Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[horatio83]

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. 

[horatio83]

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.

[horatio83]

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.

[iguanaiguana]

This discussion is turning out to be The Bomb 

[Awaclus]

This discussion is turning out to be The Bomb 

Although, this card is still a lot better than Bomb was.

[ChocophileBenj]

What was bomb ?
How should I use the research engine to find it ?

[Awaclus]

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.

[Asper]

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.

[LastFootnote]

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.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Horatio was such a popular baby name in '83. You really should have known better LF.

[LastFootnote]

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.

[Asper]

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.

[pacovf]

We could also go back to discussing King and be done with the poop flinging.

[iguanaiguana]

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.

[eHalcyon]

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.

[LastFootnote]

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.

[Asper]

My last post was unnecessary and not helpful at all. I apologize for that.

[pacovf]

Collective hug time?

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm hugging Asper, LastFootnote and Pacovf

[LastFootnote]

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.

[horatio83]

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.

[eHalcyon]

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.

[LastFootnote]

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.

[XerxesPraelor]

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.

[terminalCopper]

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.