don't know what you're trying to say with the example, but even if it were applicable, the plural of anecdote is not data. And you admit that you haven't even played his prototypes, so it's an anecdote without any basis whatsoever. ???
Correlation, my point is that folks who have actually published a game are more likely to be good at it than folks who have not. Now I am the last person on this planet who wants to argue that commercial success and artistic quality go hand in hand, otherwise there would be more Criterion edition DVDs of Kurosawa and Bergman movies being sold than Michael Bay movie DVDs. Even in the boardgaming world bad games like Monopoly, Risk and even Settlers (which was a seminal game 20 years ago but nowadays is far too random and lacks decision density) would not sell as well as they do and we all know a number of great boardgames which are not very well-known because they are produced by a small published or because somehow news about ths particular good did not spread.
But most of the time we gamers are fairly good ad judging quality and great games get produced, published and bought even years later while the crappy ones die in development or after they are thrown onto the market.
-
Correlation, my point is that folks who have actually published a game are more likely to be good at it than folks who have not.
I wouldn't really say that. They are less likely to be completely awful at it, but there are a lot of factors that lead to games getting or not getting published that have nothing to do with how good the game is. A publisher might not want to work with a designer who is completely clueless about everything, which is why they might turn down a great game with an unprofessional presentation, or there might be a newly popular genre that the publisher would like to do but hasn't done yet, which is why they might publish a mediocre game of that genre.
-
In my gaming club there are two game designers.
the plural of anecdote is not data.
Correlation
Correlation does not imply causation
-
In my gaming club there are two game designers.
the plural of anecdote is not data.
Correlation
Correlation does not imply causation
It is not like I did not use the word correlation deliberately so thanks for telling me what I already know.
-
Your argument still is based on a fallacy. Even assuming all successful board game designers were good at game design (which is disputable), you can't deduce that all people who are not successful board game designers were not. That's like saying: All birds lay eggs, so if something is not a bird, it can't lay eggs. Sorry, fish, platypus and lizard.
So you say, no, i didn't deduce that, i never said that. But well, you made a statement about all fans, at least all fans of dominion, and implied they can not posssibly compete. Obviously you don't know every Dominion fan personally, so the only way you could justify a statement about all of them would be by forcing a logical conclusion. And your "logic" is, they aren't board game designers, they know nothing about boardgames. Your logical conclusion isn't there. Instead you serve us a bundle of anecdotes, unsupported claims, observations that lack a test group (So you played games by published designers and now think you can talk about games by unpublished designers?), and of course, the belief that everyone will do all the jobs he's good at throughout his live, because humans have unlimited time and never have to choose which path to go.
And all of that for what? To defend a fan card? Boy, they are not worth it. I have made plenty of bad fan cards, and if people pointed out why they were bad, of course i struggled to improve them, but sooner or later you have to see it how it is and, if there's no solution, let go. Unless of course you think that you don't have to try to make them as good as possible. In that case, you shouldn't be surprised if they turn out as bad as you predicted, though.
-
And all of that for what? To defend a fan card? Boy, they are not worth it. I have made plenty of bad fan cards, and if people pointed out why they were bad, of course i struggled to improve them, but sooner or later you have to see it how it is and, if there's no solution, let go. Unless of course you think that you don't have to try to make them as good as possible. In that case, you shouldn't be surprised if they turn out as bad as you predicted, though.
How about reading what I actually wrote before pulling things out of your ass?
Donald is totally right that there should be no 8$ card in a normal Dominion set, they are just too wacky. But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
So contrary to your claims I neither defended my card nor implied that I do try to make it as good as possible. I rather acknowledged the natural limitations of my very card as I went for a price which is considered to be narrow by Donald X (for the reasons I outlined in the very same post) and thus unusable for official cards by the author. Gee, that's the very 101 of my card and it is even emphasized in the title of the thread.
If I pissed off some fan card designers who arrogantly assume that their cards are as good as official ones via claiming something commonsensical, that fan cards are worse than official cards, so be it. You also might wanna get off your "logic" train, I never said that all fan cards are worse than all official cards. Pretty obvious that there quite some bad official cards which are easily outmatched by the best fan cards.
If you actually read what I wrote instead of assuming things you would know that I like fan cards and have so far printed about 40 (out of hundreds or thousands; without wanting to insult anybody the majority of cards and ideas here, including mine, are utter crap) of them. Not that you would actually need to read anything, the very fact that I post in the fan cards section of this forum should suffice for you to know that if I am biased in any way it is towards and not against fan cards. But unlike you I seem to be aware of their natural limitations.
-
It is not arrogant to say that fan cards can be as good as official cards. We're not naming specific fan cards or touting our own work, as you seem to be assuming. I don't even have a fan expansion to tout. There are some really well-designed fan cards and there are some not-great official cards, including at least one that Donald says would have changed or dropped if issues had been discovered sooner.
Your common sense here is extremely nonsensical. Being "official" in no way guarantees higher quality in games, prose, art, etc. That's what this whole recent stretch of conversation has been about, and it is astounding how you just ignore all the examples that counter your sweeping generalizations and groundless assumptions.
-
Examples? Like 50 Shades of Grey and Shakespeare? Give me a break.
I recently played a fan-designed Descent campaign with some friends. I really liked it and so far it seems to be decently balanced but the natural caveat was that it is a FAN campaign (i.e. underdesigned, undertested and not made by the guy who most likely has the best insight into this game, the game designer) so it is per se MOST LIKELY worse than an official campaign. We have been presently surprised but it was MORE LIKELY that the fan campaign would have been worse than an official one.
Same here. Pick out a random fan card and a random official card and it is highly likely that a) the fan card does not even have art and b) it is fundamentally worse than the official card. And this is the best place for Dominion fan cards, if you just surf the net you will find aweful stuff like fan cards that are oblivious of official cards and thus clearly better or worse (more often better) than existing cards.
I also often play with a Race for the Galaxy fan expansion so you really might wanna think twice before you claim that somebody who is far more into fan-made stuff than the average boardgamer is out on a crusade against fan designs.
Whether you like it or not, claiming that fan cards are worse than official cards would be nowhere on this planet a controversial statement. It is just a dose of realism which some fan(atic)s in here seem to be unable to tolerate.
-
Yes, on average, fan cards are worse than official cards. This is because most fan cards are untested, uninteresting, or both. I don't think anybody here is arguing that the average fan card is better than the average official card.
Some fan cards are as good as official cards. You just said this in a post.
Explain to me how it is "arrogant" for a card designer to try to make cards that are as good as the official cards.
P.S. You may want to dial the aggression back a bit, horatio83. You're starting to act like the horatio83 on Dominion Online!
-
Examples? Like 50 Shades of Grey and Shakespeare? Give me a break.
I recently played a fan-designed Descent campaign with some friends. I really liked it and so far it seems to be decently balanced but the natural caveat was that it is a FAN campaign so it is MOST LIKELY worse than an official campaign. We have been presently surprised but it was MORE LIKELY that the fan campaign would have been worse than an official one.
Same here. Pick out a random fan card and a random official card and it is highly likely that a) the fan card does not even have art and b) it is fundamentally worse than the official card. And this is the best place for Dominion fan cards, if you just surf the net you will find aweful stuff like fan cards that are oblivious of official cards and thus clearly better or worse (more often better) than existing cards.
So whether you like it or not, claiming that fan cards are worse than official cards would be nowhere on this planet a controversial statement. But, alas, fans are often fans in the literal sense.
"The average element in A is worse than the average element in B" =/= "Every element in A is worse than the average element in B"
-
And Harry Potter, and Eragon, and most Renaissance Art.
The difference is that you are making a sweeping generalization which is clearly false. Are fan cards more likely to be worse? Sure, but that's because fan cards are often just initial ideas that haven't been tested or refined whereas official cards are highly developed. If you take a random card from, say, LastFootnote's fan expansion, I have confidence that it can match official cards in quality.
Seriously though. Renaissance art is just fan art of the Bible.
-
Seriously though. Renaissance art is just fan art of the Bible.
And bad fan art at that. Winged angels? Pah.
-
Sure, the average fan card is not very good while the average official card is. I don't think this means that you should strive to make average fan cards.
-
Examples? Like 50 Shades of Grey and Shakespeare? Give me a break.
I'm not quite sure what you're implying here
-
Are fan cards more likely to be worse? Sure, but that's because fan cards are often just initial ideas that haven't been tested or refined whereas official cards are highly developed.
That's it. Somebody here said who was involved in the process said that many Dominion cards got playtested around 100 times. It is fairly natural that fan cards are underdeveloped relative to official cards. As I already said, hyperobvious, natural stuff and not controversial anywhere besides among pissed off fans. :D
Seriously though. Renaissance art is just fan art of the Bible.
Not that I am not used to preposterous arguments by you but claiming that guys like Michelangelo were "fan artists" tops it all.
-
Are fan cards more likely to be worse? Sure, but that's because fan cards are often just initial ideas that haven't been tested or refined whereas official cards are highly developed.
That's it. Somebody here said who was involved in the process said that many Dominion cards got playtested around 100 times. It is fairly natural that fan cards are underdeveloped relative to official cards. As I already said, hyperobvious, natural stuff and not controversial anywhere besides among pissed off fans. :D
Are you purposefully missing the point?
Seriously though. Renaissance art is just fan art of the Bible.
Not that I am not used to preposterous arguments by you but claiming that guys like Michelangelo were "fan artists" tops it all.
If you know anything about art history, you know that this is true. Most of that work is not original work but literally fan art of the Bible. If you think that this is pejorative, then that's your own problem. There's nothing wrong with being fan art. The fact is, Michelangelo didn't even like most of the stuff for which he is famous. Those were merely commissioned works from the Church that he took on to pay the bills. Stuff like the Sistine Chapel was commissioned fan art done by an artist who didn't even like it. This is historical fact.
-
Hey, I like hating on fan art because sonic fan art is mostly a plague, but I know they're not all like that. :)
-
sonic fan art
Music?
-
sonic fan art
Music?
I've made Kingdom Hearts fan music, but my work is almost always original. Not sure what you mean.
-
sonic fan art
Music?
I've made Kingdom Hearts fan music, but my work is almost always original. Not sure what you mean.
Okay then, I'll make the joke funnier by explaining it.
You were talking about sonic fan art. The joke is that "sonic" means "relating to or using sound waves"; thus, "sonic fan art" means "fan art relating to or using sound waves" which probably implies music.
-
sonic fan art
Music?
I've made Kingdom Hearts fan music, but my work is almost always original. Not sure what you mean.
Okay then, I'll make the joke funnier by explaining it.
You were talking about sonic fan art. The joke is that "sonic" means "relating to or using sound waves"; thus, "sonic fan art" means "fan art relating to or using sound waves" which probably implies music.
That was an awful joke. I'm sorry, I just can't support that one.
-
sonic fan art
Music?
I've made Kingdom Hearts fan music, but my work is almost always original. Not sure what you mean.
Okay then, I'll make the joke funnier by explaining it.
You were talking about sonic fan art. The joke is that "sonic" means "relating to or using sound waves"; thus, "sonic fan art" means "fan art relating to or using sound waves" which probably implies music.
That was an awful joke. I'm sorry, I just can't support that one.
To be fair, you should have capitalized "Sonic" and maybe thrown in "the Hedgehog".
-
sonic fan art
Music?
I've made Kingdom Hearts fan music, but my work is almost always original. Not sure what you mean.
Okay then, I'll make the joke funnier by explaining it.
You were talking about sonic fan art. The joke is that "sonic" means "relating to or using sound waves"; thus, "sonic fan art" means "fan art relating to or using sound waves" which probably implies music.
That was an awful joke. I'm sorry, I just can't support that one.
To be fair, you should have capitalized "Sonic" and maybe thrown in "the Hedgehog".
After Sonic Boom, I refuse to give that bastard any respect.
-
I'm not sure I understand this whole argument about whether fan cards can be as good as official cards. Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that they can't, they should still be made as good as possible.
For what it's worth, Horatio, I don't think anyone here is saying, "Your card isn't as good as the official cards, so it's a bad card and you should feel bad about your skills as a designer for making it." I think they're just trying to say, "Here are some ways you can make your card closer to the quality level of the official cards." Even assuming that some people can make fan cards that are as good as the official cards, that doesn't imply that other people should feel insulted if they're given suggestions to make their cards more like the official ones. If you look at the more established fan sets, there's a lot of criticism made of them, too, and if any fan cards are as good as the official ones, it's only because their designers got a lot of feedback (and did a lot of playtesting) and repeatedly adjusted their cards as problems were identified. In fact, if you look at the Secret Histories, you'll see that many of the official cards (especially the more unique ones) did not start off being as good as official cards, but needed several iterations of changes to be publishable.
-
sonic fan art
Music?
I've made Kingdom Hearts fan music, but my work is almost always original. Not sure what you mean.
Okay then, I'll make the joke funnier by explaining it.
You were talking about sonic fan art. The joke is that "sonic" means "relating to or using sound waves"; thus, "sonic fan art" means "fan art relating to or using sound waves" which probably implies music.
That was an awful joke. I'm sorry, I just can't support that one.
To be fair, you should have capitalized "Sonic" and maybe thrown in "the Hedgehog".
After Sonic Boom, I refuse to give that bastard any respect.
I assume this is meant to be humorous, because otherwise it would just be rude. If it is meant to be humorous, let's just say that i can spot worse attempts at gaining a laugh than Awaclus' sound joke.
-
I was talking about Sonic the Hedgehog.
-
I was talking about Sonic the Hedgehog.
I'm aware. It wouldn't have been funny if you had actually talked about sound. I just felt you overreacted on somebody using part of something you said for a joke. I'm sure Awaclus didn't mean anything bad by it.
Also, you got me curious there: What kind of Kingdom Hearts music did you do?
-
I was talking about Sonic the Hedgehog.
I'm aware. It wouldn't have been funny if you had actually talked about sound. I just felt you overreacted on somebody using part of something you said for a joke. I'm sure Awaclus didn't mean anything bad by it.
Also, you got me curious there: What kind of Kingdom Hearts music did you do?
In order from most recent to oldest, so you will see a dropoff in quality.
13th Struggle (http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/616531) (KH2)
L'Impeto Oscuro Reject (http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/583470) (KH:DDD)
Forze Del Male (http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/558164) (KH1)
L'Eminenza Oscura I (http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/523879) (KH:DDD) [Currently remaking this one, I love the song but this mix is just soooo bad)
Darkness of the Unknown (http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/511491)(KH2)
-
commissioned fan art done by an artist who didn't even like it
"Commissioned fan art" isn't fan art, it is a job by a pro.
A boardgame which comes to mind is Feld's "Der Name der Rose" (The Name of the Rose). Stefan didn't care much about doing a "Heimlich & Co" variant, it was just a job for him, but the game is actually pretty good.
A short philosophical note, if you are a materialist motivations do not matter. So it is totally irrelevant whether Feld or Michelangelo cared for the particular job they did, what matters is the end result. And as they are both experienced in their field even a job into which they put no heart turns out to be pretty good, respectively in the case of Michelangelo, sublime.
-
For what it's worth, Horatio, I don't think anyone here is saying, "Your card isn't as good as the official cards, so it's a bad card and you should feel bad about your skills as a designer for making it." I think they're just trying to say, "Here are some ways you can make your card closer to the quality level of the official cards."
My card is pretty whacky (gee, it is an 8$ card which Donald X did not do for official sets for very good reasons) and I have no issues with folks who do not like 8$ vanilla cards. I also do not mind criticism, there are some pretty good posts in this thread which helped me to understand the card better. Naturally I do not agree with every form of criticism, there are also some fairly ridiculous posts in here which are ignorant of basic stuff and naturally I do strive to improve my card.
But unlike some other folks I seem to be more aware of the natural limitations of fan cards in general and an 8$ in particular.
I still have no idea why my point about fan cards being worse than official cards, the humble and commonsensical notion that fans do not devote as much time into designing and playtesting as game designers who do it for a living (and probably have a larger, more regular and more professional playtesting group), pissed off so many people.
-
I still have no idea why my point about fan cards being worse than official cards, the humble and commonsensical notion that fans do not devote as much time into designing and playtesting as game designers who do it for a living (and probably have a larger, more regular and more professional playtesting group), pissed off so many people.
It's because you're wrong. Adventures took about six months to make. Two years of dedicated spare-time design could easily be equal to six months of full-time design. It takes longer to do these things your off-hours, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
I can tell you right now that Donald doesn't have a large or professional playtesting group. "Professional" means they're paid for playtesting; they aren't. I don't think his group is any larger than mine. If by "more regular", you mean "more frequent", that's true. Again, a lower frequency can be made up by a longer period of development.
-
"Professional" means they're paid for playtesting; they aren't. I don't think his group is any larger than mine. If by "more regular", you mean "more frequent", that's true. Again, a lower frequency can be made up by a longer period of development.
Nope. Nobody pays playtesters. Professional means having some boardgamers with stamina and an analytical mind (there is a reason the top two German boardgamer designers, Uwe and Stefan, have a technical-mathematical background) in your group. Would you mind to point out the games you published which were tested with your playtesting group? And if you haven't published any games, would you mind to point out all the Dominion cards which are based on an idea of yours?
If you pretend to have the same skills for game design as Donald X and a similar playtesting group but have done neither, designed an entire game or just one official card, I gotta call you out on your bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a game designer. As long as one doesn't lose one's humility and honesty while one is still in the process of becoming one ...
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/fe8b9a6017a729267974e040285527cc/tumblr_myimcwSlAh1qgfx04o1_500.gif)
-
"Professional" means they're paid for playtesting; they aren't. I don't think his group is any larger than mine. If by "more regular", you mean "more frequent", that's true. Again, a lower frequency can be made up by a longer period of development.
Nope. Nobody pays playtesters. Professional means having some boardgamers with stamina and an analytical mind (there is a reason the top two German boardgamer designers, Uwe and Stefan, have a technical-mathematical background) in your group. Would you mind to point out the games you published which were tested with your playtesting group? And if you haven't published any games, would you mind to point out all the Dominion cards which are based on an idea of yours?
If you pretend to have the same skills for game design as Donald X and a similar playtesting group but have done neither, designed an entire game or just one official card, I gotta call you out on your bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a game designer. As long as one doesn't lose one's humility and honesty while one is still in the process of becoming one ...
Designing cards for an established game takes fractions of the skill and time required to create the actual game.
-
commissioned fan art done by an artist who didn't even like it
"Commissioned fan art" isn't fan art, it is a job by a pro.
Nope. It's fan art because it's not the artist's original design. It is based on the Bible, so it is by definition Biblical fan art. You can find an artist and commission other fan art too.
A boardgame which comes to mind is Feld's "Der Name der Rose" (The Name of the Rose). Stefan didn't care much about doing a "Heimlich & Co" variant, it was just a job for him, but the game is actually pretty good.
A short philosophical note, if you are a materialist motivations do not matter. So it is totally irrelevant whether Feld or Michelangelo cared for the particular job they did, what matters is the end result. And as they are both experienced in their field even a job into which they put no heart turns out to be pretty good, respectively in the case of Michelangelo, sublime.
Sure. That's my point. Michelangelo's end product was fantastic and a lasting testament to human ability. And it was fan art.
I still have no idea why my point about fan cards being worse than official cards, the humble and commonsensical notion that fans do not devote as much time into designing and playtesting as game designers who do it for a living (and probably have a larger, more regular and more professional playtesting group), pissed off so many people.
I have to assume at this point that you are just trolling. You are repeatedly making this falacious argument (some form of appeal to authority, I am not sure) and are ignoring every post that explains your error.
The average fan card is worse than the average official card. Nobody disputes that. But there ARE fan cards that are as good as or even better than official cards. Your blanket statements are what people are disagreeing with. There are many great fan works.
Your argument is like saying that amateur athletes are always less skilled than professional athletes.
-
commissioned fan art done by an artist who didn't even like it
"Commissioned fan art" isn't fan art, it is a job by a pro.
Hey, would anyone like to become a professional artist today? I'll give anyone that draws me a "really good" bucket of water the 42 cents left in my debit/giftcard thing
-
commissioned fan art done by an artist who didn't even like it
"Commissioned fan art" isn't fan art, it is a job by a pro.
Hey, would anyone like to become a professional artist today? I'll give anyone that draws me a "really good" bucket of water the 42 cents left in my debit/giftcard thing
How about I draw the mic you just dropped instead?
(http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2548180-drop_the_mic_17cherrylane.gif)
-
Horatio and you guys agree that:
-The average fan card is worse than the average official card
-Some fan cards are better than some official cards
What fact do you disagree about? Repeating those two things back and forth isn't going to help.
Personally, I think Horatio is saying:
-it's impossible as a non-published designer to consistently design cards approximately as good as official ones.
Horatio, is that correct?
-
I got the impression he means that no fan card can possibly be as good as the average official card. Some might be as good or better than the worst (Scout, Rebuild), but never as good as the average. To me he seemed to consider fan cards inherently incapable of being good, or generally, fans inherently incapable of creating something equally good to official works.
-
Horatio and you guys agree that:
-The average fan card is worse than the average official card
-Some fan cards are better than some official cards
Where do you see Horatio agreeing with the second point? That's where the disagreement is. I may have missed it, but most statements I see from him are blanket "fan work always worse than official".
-
I'm serious about the bucket of water, by the way. If you're working for minimum wage, someone should be able to spend about 5 minutes and make it work their while. I have the next 12 hours or so until I leave on vacation, though, so be quick.
-
commissioned fan art done by an artist who didn't even like it
"Commissioned fan art" isn't fan art, it is a job by a pro.
Hey, would anyone like to become a professional artist today? I'll give anyone that draws me a "really good" bucket of water the 42 cents left in my debit/giftcard thing
Whether you like it or not,there are ample of professional artists whose job is their art. Michelangelo appeared in the discussion and he was a proand if we consider board game design to be a form of art there are also some professonal board gamer designers. Rosenberg, Wallace and, guess what, Vaccarino come to mind.
It is based on the Bible, so it is by definition Biblical fan art.
That's like saying that Shakespeare is "(historical) fan art" because he used stuff like Holinshed's Chronicles while writing some of his plays, i.e. it is utterly preposterous.
Horatio and you guys agree that:
-The average fan card is worse than the average official card
-Some fan cards are better than some official cards
What fact do you disagree about? Repeating those two things back and forth isn't going to help.
Personally, I think Horatio is saying:
-it's impossible as a non-published designer to consistently design cards approximately as good as official ones.
Horatio, is that correct?
Yep, I said so here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=post;quote=513466;topic=13522.0;last_msg=514575) here. Obviously there are ample of cards here which are better than cards like Thief, Spy or Scout.
Should have been obvious that my statement is a stochastic one. If one says that men are stronger than women, that X is a better runner than Z or that the weather will be bad tomorrow it is totally clear to anybody who is not a total moron that the stochastic caveats are implicit.
ON AVERAGE men are stronger than women, UNLESS Z HAS A GOOD DAY AND Z A BAD DAY, X is the better runner than Z, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW IS .8 is how you would state the above stuff unambiguously. Stylistically such statements are quite horrible which is why nobody uses them.
-
Should have been obvious that my statement is a stochastic one. If one says that men are stronger than women, that X is a better runner than Z or that the weather will be bad tomorrow it is totally clear to anybody who is not a total moron that the stochastic caveats are implicit.
ON AVERAGE men are stronger than women, UNLESS Z HAS A GOOD DAY AND Z A BAD DAY, X is the better runner than Z, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW IS .8 is how you would state the above stuff unambiguously. Stylistically such statements are quite horrible which is why nobody uses them.
Fine. Noone is disagreeing with you on this. Stochastic arguments are fine.
The problem we have is that you originally used this argument as a reason for people not to bother working that hard on their cards. At this point, your argument essentially comes down to "Fan cards, on average, are not as good as official cards, so fans shouldn't bother to try to make their cards as good as possible." Do you honestly not see the problem we have with this?
-
The problem we have is that you originally used this argument as a reason for people not to bother working that hard on their cards.
Nope, I never made such an argument:
Donald is totally right that there should be no 8$ card in a normal Dominion set, they are just too wacky. But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
I said that my card is wacky (in this very thread we also shortly discussed why 8$ cards are problematic) and that I am fine with that (otherwise I wouldn't have done an 8$ card in the first place) as fan cards are worse than official cards anyway.
I didn't say though, and already said (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13522.msg511783#msg511783) that I never intended to imply to, that one shouldn't strive to improve one's cards. This includes this very card, given the limitations (the main problem are the large returns so an early investment pays off (too) well, as opposed to games in which a player who early hits 8$ can only buy a 6/7 action card or Gold and the lack of mitigation of this via delaying the payoffs like in the case of Prince) of making an 8$ card well balanced.
It's like running your first marathon. Of course you should have ambition and train hard for it but be friggin' realistic and don't expect to or pretend to be the first in the finishing line as there are folks who ran some already and have more time to train.
And last but not least I'd like to point out again that I play with quite some fan cards and also use fan-made stuff in other boardgames. I guess the large majority of boardgamers is not doing that so if I am biased in any way it is not against but towards fan material.
-
My problem with your posts is particularly that you seem to intentionally misunderstand what other people say here and confront everyone about it in an insulting and incriminating way. Although no one seems to disagree with the base line of your argument you continue to make propositions that what other people are implying is moronic when in fact no one here is that stupid. You just assume everybody is stupid and show your contempt in every post you make which is impudent and disrespectful. It would also feel like this if you weren't new to the forums but since you are, it appears like you only come here to take on anyone who points out anything wrong with your argument no matter how diplomatically they express themselves. Stop acting up!
-
It's like running your first marathon. Of course you should have ambition and train hard for it but be friggin' realistic and don't expect to or pretend to be the first in the finishing line as there are folks who ran some already and have more time to train.
If you use "I'm not as good as the more experienced runners anyway" as an excuse to not do your best, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-
you only come here to take on anyone who points out anything wrong with your argument no matter how diplomatically they express themselves. Stop acting up!
Acting up? The point of a forum is to debate with people you disagree with (unless one is a fascist and believes in harmonic, organic unity; but thankfully this is is not a place where fascists gather). Unlike some other folks in here I do at least read the posts instead of assuming that somebody wrote something which he actually did not write.
It's like running your first marathon. Of course you should have ambition and train hard for it but be friggin' realistic and don't expect to or pretend to be the first in the finishing line as there are folks who ran some already and have more time to train.
If you use "I'm not as good as the more experienced runners anyway" as an excuse to not do your best, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
True. But neither me nor anybody else claimed that one shouldn't strive to improve one's cards.
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
Should have been obvious that my statement is a stochastic one. If one says that men are stronger than women, that X is a better runner than Z or that the weather will be bad tomorrow it is totally clear to anybody who is not a total moron that the stochastic caveats are implicit.
ON AVERAGE men are stronger than women, UNLESS Z HAS A GOOD DAY AND Z A BAD DAY, X is the better runner than Z, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW IS .8 is how you would state the above stuff unambiguously. Stylistically such statements are quite horrible which is why nobody uses them.
Your statement isn't stochastic. Even though you adapted it slightly during the discussion (from "no fan card can be a card as good as official cards" to "no fan can repeatedly make cards as good as Donald's") to give your point a little more substance, it's still not stochastic. Stochastic would be "fans on average have a higher likelihood to make bad cards than Donald has", and, applied to all fans overall, nobody here doubts that.
Your claim isn't that, though, it's that no possible fan could ever be as good as Donald. As you don't have information about every existing fan and gave no forcing logical reason why that should be the case, you are just making statements that you can't back up. It's like saying no free-time runner could be as fast as a specific olympic runner. It might be true that there is none, but claiming it's generally impossible is just wrong.
So now you say, hey, i never implied it's general, i was just making a stochastic statement on fans overall. Of course there could be a fan who's as good as doing stuff as the official creator, i just wanted to say it's very unlikely. If so, well, forgive me, but i can't shake the feeling you're just changing your mind now to avoid looking bad.
Besides, Black Market is "whacky". King is expensive and strong, and that's it.
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
Should have been obvious that my statement is a stochastic one. If one says that men are stronger than women, that X is a better runner than Z or that the weather will be bad tomorrow it is totally clear to anybody who is not a total moron that the stochastic caveats are implicit.
ON AVERAGE men are stronger than women, UNLESS Z HAS A GOOD DAY AND Z A BAD DAY, X is the better runner than Z, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW IS .8 is how you would state the above stuff unambiguously. Stylistically such statements are quite horrible which is why nobody uses them.
Your statement isn't stochastic.
You trying to tell me that expected values aren't stochastic? Seriously?
As I already said a zillion times, my point is that the average (To avoid further misunderstandings I use average here in the sense of stochastically average, i.e. 'expected'. When I say "an average Monument yields about 4-6 VPs" this means "the expected VP token payoff of a Monument is around 4-6" but do not use the latter, more technically precise wording as it sucks stylistically. Gee, it is a card game so it should be hyper-crystal-clear that we are not in a deterministic world!) fan card, is far worse than the average official card. Obviously if you restrict the sample to the best fan cards or fan card designers the difference in average quality diminishes.
i can't shake the feeling you're just changing your mind now to avoid looking bad.
Well, I cannot shake the feeling that this is less about (direly wanting to misunderstand) my statement but more about fellow fan card designers being pissed off because somebody told them the obvious: that their cards might be inferior to official cards as they are not Donald X and have not played dozens or hundreds of times with large enough playtesting groups yet.
Unlike you I seem to be able to deal with that simple objjective fact and my subjective preferences for fan cards respectively fan material in general.
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
Should have been obvious that my statement is a stochastic one. If one says that men are stronger than women, that X is a better runner than Z or that the weather will be bad tomorrow it is totally clear to anybody who is not a total moron that the stochastic caveats are implicit.
ON AVERAGE men are stronger than women, UNLESS Z HAS A GOOD DAY AND Z A BAD DAY, X is the better runner than Z, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW IS .8 is how you would state the above stuff unambiguously. Stylistically such statements are quite horrible which is why nobody uses them.
Your statement isn't stochastic.
You trying to tell me that expected values aren't stochastic? Seriously?
I'm trying to tell you that
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
has nothing to do with stochastics. It's not hard to understand, unless of course you refuse to.
-
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
Should have been obvious that my statement is a stochastic one. If one says that men are stronger than women, that X is a better runner than Z or that the weather will be bad tomorrow it is totally clear to anybody who is not a total moron that the stochastic caveats are implicit.
ON AVERAGE men are stronger than women, UNLESS Z HAS A GOOD DAY AND Z A BAD DAY, X is the better runner than Z, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW IS .8 is how you would state the above stuff unambiguously. Stylistically such statements are quite horrible which is why nobody uses them.
Your statement isn't stochastic.
You trying to tell me that expected values aren't stochastic? Seriously?
I'm trying to tell you that
But then again nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.
has nothing to do with stochastics. It's not hard to understand, unless of course you refuse to.
Direly wanting to misunderstand me indeed. I already said numerous of times that such statements imply ON AVERAGE and not ALWAYS.
If I said for example that a sprinter is better at running 100m than me I obviously mean that he is on average, i.e. in most of the cases, quicker than me. He might be ill, he might become old or whatever and in these cases he is not quicker.
Obviously it is not necessary to add "on average", every adult person who is not totally braindead (ot intentionally wanting to misread somebody) is aware of all the preconditions, caveats and subtexts of language.
Anyway, this "discussion" has become pointless. If I pissed of some arrogant fan designers who cannot deal with the fact that they are not the next Donald X this is more of an achievement than an error.
-
If I pissed of some arrogant fan designers who cannot deal with the fact that they are not the next Donald X this is more of an achievement than an error.
The problem is that you seem to think this actually happened.
-
Obviously it is not necessary to add "on average", every adult person who is not totally braindead (ot intentionally wanting to misread somebody) is aware of all the preconditions, caveats and subtexts of language.
So, if you make a really, really dumb statement, the reader is supposed to add caveats and context so it becomes less dumb? I'll keep this in mind for the future.
-
If I pissed of some arrogant fan designers who cannot deal with the fact that they are not the next Donald X this is more of an achievement than an error.
The problem is that you seem to think this actually happened.
You pissed off everyone because you are completely oblivious to what they're actually saying and show repeatedly that you don't care about the discussion but rather just like to insult everyone. Obviously, you cannot argue without being impudent and condescending. Everyone else is still being polite which I acknowledge but can't really comprehend. But you should be grateful that we're so patient with you and shut down your verbal aggression.
-
If I pissed of some arrogant fan designers who cannot deal with the fact that they are not the next Donald X this is more of an achievement than an error.
The problem is that you seem to think this actually happened.
Yeah it's weird.
I'm sorry, Horatio, but I don't care enough about your opinions to get angry about the things you say. I'm willing to have a discussion, but you're not worth getting upset at.
-
1. Make blanket claim that fan works are always worse than official/professional works.
2. Everybody points out how blanket statement is incorrect.
3. Spend a dozen posts reiterating this position.
4. Claim everybody arguing against him is just being pissy.
5. Finally claim that his repeated blanket statement was "implicitly stochastic" all along and that he actually doesn't disagree with anybody that the blanket statement was false.
6. Call everybody morons for interpreting the original statement as written.
Yeah, OK. If that's what you originally meant, you could have cleared it up at the start. Something like, "Sure, there actually are some great fan works, but I actually meant that they are worse on average." Instead, you wrote this:
Dude, there is some really great fan fiction out there and some really terrible published stuff as well. Having talent for something doesn't mean you'll end up doing it for a living, and doing something for a living does not mean you are any good at it. And you are underestimating how much testing is done by some of the fan card makers here.
Nope. First, to get actually good at writing, as with anything in else in life, you have to do it constantly over years. This is why people who only do it for a few hours a week in their spare time cannot become good at it.
Second, if you compare fan fiction, something which is derivative and unimaginative, to proper literature you are direly begging to not be taken seriously.
Same with Dominion fan cards. If any of us were good at designing games they would, big surprise, actual design their own game and not do derivative work. Then again I am not really surprised that fan(atic)s overestimate their skills.
-
Obviously it is not necessary to add "on average", every adult person who is not totally braindead (ot intentionally wanting to misread somebody) is aware of all the preconditions, caveats and subtexts of language.
So, if you make a really, really dumb statement, the reader is supposed to add caveats and context so it becomes less dumb? I'll keep this in mind for the future.
It's not the reader's responsibility, but I'd argue it's a good idea if you want to leave your mind open.
-
You (Horatio) said in your second post on this page that you know $8 cards should not be in an official set because they're problematic. And yet you're still fine with that.
That sounds a lot like not wanting to improve your cards.
-
Dude, there is some really great fan fiction out there and some really terrible published stuff as well. Having talent for something doesn't mean you'll end up doing it for a living, and doing something for a living does not mean you are any good at it. And you are underestimating how much testing is done by some of the fan card makers here.
Nope. First, to get actually good at writing, as with anything in else in life, you have to do it constantly over years. This is why people who only do it for a few hours a week in their spare time cannot become good at it.
Second, if you compare fan fiction, something which is derivative and unimaginative, to proper literature you are direly begging to not be taken seriously.
Same with Dominion fan cards. If any of us were good at designing games they would, big surprise, actual design their own game and not do derivative work. Then again I am not really surprised that fan(atic)s overestimate their skills.
That is exactly what I meant. These statements are insulting and based on nothing but seemingly hatred/disrespect towards fan writers/designers/whatever. From this point on I stopped taking you seriously. You disrespect cannot be founded in a rational point of view. Or do you think you are the only one being rational here while everyone else is an ignorant moron? Seems very unlikely.
-
You (Horatio) said in your second post on this page that you know $8 cards should not be in an official set because they're problematic. And yet you're still fine with that.
That sounds a lot like not wanting to improve your cards.
Sure, I could make it more expensive but 9$ cards are problematic in Colony games. I could make it weaker and price it at 7$ but then it would have to be a Double Peddler as anything else would be too strong and this is obviously not what I want
This is why I have to accept its natural limitation of being an 8$ card and try to improve it despite of that.
1. Make blanket claim that fan works are always worse than official/professional works.
[...]
5. Finally claim that his repeated blanket statement was "implicitly stochastic" all along and that he actually doesn't disagree with anybody that the blanket statement was false.
You might wanna stop making things up. I never used the word always or all.
If you do not understand or unwilling to understand that statements of the kind "tomorrow the weather will be bad" means "tomorrow the weather will MOST LIKELY be bad" and not "tomorrow the weather will DEFINITELY" be bad I cannot help you.
That is exactly what I meant. These statements are insulting and based on nothing but seemingly hatred/disrespect towards fan writers/designers/whatever. From this point on I stopped taking you seriously. You disrespect cannot be founded in a rational point of view. Or do you think you are the only one being rational here while everyone else is an ignorant moron? Seems very unlikely.
Pissed off fan card designers indeed. ^^
Saying something like "Shakespeare is better writer than some fan fiction author" or "Kuroswa is a better director than Michael Bay" has nothing to do with hatred (for the umptenth times, I have printed about 40 fan cards so I obviously like fan cards; I also sometimes read fan fiction but just because I subjectively like it from time to time doesn't mean that I lose my objectivity and cannot be honest about it being medicore or bad literature), disrespect or irrationality but with lack of interest to play postmodern relativistic games. Not everybody who is engaged in artistic activity is making something sublime.
-
1. Make blanket claim that fan works are always worse than official/professional works.
[...]
5. Finally claim that his repeated blanket statement was "implicitly stochastic" all along and that he actually doesn't disagree with anybody that the blanket statement was false.
You might wanna stop making things up. I never used the word always or all.
If you do not understand or unwilling to understand that statements of the kind "tomorrow the weather will be bad" means "tomorrow the weather will MOST LIKELY be bad" and not "tomorrow the weather will DEFINITELY" be bad I cannot help you.
"nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that the weather can be good tomorrow" => "tomorrow the weather will certainly be bad (and everybody who disagrees is arrogant)" =/= "tomorrow the weather will be bad"
"nobody here is so arrogant as to assume that some stupid fan cards can as good as official cards.[sic]" => "fan cards are always worse than official cards (and i like to back up my points by insulting disagreeing parties beforehand)" =/= "fan cards are worse than official cards"
I'll leave the following as an exercise: "Nobody here is so foolish as to believe that you are not trolling"
-
Horatio, stop stirring up trouble. Here's a fact: This is the number one place where great fan cards for Dominion are to be found on a consistent basis. We've all been playing this game for years upon years. Tell me, why are you correct over many other people who have been playing longer? Sure, it might not be a logical argument on it's own, but it's good circumstantial evidence when everyone else is shooting you down that you MIGHT be wrong. Even if you're not wrong, your moral superiority and constant bickering over something as trivial as an opinion on fan cards is annoying and troublemaking. I've tried to ignore it, but it's getting out of hand. Please think about being kinder.
-
1. Make blanket claim that fan works are always worse than official/professional works.
[...]
5. Finally claim that his repeated blanket statement was "implicitly stochastic" all along and that he actually doesn't disagree with anybody that the blanket statement was false.
You might wanna stop making things up. I never used the word always or all.
If you do not understand or unwilling to understand that statements of the kind "tomorrow the weather will be bad" means "tomorrow the weather will MOST LIKELY be bad" and not "tomorrow the weather will DEFINITELY" be bad I cannot help you.
If you did not mean always/all, then this response makes no sense:
Dude, there is some really great fan fiction out there and some really terrible published stuff as well. Having talent for something doesn't mean you'll end up doing it for a living, and doing something for a living does not mean you are any good at it. And you are underestimating how much testing is done by some of the fan card makers here.
Nope. First, to get actually good at writing, as with anything in else in life, you have to do it constantly over years. This is why people who only do it for a few hours a week in their spare time cannot become good at it.
Second, if you compare fan fiction, something which is derivative and unimaginative, to proper literature you are direly begging to not be taken seriously.
Same with Dominion fan cards. If any of us were good at designing games they would, big surprise, actual design their own game and not do derivative work. Then again I am not really surprised that fan(atic)s overestimate their skills.
If you can't understand this, I can't help you.
-
Please think about being kinder.
Why should he think about being children?
-
You (Horatio) said in your second post on this page that you know $8 cards should not be in an official set because they're problematic. And yet you're still fine with that.
That sounds a lot like not wanting to improve your cards.
I don't think I agree with this. Donald has also said that $8 cards should not be in an official set because they're problematic, and yet he created Prince because promos are where you can do stuff you shouldn't do in an official set, not because he didn't feel like improving on Prince.
-
"Professional" means they're paid for playtesting; they aren't. I don't think his group is any larger than mine. If by "more regular", you mean "more frequent", that's true. Again, a lower frequency can be made up by a longer period of development.
and if you haven't published any games, would you mind to point out all the Dominion cards which are based on an idea of yours?
If you pretend to have the same skills for game design as Donald X and a similar playtesting group but have done neither, designed an entire game or just one official card, I gotta call you out on your bullshit.
;)
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13659.msg515361#msg515361
-
Please think about being kinder.
Why should he think about being children?
which language are you referencing?
-
Please think about being kinder.
Why should he think about being children?
which language are you referencing?
English (the German loan word).
-
Tell me, why are you correct over many other people who have been playing longer? Sure, it might not be a logical argument on it's own, but it's good circumstantial evidence when everyone else is shooting you down that you MIGHT be wrong.
Ehm, I made ample of arguments and do not see how I am less polite than some other posters in here. By the way, "because the majority says so" is no argument. So why don't you tell me why you are right and actually make soem arguments of your own instead of just hiding behind the majority opinion?
-
Please think about being kinder.
Why should he think about being children?
which language are you referencing?
English (the German loan word).
Interesting, i was not aware it was an English word
-
Please think about being kinder.
Why should he think about being children?
which language are you referencing?
English (the German loan word).
Interesting, i was not aware it was an English word
It's not. I'm not sure what Awaclus is talking about. "Kindergarten" is a borrowed word in English, but "Kinder" (meaning children) is most definitely not widely used.
-
It's not. I'm not sure what Awaclus is talking about. "Kindergarten" is a borrowed word in English, but "Kinder" (meaning children) is most definitely not widely used.
I agree that it's not widely used, but it's still a word.
-
It's not. I'm not sure what Awaclus is talking about. "Kindergarten" is a borrowed word in English, but "Kinder" (meaning children) is most definitely not widely used.
I agree that it's not widely used, but it's still a word.
Here's another random funny thing. There's a somewhat outdated term in German for a small child, Dreikäsehoch, which literally translates to "three cheese high". Now isn't that just cute?
-
It's not. I'm not sure what Awaclus is talking about. "Kindergarten" is a borrowed word in English, but "Kinder" (meaning children) is most definitely not widely used.
I agree that it's not widely used, but it's still a word.
Yes. A German word. Find me any English dictionary that has it. The ones I've looked in don't.
-
It's not. I'm not sure what Awaclus is talking about. "Kindergarten" is a borrowed word in English, but "Kinder" (meaning children) is most definitely not widely used.
I agree that it's not widely used, but it's still a word.
Yes. A German word. Find me any English dictionary that has it. The ones I've looked in don't.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinder#Etymology_2
-
It's not. I'm not sure what Awaclus is talking about. "Kindergarten" is a borrowed word in English, but "Kinder" (meaning children) is most definitely not widely used.
I agree that it's not widely used, but it's still a word.
Yes. A German word. Find me any English dictionary that has it. The ones I've looked in don't.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinder#Etymology_2
Touché.
But still, "kinder" is no more an English word than any other non-English word that people will occasionally sprinkle into their English sentences. Certainly it's not widely used in the U.S., and from what I can tell it's not widely used in the UK either.
-
Topic successfully derailed.
Well done, me.
-
I've definitely heard kinder used in a normal English setting to mean young child. It's as much of an English word as any other word we use in everyday life which is borrowed directly from another language.
-
I've definitely heard kinder used in a normal English setting to mean young child. It's as much of an English word as any other word we use in everyday life which is borrowed directly from another language.
I've never heard it used that way. Well, one major exception -- Kinder Surprise eggs. There are definitely other directly-borrowed words that are arguably "more" of an English word now. Ballet, antique, aficionado, doppelganger...
-
Topic successfully derailed.
Well done, me.
Thank you.
-
Topic successfully derailed.
Well done, me.
You've derailed the topic from its previous derailment. I'm not sure whether that's more or less of an accomplishment, but well done.
-
Kindergarten is an English word, that is a compound word containing Kinder. Close?
-
I've definitely heard kinder used in a normal English setting to mean young child. It's as much of an English word as any other word we use in everyday life which is borrowed directly from another language.
I've never heard it used that way. Well, one major exception -- Kinder Surprise eggs. There are definitely other directly-borrowed words that are arguably "more" of an English word now. Ballet, antique, aficionado, doppelganger...
I mean, those words are just more commonly used. That doesn't make them more of an English word.
-
I've definitely heard kinder used in a normal English setting to mean young child. It's as much of an English word as any other word we use in everyday life which is borrowed directly from another language.
I've never heard it used that way. Well, one major exception -- Kinder Surprise eggs. There are definitely other directly-borrowed words that are arguably "more" of an English word now. Ballet, antique, aficionado, doppelganger...
I mean, those words are just more commonly used. That doesn't make them more of an English word.
It doesn't? Why not? What does make a word more or less an English word apart from usage?
-
I've definitely heard kinder used in a normal English setting to mean young child. It's as much of an English word as any other word we use in everyday life which is borrowed directly from another language.
I've never heard it used that way. Well, one major exception -- Kinder Surprise eggs. There are definitely other directly-borrowed words that are arguably "more" of an English word now. Ballet, antique, aficionado, doppelganger...
I mean, those words are just more commonly used. That doesn't make them more of an English word.
I think somebody else LF mentioned it already, but "kinder" meaning "child" isn't common in dictionaries either. If you search on dictionary.com, for example, you only get the definitions for "kind".
Edit: I guess you could argue that being English or not is just a binary value, but I don't think it's a good argument. Language is fuzzy, and there isn't one overriding authority that determines what is or is not a word in a language. Usage is the driving force.
-
I think somebody else LF mentioned it already, but "kinder" meaning "child" isn't common in dictionaries either. If you search on dictionary.com, for example, you only get the definitions for "kind".
That is because "kinder" is plural. Do English speakers use this word as a singular? That seems very odd to me but I guess you can't help the evolution of loan words in foreign languages.
-
Mais a foreign expression isn't automatically une loan word just because people understand what it means, non?
You will find a whole bunch of foreign words in most dictionnaires that you'd never consider an active part of a language, mon chér.
-
Mais a foreign expression isn't automatically une loan word just because people understand what it means, non?
You will find a whole bunch of foreign words in most dictionnaires that you'd never consider an active part of a language, mon chér.
I wasn't sure if "kinder" with a lower case k could count as the German word, though.
-
I think somebody else LF mentioned it already, but "kinder" meaning "child" isn't common in dictionaries either. If you search on dictionary.com, for example, you only get the definitions for "kind".
That is because "kinder" is plural. Do English speakers use this word as a singular? That seems very odd to me but I guess you can't help the evolution of loan words in foreign languages.
You won't find a definition for kinder meaning "children" in most dictionaries either. The point is that most English speakers don't use this word at all, never mind plural or singular.