Print

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

[market squire]

Hi there!
I haven't been that much active here the last months, but I've appreciated some of the ideas here.
So now I'd like to share another traveller concept. This traveller shall feel like making a race. Once the player has got the final upgrade, the game ends. (Inspired by the "Alternate win conditions" thread, although I prefer an alternative game end condition.)

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Board a Ship (Action-Duration-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action
If you end your Action phase with at least 1 unused Action, play this again at the start of your next turn.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Visiting Bagdad.

Visiting Bagdad (Action-Traveller) Cost:
Gain a Gold. Pay an Action. If you don't, put this into your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for On the Silk Road.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Visit the Khan (Action-Victory) Cost:
The game ends after this turn.
Worth 10 if you played this.

[AdrianHealey]

Chapel everything. Game ends in 5-7 turns.

Where's the fun in that?

[eHalcyon]

Chapel everything. Game ends in 5-7 turns.

Where's the fun in that?

You don't think it would be fun to have that sometimes?  It would be tough to do anyway, even with good shuffle luck.  You need to get 5 card plays in so you would need to play it every turn after the opening.  That makes it 7 turns minimum if you draw the traveller on t3 and somehow also get to reshuffle immediately, which doesn't happen even if you Chapel.  Since they are terminals, you may have terminal collision.  So with a regular Traveller you might get to the end on t8 maybe...

But you clearly didn't read these cards.  It's highly unlikely that you could end so quickly with these exchange conditions.  The last one is especially tough.  It's not just a matter of playing them quickly!



I like the overall concept but I think the wording could use improvement.  I'm not sure if the Duration works as intended (and I'm not 100% sure what is intended). "Pay an Action" is ambiguous in meaning.

[AdrianHealey]

Either way; no, I don't think this particular concept will be fun, for similar reasons I kind of hate Tournament or a torturer/village pin. Winner takes all/'when ahead, it's way easier to get even more ahead'.

Visiting Bagdad is easy to change when there is any kind of village (or throne roomed cantrip). But if that's not possible; it's a dud.

Discarding 'on the silk road' is harder, but is pretty similar to what tournement needs; which I don't like. This is even more so.

But no, I don't like things with a high amount of randomness, and this feels as something that belongs into that category.

[market squire]

I'm not sure if the Duration works as intended (and I'm not 100% sure what is intended). "Pay an Action" is ambiguous in meaning.

"Board a Ship" is intended to work like a Princed Ruined Village (which is Princed until once you use up all Actions in your turn).

Fist I wanted to have some parenthetical text for "Pay an Action" but anything sounded blurry somehow. Maybe "Pay an Action (like -1 Action)" or "Pay an Action (like when playing an Action card)"?

Visiting Bagdad is easy to change when there is any kind of village (or throne roomed cantrip). But if that's not possible; it's a dud.

You could always board a second ship!

But no, I don't like things with a high amount of randomness, and this feels as something that belongs into that category.

I did not test it. Just an idea. If it turns out to be too random, we could always lower the points for visiting the Khan.

[eHalcyon]

Either way; no, I don't think this particular concept will be fun, for similar reasons I kind of hate Tournament or a torturer/village pin. Winner takes all/'when ahead, it's way easier to get even more ahead'.

Visiting Bagdad is easy to change when there is any kind of village (or throne roomed cantrip). But if that's not possible; it's a dud.

Discarding 'on the silk road' is harder, but is pretty similar to what tournement needs; which I don't like. This is even more so.

But no, I don't like things with a high amount of randomness, and this feels as something that belongs into that category.

I meant that it is sometimes fun to end the game unusually early. Those types of games are commonly remembered fondly and posted in the Greatest Moments threads.

But it's clear that this card doesn't end the game quickly.  It's random and tough to pull off if you just play BM but this is clearly a card that you get in an engine where you have a lot of control over all the different conditions.  It becomes a tool to threaten ending the game on your own terms and put pressure on the opponent.  In that context, it doesn't seem highly random to me at all.

[tristan]

Tournament is already pretty random. First one to hit that Province often wins.
This is even more random. Two guys play equally well but one is just lucky enough to hit the +10VP game ender and quasi-certain winner a bit earlier.

[market squire]

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.

[tristan]

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.

Khan costs 10 so 5VPs could very well be too few. You cannot balance this card. Either it provides too few or too much VPs. The game ending trigger is its crux.

[market squire]

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.

Khan costs 10 so 5VPs could very well be too few. You cannot balance this card. Either it provides too few or too much VPs. The game ending trigger is its crux.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Please explain why the game ending trigger makes it unbalancable. I think it is a nice effect to try out.

[eHalcyon]

5VP or even 0VP sounds fine.  The power of the card is that it allows you to end the game when you want and the VP value (if any) just improves the margin in which you can play it to win.  Testing should focus on making it non-trivial to gain the final card while keeping it a viable strategy in  some games, say 10-30%.  It can be rarer if the rest of the cards in the line also do interesting things.

[AdrianHealey]

I'd be ok with it, if it felt less random and every step towards it has it's own didficulties.

[eHalcyon]

I'd be ok with it, if it felt less random and every step towards it has it's own didficulties.

But every step does have its own unique condition...

It really doesn't seem so random to me.  I think Black Market would be a better comparison, in that it seems random but is one of the highest skill cards in the game.  I think the key to playing this card will be building up a solid engine, in which case the progression will be far more controlled than random.

[tristan]

Maybe the Khan should only give 5 ? Or just no VP at all?
This would make it much trickier for the leading player.
Note that if you don't manage to exchange On the Silk Road, you will get a pretty good boost for your current turn.

Khan costs 10 so 5VPs could very well be too few. You cannot balance this card. Either it provides too few or too much VPs. The game ending trigger is its crux.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Please explain why the game ending trigger makes it unbalancable. I think it is a nice effect to try out.

Already explained it via Tournament: the card is too random.
In ordinary Dominion you gotta work toward an ending and the other players can react to that as they see a 3-pile ending or Province ending coming. This is not at least why Dominion is not, as some folks claim, a multiplayer solitaire Euro.

Your new end game condition would get rid of that and introduce too much randomness into the game. Just think about your Swindler and Tournament games to understand my point.

Furthermore Adrian made the point that this is just autoplay, you buy one or two Marco Polos and that's it. If you really wanna make such a random card at least make the Exchange conditional upon something.

[eHalcyon]

Already explained it via Tournament: the card is too random.
In ordinary Dominion you gotta work toward an ending and the other players can react to that as they see a 3-pile ending or Province ending coming. This is not at least why Dominion is not, as some folks claim, a multiplayer solitaire Euro.

Your new end game condition would get rid of that and introduce too much randomness into the game. Just think about your Swindler and Tournament games to understand my point.

Furthermore Adrian made the point that this is just autoplay, you buy one or two Marco Polos and that's it. If you really wanna make such a random card at least make the Exchange conditional upon something.

You can see the end coming with this one too -- there are 5 steps involved.  You know when another player gains Visit the Khan, so you know the game could end any time next shuffle.

If you look at the conditions, it is very much not autoplay.  I just don't see how you could think that.  The first card is worse than Ruins if you want to exchange it.  The second one requires that you have a terminal action.  The third requires that you have a village (or another Board a Ship).  The fourth requires that you have a significant amount of VP and the means to draw it.  None of those things just happen automatically.  If you do nothing but get a couple of Marco Polos, you're going to lose badly because each card along the chain is pretty niche.  How are you going to win?  Even with 10VP from the last card, that's easy to overcome by the non-Marco opponent who just buys two Provinces in all that time, because you have all these niche cards in your deck while they've actually been building something functional.

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.

[tristan]

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.

Sure.  Once somebody hits a 5 early in the game with the Swindler the game is basically over. Just had a game yesterday with some friends and despite not playing better than guy A I won because my Swindler took out two if his essential cards. Then I won the Alchemist split and it was all over.
Same with Tournament, it is just too much scissors effect.

This very card would be even worse in this respect. Which is fine if you want Dominion to be more random. But it clearly isn't  you wanna limit the randomness to limited to the mere draw luck.

[liopoil]

You need to discard more than in victory cards. That's a duchy and 3 estates, meanwhile your opponent just needs to get to 17 points (2 provinces, duchy, 3 estates is 18). I think this card has a lot of potential to be fun and not even particularly swingy. I think it should be even a little bit harder to exchange some of the earlier ones though, and they also seem a bit too strong.

[eHalcyon]

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.

Sure.  Once somebody hits a 5 early in the game with the Swindler the game is basically over. Just had a game yesterday with some friends and despite not playing better than guy A I won because my Swindler took out two if his essential cards. Then I won the Alchemist split and it was all over.
Same with Tournament, it is just too much scissors effect.

This very card would be even worse in this respect. Which is fine if you want Dominion to be more random. But it clearly isn't  you wanna limit the randomness to limited to the mere draw luck.

One game isn't evidence of anything.  I agree that Swindler and Tournament can be swingy, but it's still not as bad as some people think.

I see no evidence for how this is worse.  What randomness do you see?  I mean, what is the plan?  I've already explained what I think the path to victory is, and it's not straightforward at all.  This line overall looks weak to me, but it's interesting because it rewards players who can utilize the niche effects of each traveller in the chain.  If you make it to the end, you get major end game control, but you are probably totally behind in terms of deck quality.

Like I said near the start, I can see this being swingy if you just play it in a Big Money deck, but that's a losing strategy.  It'll be best in an engine that wants the control, and in that context the exchange conditions are controlled, not random.

I might be missing something (liopoil just suggested that some of the early stages are too strong while I thought they were kind of weak), but saying "it's random" is not helpful at all.  There are 5 cards here with a lot going on at each stage; you need to be more specific!

[tristan]

Also, complaints about the randomness of Swindler and Tournament are really overblown, and this would be less swingy by far.

Sure.  Once somebody hits a 5 early in the game with the Swindler the game is basically over. Just had a game yesterday with some friends and despite not playing better than guy A I won because my Swindler took out two if his essential cards. Then I won the Alchemist split and it was all over.
Same with Tournament, it is just too much scissors effect.

This very card would be even worse in this respect. Which is fine if you want Dominion to be more random. But it clearly isn't  you wanna limit the randomness to limited to the mere draw luck.

One game isn't evidence of anything.  I agree that Swindler and Tournament can be swingy, but it's still not as bad as some people think.

I guess I could point out ample of examples and you would still deny that Swindler and Tournament are random cards. Whatever.

[eHalcyon]

One game isn't evidence of anything.  I agree that Swindler and Tournament can be swingy, but it's still not as bad as some people think.

I guess I could point out ample of examples and you would still deny that Swindler and Tournament are random cards. Whatever.

Bolded what you missed.  But that's irrelevant to this card anyway.  It isn't comparable. 

Just to elaborate on why I think the early cards are weak/niche and non-random:

Marco Polo literally does nothing if you want to exchange it.  Otherwise, it's a persistent terminal Silver -- not particularly impressive.  You can always exchange this one immediately, if you want.  Not random.

Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Visiting Bagdad has potential to be powerful in that it can let you gain a lot of Gold if you have many +actions (or Champion - that could be a problematic interaction, actually).  Soothsayer and Governor also let you gain Gold though, and this is a lot harder to get.  You need some +actions to actually exchange it further.  If nothing else, you can achieve this with a second Board A Ship which stays in play until you pair it this card.  Not random.

On the Silk Road is always a Peddler if you want it to be.  Sometimes it can be a Stables variant where you discard some VP cards for big non-terminal draw.  That's pretty good, but not as good as other $5 Travellers.  To exchange it, you need $10 worth of VP cards.  That's not something you just stumble into.  You need to have gotten that VP to start, and you are unlikely to draw it together unless you've built your deck for that purpose, like in a strong engine.  If you do randomly achieve this condition, it'll still be late enough that it's not game-deciding.  Not random.

Visit the Khan is potentially worth 10VP.  That's the value of a Colony, which seems acceptable for such a difficult-to-get card.  It's not insurmountable either; it might not even be enough to overcome the lead that an opponent could have built by ignoring this line entirely.  If it's a problem, the VP could be reduced or removed.  The real power is end-game control, but this is something that every player will have seen coming from at least 5 shuffles away.  It's not secret when somebody exchanges a Traveller.  It's not a random surprise that pops up.  If you're playing against somebody using Marco Polo, you just need to maintain enough of a lead and conventionally end the game yourself -- certainly within the realm of possibility.  The goal of the Marco Polo player will be to find a good turn where you catch up and then end it immediately -- just like many engines that already come up in Dominion.

[AdrianHealey]

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Step 1: A dead action card with no advantages or an endless terminal silver. Which is not a particularly bad thing even, so even then you'd want a marco polo. Reasonale card in itself and interesting trade off.

Board a Ship (Action-Duration-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action
If you end your Action phase with at least 1 unused Action, play this again at the start of your next turn.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Visiting Bagdad.

Step 2: If you *don't* have a second action card, you can't discard it. So unlike the previous one, this card *incentivizes* progressing your deck. If you use the +1 action, you can discard it and go on to the next step. I don't think this is good: if you want to make this card interesting, I would make it always that you would want to choose: either progress the traveller line *or* get an advantage.

Visiting Bagdad (Action-Traveller) Cost:
Gain a Gold. Pay an Action. If you don't, put this into your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for On the Silk Road.

Here we have a choice again: either make sure you have an action in 'reserve' (village or whatever) or progress.

Note that both here and the previous card really increases the effect of shuffle luck. (Depending on your hand there is a choice or there isn't a choice.) But I guess that's not that unusual.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

Also: that makes it a 'similar' path. You still need to buy province and all; it just a bigger boost to what buying provinces increases. When ahead, it's easier to stay ahead. Again: I don't think that's a good mechanism.

It's like a game we had with 4 players, and the first player to start won because she was the first one to get a hand of 5 (or 6, I don't remember) with coins; everyone after her always had to remove 2 cards, causing a serious delay. That's an effect I don't like.

Visit the Khan (Action-Victory) Cost:
The game ends after this turn.
Worth 10 if you played this.

[/quote]

Because of the 'you need victory cards anyway', this is almost always a 'whoever plays this first, wins'. So I'm ok with keeping it at +10 VP, but then it has to be an alternative to provinces (which it's not really at this point). If you want to keep it, I'd make it (1) that it feels less swingy and, more importantly, is an alternative to provinces, rather than build on top of it.

[eHalcyon]

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Step 1: A dead action card with no advantages or an endless terminal silver. Which is not a particularly bad thing even, so even then you'd want a marco polo. Reasonale card in itself and interesting trade off.

Terminal silver is really bad, actually...

Board a Ship (Action-Duration-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action
If you end your Action phase with at least 1 unused Action, play this again at the start of your next turn.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Visiting Bagdad.

Step 2: If you *don't* have a second action card, you can't discard it. So unlike the previous one, this card *incentivizes* progressing your deck. If you use the +1 action, you can discard it and go on to the next step. I don't think this is good: if you want to make this card interesting, I would make it always that you would want to choose: either progress the traveller line *or* get an advantage.

That choice between "progress" and "advantage" is the choice in step 3.  As it is, the situation here is either you move on with a minor advantage or you wait a little bit and then move on.  It's Walled Village.

Visiting Bagdad (Action-Traveller) Cost:
Gain a Gold. Pay an Action. If you don't, put this into your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for On the Silk Road.

Here we have a choice again: either make sure you have an action in 'reserve' (village or whatever) or progress.

Note that both here and the previous card really increases the effect of shuffle luck. (Depending on your hand there is a choice or there isn't a choice.) But I guess that's not that unusual.

So the choice here is what you said would be good in Step 2.  You either get an advantage (use that extra action you have) or you move on with the Traveller.

Shuffle luck is actually low.  Step 2 just waits until it happens.  This one can be accomplished with the card from Step 2 which, again, waits until it happens.  You don't need to draw multiple cards together because they'll stick around until success.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

Also: that makes it a 'similar' path. You still need to buy province and all; it just a bigger boost to what buying provinces increases. When ahead, it's easier to stay ahead. Again: I don't think that's a good mechanism.

But by buying into this chain, you'll be slower to Provinces unless you've had a good plan all along.  Also, if you actually think about the effects, they aren't that amazing.

0-2 = Peddler.  You don't have to discard for this so it's always available.

3-10 = Double Lab.  That sounds amazing until you remember that you had to discard cards for it.  You draw 3 cards, but you're also discarding at least 2 cards!  This makes it barely better than Cellar.  Possibly worse, actually, since you can't discard Copper to it.

10+ = exchange, but no other bonus other than the +1 action.  You'll need to shuffle before you get any advantage out of that.

It's not at all like Tournament because, by this point, you'll have done a significant amount of deck building.

It's like a game we had with 4 players, and the first player to start won because she was the first one to get a hand of 5 (or 6, I don't remember) with coins; everyone after her always had to remove 2 cards, causing a serious delay. That's an effect I don't like.

What card was causing this?  Militia?  I don't see how it's related...

Visit the Khan (Action-Victory) Cost:
The game ends after this turn.
Worth 10 if you played this.

Because of the 'you need victory cards anyway', this is almost always a 'whoever plays this first, wins'. So I'm ok with keeping it at +10 VP, but then it has to be an alternative to provinces (which it's not really at this point). If you want to keep it, I'd make it (1) that it feels less swingy and, more importantly, is an alternative to provinces, rather than build on top of it.

That can be modified by lowering the VP value if necessary, but I think 10VP will often be too little to overcome somebody who just ignored this card from the start.

I'm really still not seeing the swinginess.  The more I think about it, the more it seems that every card was designed to mitigate swinginess.  For perspective, the possible swinginess in this card seems far, far less than the swinginess of having Chapel miss the second shuffle.

[GendoIkari]

Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

[eHalcyon]

Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

OK, fair point.  But playing two terminals isn't really that difficult, especially since you can use one to draw the other.

[AdrianHealey]

A.
*Random bonus*
When there is an A on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a B.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
*Random on call aspect + bonus*

B.
*Random bonus*
When there is an A or B on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a C.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
*Random on call aspect + bonus*

C.
*Random bonus*
When there is an B or C on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: you may exchange this for a D.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
*Random on call aspect + bonus*

D.
*Random bonus*
When there is an C or D. on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: the game ends at the end of your turn.
Put this on your tavern mat.
----
When D is on your tavern mat: + a big amount of VP.

I would probably think of something along this line, and this for all 4 steps.
(1) It synergizes with itself.
(2) It's a deliberate strategy.
(3) And you can find a VP system that makes it similar in strength to other ALT-VP's, rathern than having to use VP's itself.

Some of your ideas can be recycled, I am sure.

You can put 'big' conditions on removing them from your tavern mat in order to upgrade them further. Or you can let them sit on the tavern mat and then every time start from A again. Or you can try to use several A's from the beginning.

I'd make each bonus worth it to keep it away from the tavern mat, but still don't want to necessarily discard it.

So you want a B on your tavern mat, so you can play your C without having to put it on your tavern mat.

[GendoIkari]

Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

OK, fair point.  But playing two terminals isn't really that difficult, especially since you can use one to draw the other.

Yeah, not saying it is. Though it does slow it down a fair bit, as you have to actually buy both terminals, in the type of deck where you might not want 2 terminals.  So you can't just rush this and hope to exhange every turn or anything.

[eHalcyon]

Board A Ship is Ruined Village when you first play it, then it's Walled Village until you actually use up the extra action and exchange it.  Walled Village is not super strong.  You exchange it when you draw and play a terminal action.  Since it stays in play until then, you can almost guarantee that it will be exchanged within 2 shuffles.  Not random.

Well actually, you need to play 2 terminals on the same turn to exchange it, if you didn't have a terminal on the turn you first played it.

OK, fair point.  But playing two terminals isn't really that difficult, especially since you can use one to draw the other.

Yeah, not saying it is. Though it does slow it down a fair bit, as you have to actually buy both terminals, in the type of deck where you might not want 2 terminals.  So you can't just rush this and hope to exhange every turn or anything.

Oh, yeah.  I've been saying from the start that I don't think that this is at all viable unless you go in from a plan.  It doesn't seem rushable to me at all.

[pacovf]

Board a ship is quite a bit better than Walled Village in multiples. I kinda like it.

[tristan]

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

[Showdown35]

Just a side note: Baghdad...

[navical]

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Two of these with the +card and +action tokens on the pike give you infinite money. Add the +buy token and you can just pick up the entire Supply.

[tristan]

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Two of these with the +card and +action tokens on the pike give you infinite money. Add the +buy token and you can just pick up the entire Supply.

Theoretical considerations of virtually impossible edge cases are fun but practical relevance is the only thing the matters for actual games:

Ignoring Teacher this is conditional on both Events being in the supply. If you play with only 2 Events, as it is recommended, it is not possible to actually get the +buy token. But even if you play with 2 Events the chance to get precisely these 3 Events is 3/20 * 2/19 * 1/18 = 1/1140.

So you either need to play Teacher 3 times or you need to have the 5, 6 and 8 to trigger 3 Events. If you have achieved any of these you can more or less gain a shitload of Provinces or Colonies with any deck.

[AdrianHealey]

A.
$4
Action-Reserve-Traveller-Attack
+1 Action
+1 Card
Everyone with 5 or more cards discards a treasure or reveals a hand with no treasures.
When there is an A on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a B.
If not: put this on your tavern mat.
------
When someone buys a gold, you may remove this from your tavern mat.

B.
$5*
Action-Reserve-Traveller
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$2
When there is an A or B on your tavern mat, discard this.  If you do: you may exchange this for a C.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
When someone discards an attack card, you may remove this from your tavern mat.

C.
$6*
Action-Reserve-Traveller-Duration
+1 Action
+1 Card
Choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.
At the start of your next turn: play your first action card twice.
When there is an B or C on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: you may exchange this for a D.
Put this on your tavern mat.
------
When someone discards a duration card, you may remove this from your tavern mat.

D.
+3 VP
When there is an C or D. on your tavern mat, discard this. If you do: the game ends at the end of your turn.
Put this on your tavern mat.
----
When D is on your tavern mat: it's worth a big amount of vp.

I would probably think of something along this line, and this for all 4 steps.
(1) It synergizes with itself.
(2) It's a deliberate strategy.
(3) And you can find a VP system that makes it similar in strength to other ALT-VP's, rathern than having to use VP's itself.

Some of your ideas can be recycled, I am sure.

You can put 'big' conditions on removing them from your tavern mat in order to upgrade them further. Or you can let them sit on the tavern mat and then every time start from A again. Or you can try to use several A's from the beginning.

I'd make each bonus worth it to keep it away from the tavern mat, but still don't want to necessarily discard it.

So you want a B on your tavern mat, so you can play your C without having to put it on your tavern mat.

So, I made a first suggestion. Does it make sense to you?

(1) Every step gives a real choice. You might want to upgrade, but you could also just stay there. (If it's too strong, you can always tinker a bit with it to make it less so.)
(2) It need not be autowin.

I might made it a little bit too strong, causing it to be unignorable, which was not my intention. So that should probably be toned down a bit, but I hope the overall idea is clear.

[market squire]

Okay, I think this is a seperate card idea. It sounds interesting, especially because you can end the game without any Victory cards. Also the "pyramid" structure and the question when to call your cards is interesting. You could add some flavour and then open a new topic for it. 
For Marco Polo, I wanted to keep the cards as elegant (simple and thematic) as possible while having the upgrading tricky but not too hard.

Marco Polo (Action-Traveller) Cost:
You may put this on top of your deck. If you do, +.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Board a Ship.

Two of these with the +card and +action tokens on the pike give you infinite money. Add the +buy token and you can just pick up the entire Supply.

Theoretical considerations of virtually impossible edge cases are fun but practical relevance is the only thing the matters for actual games:

Ignoring Teacher this is conditional on both Events being in the supply. If you play with only 2 Events, as it is recommended, it is not possible to actually get the +buy token. But even if you play with 2 Events the chance to get precisely these 3 Events is 3/20 * 2/19 * 1/18 = 1/1140.

So you either need to play Teacher 3 times or you need to have the 5, 6 and 8 to trigger 3 Events. If you have achieved any of these you can more or less gain a shitload of Provinces or Colonies with any deck.

Interesting point. If you play only non-random sets, this could be an issue. Although tristan is right that it is quite hard to pull off with currently available cards.
Maybe Marco Polo could be a Treasure? But then you wouldn't have a guaranteed terminal for Board a Ship.
Or we could dump it and start with Board a Ship directly, maybe adding another step on the way.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

I don't think so. In a card game, when you have to bring together multiple cards from a bigger group, it should be less luck dependent than matching up 2 single cards. (Same as with rolling dice - the more dice you use, the more likely you are to hit the expectation value). Sure there are still freak values, but they are rare.
It is very very unlikely to draw On the Silk Road with a lucky early Province + 2 Estates if you didn't prepare for it somehow.

But by buying into this chain, you'll be slower to Provinces unless you've had a good plan all along.  Also, if you actually think about the effects, they aren't that amazing.

0-2 = Peddler.  You don't have to discard for this so it's always available.

3-10 = Double Lab.  That sounds amazing until you remember that you had to discard cards for it.  You draw 3 cards, but you're also discarding at least 2 cards!  This makes it barely better than Cellar.  Possibly worse, actually, since you can't discard Copper to it.

Hum, I intended it to be strong if you don't exchange it. You could also discard just one more expensive card to get the double Lab. Should it be stronger?
Maybe: less than 10 = draw twice the number of cards you discarded?

[eHalcyon]

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.

@market squire I'd test it first.  In the situation where it's Cellar, it's pretty good to have a Cellar.  My point isn't that it's too weak, only that people aren't actually thinking through what they are calling overpowered.

Edit: And yes, discarding one expensive card is good.  I'm exaggerating a little by calling it Cellar.  But the Peddler option is fine too, and the stronger option isn't a swingy major coup when you get it.  My first comparison to Stables may be better.  This is a little more difficult to activate than Stables, bit a little better when you do (discarding VP instead of Copper).  It's also much better when it whiffs.  With that in mind, I'd say that it's about as swingy as Stables.

[Accatitippi]

My only issue with most fan-made travellers is that they tend to be too wordy/complex/hard to remember for me to really like them. I like the general concept of Marco Polo, and I like the concepts of the single cards (and the subtle ways to slow down your progression), but I'd like it even more if it could pack the same punch in 3 stages or so. 

[tristan]

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.

Yeah, totally hedges against the risk of not being able to exchange for Khan. 

All of this nonsense reminds me of Freud's kettle logic: Tournament isn't really very random; OK, it is but you gotta show far more examples; OK, Tournament is random but this new card isn't.

[eHalcyon]

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.

Yeah, totally hedges against the risk of not being able to exchange for Khan. 

All of this nonsense reminds me of Freud's kettle logic: Tournament isn't really very random; OK, it is but you gotta show far more examples; OK, Tournament is random but this new card isn't.

Are you serious?  That is not at all what's happened here, and this is the troll-iest I've seen you be for a long while now.  I said from the start that Tournament can be swingy, but not so much as people tend to make it out to be.  Do you want some hard numbers?  Here.  Tournament tends to help the better player win, moreso than the likes of Village, Quarry, Market and many other cards that people don't complain about.  (And many thanks to Donald X. for linking that recently because I've been trying to find it; I remember other threads that have had similar findings from crunching the data, but the forum search is terrible.)

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.  I've explained in detail why it isn't, but you've ignored it all.  It's almost unbelievable, but it's not the first time.

[tristan]

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

Except it's not.  The basic option is always available, the stronger option is just a slightly improved Cellar, and the exchange gives no extra bonus at all.

Yeah, totally hedges against the risk of not being able to exchange for Khan. 

All of this nonsense reminds me of Freud's kettle logic: Tournament isn't really very random; OK, it is but you gotta show far more examples; OK, Tournament is random but this new card isn't.

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.

I actually have but whatever. The discussion is, as usual, pointless. You can believe whatever you want, that Tournament and Swindler and this Traveller line do not introduce a significant amount of randomness into the game.
Independent of your believes though the notion of a traveler end card that ends the game and provides 10 VPs, without particular hard exchange conditions (except for the last one which is Tournament gono loco), is utterly preposterous.

About your stats, thanks for posting them. Sadly they are fairly worthless as a t-test would most likely show the range of probabilities between 68,9% to 71,4% does not imply a statistically significant difference from a hypothetical average value.  But even if there would be a statistically significant difference (if the second value the guy posted are the confidence intervals this could very well be the case) t is still just a difference of 2,5 percentage points. Doesn't express a whole lot.
Furthermore the concept is dubious to begin with. The stats do not only measure card randomness but also card difficulty. A player with a higher ranking has more experience and can thus use a complex card better than a player with a lower ranking and less experience. This is probably why Goons is so high up the list (the card certainly isn't the most deterministic one). Takes quite some skill (I definitely suck at it) to tell whether you should go (intensively) for Goons or not in a particular Kingdom.

[eHalcyon]

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.

I actually have but whatever.

Quote it then. 

"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.  When Tournament is swingy, it's because you spike an early Province and line it up quickly.  But as a Traveller line, you can't get to the end card with the same speed.  And the reward isn't particularly compelling.  As already discussed, the 10VP could be 5VP or 0VP instead.  The card gives you end game control, something that you could already get just by having some +Buy.  The swinginess just isn't here.

This discussion is pointless only because you refuse to evaluate anything critically and ignore every argument that you are unable to refute.

Furthermore the concept is dubious to begin with. The stats do not only measure card randomness but also card difficulty. A player with a higher ranking has more experience and can thus use a complex card better than a player with a lower ranking and less experience. This is probably why Goons is so high up the list (the card certainly isn't the most deterministic one). Takes quite some skill (I definitely suck at it) to tell whether you should go (intensively) for Goons or not in a particular Kingdom.

So what you're saying is that the card takes skill to use.  That it isn't just a coin flip or die roll.  That you usually don't just randomly get lucky and win.  That it's not so much swingy chance, but player ability.

OK then.

[tristan]

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.

I actually have but whatever.

"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.

For Tournament you need a Province and for Silk Road you need a cumulated coin value of VP cards of equal to or more than 10. Totally unrelated. 

Furthermore the concept is dubious to begin with. The stats do not only measure card randomness but also card difficulty. A player with a higher ranking has more experience and can thus use a complex card better than a player with a lower ranking and less experience. This is probably why Goons is so high up the list (the card certainly isn't the most deterministic one). Takes quite some skill (I definitely suck at it) to tell whether you should go (intensively) for Goons or not in a particular Kingdom.

So what you're saying is that the card takes skill to use.  That it isn't just a coin flip or die roll.  That you usually don't just randomly get lucky and win.  That it's not so much swingy chance, but player ability.

OK then.

I did not refer to this Traveller line but to the statistics you posted. And as I pointed out, they do not feature significant differences (2,5 percentage points) and they do not exclusively measure card randomness but also card complexity.
So much about how evaluates stuff critically and who does desperately googles for some stats without actually taking a really deep look at them. 

[eHalcyon]

What's nonsense is that you haven't posted a single explanation of how this is too random.

I actually have but whatever.

"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.

For Tournament you need a Province and for Silk Road you need a cumulated coin value of VP cards of equal to or more than 10. Totally unrelated. 

I can't help but notice that you didn't quote any explanation from you and instead cut out my request for you to quote it.  Thanks for proving my point.

And once again, you also cut out the part that explains why they aren't comparable:

"This is like Tournament" is a statement without backing.  The circumstances aren't comparable.  When Tournament is swingy, it's because you spike an early Province and line it up quickly.  But as a Traveller line, you can't get to the end card with the same speed.  And the reward isn't particularly compelling.  As already discussed, the 10VP could be 5VP or 0VP instead.  The card gives you end game control, something that you could already get just by having some +Buy.  The swinginess just isn't here.

In other words, the timing is completely different between the two cards.  Marco Polo's end game kicks in late.  Tournament is only swingy when it kicks in early.

I did not refer to this Traveller line but to the statistics you posted. And as I pointed out, they do not feature significant differences (2,5 percentage points) and they do not exclusively measure card randomness but also card complexity.
So much about how evaluates stuff critically and who does desperately googles for some stats without actually taking a really deep look at them. 

I'm referring to the statistics too.  Maybe you should explain what you mean by "swingy", because if the card is complex enough that skilled players are better able to take advantage, that's the opposite of swingy in my book.  The stats measure "how hard a time trueskill has at predicting the winner".  If a card is really luck-dependent, then it's tougher to predict the winner because the better player could get screwed by bad luck or the weaker player could have good luck.  That's swinginess.  Tournament rates less swingy than people give it credit for.

Are the statistics non-significant?  I honestly don't know, and I'm not arrogant enough to guess at it.  The sample size is huge, and small differences certainly can be significant.  The stats were computed by rrenaud and recently referred to by Donald X, two very smart people.  I'm going to trust that they know what they are talking about.  But if you want to ignore statistics that don't support you, that's your perogative.

If you want to discuss this Traveller idea, I already posted a card-by-card overview that explains why I believe it all plays out in a decidedly non-random fashion.  Please feel free to go through that and tell me why you think it's wrong.  Seriously!  Because that would be actually useful discussion.  Or you can continue to post baseless one-liners, cherry pick lines to respond to and ignore everything of substance.

[eHalcyon]

market squire, sorry for my part in what this thread has become.  This Traveller line is a cool idea with a lot of potential.  I hope you try it out and report back!

[tristan]

Are the statistics non-significant?  I honestly don't know, and I'm not arrogant enough to guess at it.  The sample size is huge, and small differences certainly can be significant.  The stats were computed by rrenaud and recently referred to by Donald X, two very smart people.  I'm going to trust that they know what they are talking about.  But if you want to ignore statistics that don't support you, that's your perogative.

At least you admit that you don't know shIt about stastistics. Nice that you trust "very smart people" but if you had any idea of the scientific method you would know that this is an argument from authority. I never trust in anybody, be it Nobel price laureate or whatever, but check their arguments. You know, using your own brain, scepticism and so on.

I already pointed out the problem of theses stats so I will not repeat them. As expected you ignored them (or failed to understand them). Nice to have found who is analytical and who isn't though. 

I really like a lot of your fan cards and I learned quite a thing from you about Dominion (you might remember our discussion about cantrip trashers whose strength I underestimanted). But you have also have an overblown ego and serious issues with admitting that you are wrong.

[market squire]

Again, here is what I think of the randomness factor of On the Silk Road.

On the Silk Road (Action-Traveller) Cost:
+1 Action. Discard any number of Victory cards and add up their total cost in . If they cost...
to : +1 Card, +.
to : +3 Cards.
More than : Exchange this for Visit the Khan.

Here is the biggest random factor. Not only is the randomizer effect bigger than with typical Tournement (which I find absolutely dreadful, even if I win the race), this is just the Province race to the luxe.

This. Basically Tournament on steroids.

I don't think so. In a card game, when you have to bring together multiple cards from a bigger group, it should be less luck dependent than matching up 2 single cards. (Same as with rolling dice - the more dice you use, the more likely you are to hit the expectation value). Sure there are still freak values, but they are rare.
It is very very unlikely to draw On the Silk Road with a lucky early Province + 2 Estates if you didn't prepare for it somehow.

Please use your knowledge of statistics constructively and correct me if those thoughts are wrong.

[Witherweaver]

Something, something, decline of civility in the Marco Polo thread.

[eHalcyon]

Are the statistics non-significant?  I honestly don't know, and I'm not arrogant enough to guess at it.  The sample size is huge, and small differences certainly can be significant.  The stats were computed by rrenaud and recently referred to by Donald X, two very smart people.  I'm going to trust that they know what they are talking about.  But if you want to ignore statistics that don't support you, that's your perogative.

At least you admit that you don't know shIt about stastistics. Nice that you trust "very smart people" but if you had any idea of the scientific method you would know that this is an argument from authority. I never trust in anybody, be it Nobel price laureate or whatever, but check their arguments. You know, using your own brain, scepticism and so on.

I already pointed out the problem of theses stats so I will not repeat them. As expected you ignored them (or failed to understand them). Nice to have found who is analytical and who isn't though. 

I really like a lot of your fan cards and I learned quite a thing from you about Dominion (you might remember our discussion about cantrip trashers whose strength I underestimanted). But you have also have an overblown ego and serious issues with admitting that you are wrong.

I know enough to know that what they're saying is plausible.  I know that small numbers can still be significant, especially with a large enough sample size like in this case.  I don't know much about TrueSkill or conditional entropy, which is what these stats use, and it honestly sounds like you don't know much about them either.

I haven't ignored your comments about the stats. I addressed them.  I don't trust your assessment over theirs because you've only thrown out terms from introductory statistics classes like "t-test" and "significance" without any actually math at all, and one of your suggestions (that small = insignificant) is fundamentally wrong.

I'm always happy to admit when I'm wrong.  I've already done it in this thread, when someone (GendoIkari, I think) pointed out that one of the steps is a little harder to exchange than I thought since it would need 2 terminals after it is first played.  I'm also happy to admit when I lack knowledge in an area, as I've just done here.

But I'm not going to be convinced that I'm wrong by hand-waving arguments, false comparisons and sunglass emojis.  This whole time I've been requesting an explanation of how Marco Polo is too random, and you've yet to deliver.  If you want to give it some actual thought and consideration, I'll be waiting.

[Witherweaver]

I mean, I think the basic idea is "getting to Khan first" => "(probably?) win game" => swingy games.  Shuffle luck will lead you to getting to Khan first/quickly.  Similar idea that getting Province and Tournament to collide early on gives you a much better chance of winning.  (I'm not really certain on the validity of the last statement, but I can understand thinking it.)

Of course, getting Khan may not necessarily lock in the victory. 

I can understand the comparison to Tournament at least.  I think it would take actual play testing to see how it affects games, though.

[Witherweaver]

Is making it worth 10 VP you play it instead of giving out VP chips so that you can't TR/KC/Procession it?

Edit: Or to give it Scout synergy?!

[eHalcyon]

I mean, I think the basic idea is "getting to Khan first" => "(probably?) win game" => swingy games.  Shuffle luck will lead you to getting to Khan first/quickly.  Similar idea that getting Province and Tournament to collide early on gives you a much better chance of winning.  (I'm not really certain on the validity of the last statement, but I can understand thinking it.)

Of course, getting Khan may not necessarily lock in the victory. 

I can understand the comparison to Tournament at least.  I think it would take actual play testing to see how it affects games, though.

So my response to this (already given before) is that Tournament is only swingy if it happens early.  This could be too, but it is specifically designed so that you won't get it early, even if you get lucky.  Moreover, I believe the individual cards in the line are all relatively weak, niche effects such that investing in the line will result in a weaker deck overall.  The other player should be able to stay ahead, especially if the last card provides fewer/no VP.  By investing in this line, you are sacrificing immediate power for end game control.  I compare that to an engine full of +Buy that can end on piles.  Marco Polo is more decisive control, but I think it has higher opportunity cost to pull off.

tl;dr - I don't think getting to Khan first is a probable win unless it is backed up by a good plan and skilled execution.

[Witherweaver]

I mean, I think the basic idea is "getting to Khan first" => "(probably?) win game" => swingy games.  Shuffle luck will lead you to getting to Khan first/quickly.  Similar idea that getting Province and Tournament to collide early on gives you a much better chance of winning.  (I'm not really certain on the validity of the last statement, but I can understand thinking it.)

Of course, getting Khan may not necessarily lock in the victory. 

I can understand the comparison to Tournament at least.  I think it would take actual play testing to see how it affects games, though.

So my response to this (already given before) is that Tournament is only swingy if it happens early.

But.. doesn't that (conditional on happening early) exactly make it swingy?  I mean, happening early in and of itself is a lucky thing.

I see your points about Marco Polo, and think you probably could be correct.  Again I think it's best to test it out and seeing what happens.

[eHalcyon]

I mean, I think the basic idea is "getting to Khan first" => "(probably?) win game" => swingy games.  Shuffle luck will lead you to getting to Khan first/quickly.  Similar idea that getting Province and Tournament to collide early on gives you a much better chance of winning.  (I'm not really certain on the validity of the last statement, but I can understand thinking it.)

Of course, getting Khan may not necessarily lock in the victory. 

I can understand the comparison to Tournament at least.  I think it would take actual play testing to see how it affects games, though.

So my response to this (already given before) is that Tournament is only swingy if it happens early.

But.. doesn't that (conditional on happening early) exactly make it swingy?  I mean, happening early in and of itself is a lucky thing.

I see your points about Marco Polo, and think you probably could be correct.  Again I think it's best to test it out and seeing what happens.

My point is that even if you get lucky, you still won't get it early enough to be game-breaking.  market squire has also pointed out that you would need to get lucky multiple times.  For comparison, consider the Lucky Chancellor.  Even though that's a possibility, I wouldn't call Chancellor "too random".

[tristan]

I haven't ignored your comments about the stats. I addressed them.  I don't trust your assessment over theirs because you've only thrown out terms from introductory statistics classes like "t-test" and "significance" without any actually math at all, and one of your suggestions (that small = insignificant) is fundamentally wrong.

You did not adress anything. All you relied upon was an argument from authorty: "these guys are uber smart so their works is automatically right". This is unscientific and reactionary. In the real work everybody, even Nobeal prize laurates, frequently make mistakes.
About the stats, as I already said, if the secondary values which are given correspond to the confidence intervals then the probabilities might very well be statistically significantly different from a hypothetical average value (of around 70%).
But even if they are, the range of probabilities is just 2.5 percentage points. Not really enough spread to make arguments about card randomness. Second the stats do not only measure card randomness but also card complexity.

Is this a paper? No but this is a boardgame forum and not a scientific journal. The second point, that the stats measure two things and not just one, suffices to discount them for the sake of using them as an empirical support for the nonsensical claim that Tournament is not a swingy card.



Back to the actual topic, if you still don't get, despite countless repetitions, that the last step of the traveller line is Tournament on steroids (you need to have 2 Provinces or a Province and a Duchy or a Duchy and 3 Estates in your hand) I cannot help you.
The conditions is harder than that of Tournament so even with mirror play and greening that happens at roughly the same time at the end card draw decides whether you will have the VP cards with a cumulated cost of 10 or not. And the reward, 10 VPs plus end game trigger, is extremely good.

In the real world an event which occurs with low probability and implies a large outcome is called risky. Now this is totally fine if the card designer wants to go for that. Swindler, Tournament, Treasure Map and so on are all risky Dominion cards. As it includes a game end trigger and a huge shitload of VPs it is clearly more risky than any other Dominion card. But per se there is nothing wrong with that. Gee, my favourite deckbuilder is Nightfall which is probably less skill-dependent than Dominion. And at the end of the game we still talk about a card game and not Caylus or Chess.
But if your goal is to keep the amount of Tournaments and Swindlers low, if your fan card design goal is limit the influence of luck, then this traveller line is the wrong choice. If Dominion is too deterministic and skill-dependent for your taste than this card is clearly a good choice.

[Awaclus]

In the real work everybody, even Nobeal prize laurates, frequently make mistakes.

But you apparently don't.

[tristan]

In the real work everybody, even Nobeal prize laurates, frequently make mistakes.

But you apparently don't.

Where did I say that I do not?  I did e.g. appreciate that the guy I responded to did helped me to understand that cantrip trashers are stronger than I thought. But looks like he resorts to arguments from authority when he is dealing with a topic he is unfamiliar with.

[Asper]

Reading the thread title, i thought the last card would be a Reserve saying: "At the start of your turn, you may call this, to end the game." Which i think sounds at least interesting.

[tristan]

Reading the thread title, i thought the last card would be a Reserve saying: "At the start of your turn, you may call this, to end the game." Which i think sounds at least interesting.

I agree. It would definitely imply more control for the player who gained a Khan and make it overall less swingy. In a big deck you could draw Khan at the wrong moment when you (think you are) behind.
Anything related to game ending stuff is definitely something you wanna tightly control.

[market squire]

Back to the actual topic, if you still don't get, despite countless repetitions, that the last step of the traveller line is Tournament on steroids (you need to have 2 Provinces or a Province and a Duchy or a Duchy and 3 Estates in your hand) I cannot help you.
The conditions is harder than that of Tournament so even with mirror play and greening that happens at roughly the same time at the end card draw decides whether you will have the VP cards with a cumulated cost of 10 or not. And the reward, 10 VPs plus end game trigger, is extremely good.

Agreed, the condition is harder than Tournament's. But I think this means it is less luck dependent. You will need multiple VP cards in your deck if you want to trigger it, you can't just draw it luckily with a Province.
Also: If you fail with Tournament, you get nothing. If you fail On the Silk Road, you get a super boost.

Reading the thread title, i thought the last card would be a Reserve saying: "At the start of your turn, you may call this, to end the game." Which i think sounds at least interesting.

That is I good idea that I haven't thought of. Probably we could just change the Khan to this.
Maybe this with a condition could be a way to shorten the Traveller chain, like Accatitippi wished. I will think about it.


On testing: Sorry, I don't play that much. Although I'm quite excited about this one. Maybe I will make card mockups next week or so, but that is always taking so much time... 

[Asper]

By the way, i made it "At the start of your turn" on purpose. Being able to sucker-punch somebody by jumping in the lead and ending the game immediately didn't seem fun. The way i suggested you have to be ahead at the start of your turn - but winning if you are ahead at your turn's begin is still neat.

Maybe it could even work without being a Traveller? Like, if it costs $8, you are foregoing a Province. You also need to play it and then stay in the lead for a turn. If it was my idea, i'd probably try it at $8 and name it Queen/King/Regent.

[Witherweaver]

Back to the actual topic, if you still don't get, despite countless repetitions, that the last step of the traveller line is Tournament on steroids (you need to have 2 Provinces or a Province and a Duchy or a Duchy and 3 Estates in your hand) I cannot help you.
The conditions is harder than that of Tournament so even with mirror play and greening that happens at roughly the same time at the end card draw decides whether you will have the VP cards with a cumulated cost of 10 or not. And the reward, 10 VPs plus end game trigger, is extremely good.

Agreed, the condition is harder than Tournament's. But I think this means it is less luck dependent. You will need multiple VP cards in your deck if you want to trigger it, you can't just draw it luckily with a Province.
Also: If you fail with Tournament, you get nothing. If you fail On the Silk Road, you get a super boost.

Hmm.. I don't think that logic holds up.  The condition is harder, so it happens less often, but the payoff is better.  Low probability, high value, which is exactly what Tristan is talking about.

On the Silk Road's abilities are good, but if getting Marco Polo outshines the other benefits such that the player that lines up 10 cost with it is very likely going to win over the player that doesn't (hypothetical; I'm not saying that's the case), then it's a little bit moot.

[eHalcyon]

I haven't ignored your comments about the stats. I addressed them.  I don't trust your assessment over theirs because you've only thrown out terms from introductory statistics classes like "t-test" and "significance" without any actually math at all, and one of your suggestions (that small = insignificant) is fundamentally wrong.

You did not adress anything. All you relied upon was an argument from authorty: "these guys are uber smart so their works is automatically right". This is unscientific and reactionary. In the real work everybody, even Nobeal prize laurates, frequently make mistakes.

An argument from authority is not fallacious if the authority actually knows what they are talking about.  I believe they do.  IIRC, this kind of stuff is actually rrenaud's job.  I'm not saying that it's automatically right, but that it sure has more weight than your anecdotes. 

On the flip side, until you actually do some math, you yourself are making an argument from authority with yourself as authority, and your other statements have led me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to stats.

People certainly do make mistakes.  That's not relevant here though, unless you show that there is a mistake in those stats.

About the stats, as I already said, if the secondary values which are given correspond to the confidence intervals then the probabilities might very well be statistically significantly different from a hypothetical average value (of around 70%).
But even if they are, the range of probabilities is just 2.5 percentage points. Not really enough spread to make arguments about card randomness. Second the stats do not only measure card randomness but also card complexity.

Is this a paper? No but this is a boardgame forum and not a scientific journal. The second point, that the stats measure two things and not just one, suffices to discount them for the sake of using them as an empirical support for the nonsensical claim that Tournament is not a swingy card.

So you're saying that even though it's statistically significant, it's still not actually significant.  OK, way to dismiss hard data.

I already addressed why the card complexity is directly related, but you've studiously ignored all that.

I never claimed that Tournament is not swingy.  No matter how many times you say that I did, that won't make it true, and I think it is the worst form of debate to misrepresent what others have said, especially if they've already corrected you on it before.

Back to the actual topic, if you still don't get, despite countless repetitions, that the last step of the traveller line is Tournament on steroids (you need to have 2 Provinces or a Province and a Duchy or a Duchy and 3 Estates in your hand) I cannot help you.

Your countless repetitions have already been addressed multiple times, and you've chosen to ignore those responses over and over again.

The conditions is harder than that of Tournament so even with mirror play and greening that happens at roughly the same time at the end card draw decides whether you will have the VP cards with a cumulated cost of 10 or not. And the reward, 10 VPs plus end game trigger, is extremely good.

Just to say yet again, the 10VP isn't an important part of the card design.  The OP already mentioned that it could be reduced or removed entirely.  So if that's a big reason you think it is swingy, it has already been addressed.  This has been mentioned multiple times already.

You say that card draw will decide whether you have the VP cards in hand, but I disagree.  All the exchange requirements for the early cards in the line require that you actually build your deck.  By the time you get On The Silk Road, you'll have an actual engine.  If you've played well, you'll be able to reliably draw the VP you need.  That's not random luck, that's skilled play.  That's not early game pairing of two cards like Tournament, that's a late game engine doing what it was built to do.

In the real world an event which occurs with low probability and implies a large outcome is called risky. Now this is totally fine if the card designer wants to go for that. Swindler, Tournament, Treasure Map and so on are all risky Dominion cards. As it includes a game end trigger and a huge shitload of VPs it is clearly more risky than any other Dominion card. But per se there is nothing wrong with that. Gee, my favourite deckbuilder is Nightfall which is probably less skill-dependent than Dominion. And at the end of the game we still talk about a card game and not Caylus or Chess.
But if your goal is to keep the amount of Tournaments and Swindlers low, if your fan card design goal is limit the influence of luck, then this traveller line is the wrong choice. If Dominion is too deterministic and skill-dependent for your taste than this card is clearly a good choice.

I contest that it is low probability in the context of how and when you would actually have On the Silk Road in your deck, as explained above. 

But let's say that you are a bad player who is just bumbling through this line.  In that case, I agree -- the probability is low.  Then suppose you do somehow randomly meet the conditions to exchange instead of doing it deliberately.  Is it swingy now?  I say no, because in this case the card wouldn't be powerful.  If you use Visit the Khan to end the game, you're probably doing it for a loss.



Overall, far too much focus is being paid to the last two stages in this discussion.  Every step in the traveller chain is a gate on the way to those last cards, but you're ignoring them all.  It's not just a matter of drawing into $10 worth of VP.  It's also giving up tempo by playing a dead action (Marco Polo).  It's investing in and playing multiple terminals in a turn (Board A Ship).  It's getting villages and then not using them to full advantage (Visiting Bagdad).  If you get through all that by luck, then we're talking Lucky Chancellor here, and I don't see anybody calling Chancellor too swingy (other than this guy).  So even if the last exchange needs a little more luck (and again, I don't think it does at that stage in the game) then I'd say that it's well earned and well gated.

Reading the thread title, i thought the last card would be a Reserve saying: "At the start of your turn, you may call this, to end the game." Which i think sounds at least interesting.

I agree. It would definitely imply more control for the player who gained a Khan and make it overall less swingy. In a big deck you could draw Khan at the wrong moment when you (think you are) behind.
Anything related to game ending stuff is definitely something you wanna tightly control.

I think that would be a cool change to make, in addition to dropping the VP.

Back to the actual topic, if you still don't get, despite countless repetitions, that the last step of the traveller line is Tournament on steroids (you need to have 2 Provinces or a Province and a Duchy or a Duchy and 3 Estates in your hand) I cannot help you.
The conditions is harder than that of Tournament so even with mirror play and greening that happens at roughly the same time at the end card draw decides whether you will have the VP cards with a cumulated cost of 10 or not. And the reward, 10 VPs plus end game trigger, is extremely good.

Agreed, the condition is harder than Tournament's. But I think this means it is less luck dependent. You will need multiple VP cards in your deck if you want to trigger it, you can't just draw it luckily with a Province.
Also: If you fail with Tournament, you get nothing. If you fail On the Silk Road, you get a super boost.

Hmm.. I don't think that logic holds up.  The condition is harder, so it happens less often, but the payoff is better.  Low probability, high value, which is exactly what Tristan is talking about.

On the Silk Road's abilities are good, but if getting Marco Polo outshines the other benefits such that the player that lines up 10 cost with it is very likely going to win over the player that doesn't (hypothetical; I'm not saying that's the case), then it's a little bit moot.

Again, the Lucky Chancellor is a relevant example here.  It has especially low probability and also very high value, but most people don't consider it too swingy or luck-dependent.  As it is, I'd say that Marco Polo has much more space for skilled play to mitigate luck as you progress through each step, and also much lower value if you don't have a plan to back it up.

[popsofctown]

Chancellor is an extremely swingy card.  It's just also an extremely sucky card.  If its effect was on a 4$ Peddler I bet it'd be one of the most complained-of cards in the game.

[tristan]

I haven't ignored your comments about the stats. I addressed them.  I don't trust your assessment over theirs because you've only thrown out terms from introductory statistics classes like "t-test" and "significance" without any actually math at all, and one of your suggestions (that small = insignificant) is fundamentally wrong.

You did not adress anything. All you relied upon was an argument from authorty: "these guys are uber smart so their works is automatically right". This is unscientific and reactionary. In the real work everybody, even Nobeal prize laurates, frequently make mistakes.

An argument from authority is not fallacious if the authority actually knows what they are talking about.  I believe they do.  IIRC, this kind of stuff is actually rrenaud's job.  I'm not saying that it's automatically right, but that it sure has more weight than your anecdotes. 

An argument from authority is always bad and reactionary. Big difference between BELIEVING that what somebody is claiming is right and actually analyzing it yourself.

Again, the Lucky Chancellor is a relevant example here.  It has especially low probability and also very high value, but most people don't consider it too swingy or luck-dependent.

First of all, you might wanna think yourself instead of just bleating with the herd. Low probability and high output is the very definition of risk. The likelihood that a house burns down is very low but the absolute value of the negative output is pretty large (in the worst case the value of the house is zero or negative if you gotta clean up the rubble).

Naturally you end up with the pretty wrong conclusions about riskiness if you are confused about what it actually means.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I'm a 100 per cent with eHalcyon (at least as far as arguments about the impact and swingyness of the Travellers's effects are concerned) and I think this could be a really fun and interesting concept. I'd like to make images for those cards and test them some day in their current form. 10 VP in the end might be too much or too low or just right, I can't tell, yet. This Traveller line would require quite a lot of skill to play optimally and I like the fact that you achieved this with relatively simple individual cards.

[pacovf]

eHalcyon, are you having fun?

[Accatitippi]

I don't really want to be sucked into this, but I'll just say that "very low probability, high impact" is not as bad as "50/50 probability, high impact" (Tournament-ish), because the two players will get different results much more often in the latter case.

[Asper]

Reading the thread title, i thought the last card would be a Reserve saying: "At the start of your turn, you may call this, to end the game." Which i think sounds at least interesting.

I agree. It would definitely imply more control for the player who gained a Khan and make it overall less swingy. In a big deck you could draw Khan at the wrong moment when you (think you are) behind.
Anything related to game ending stuff is definitely something you wanna tightly control.

I think that would be a cool change to make, in addition to dropping the VP.

Yes, that was my intend. It does nothing but give you control over when to end the game:

Regent, $8, Action-Reserve
Put this on your Tavern Mat
----
At the start of your turn, you may call this, to end the game.

It could be nonterminal or a cantrip so it doesn't harm your turn, but i think i'd try it like this first.

[eHalcyon]

Chancellor is an extremely swingy card.  It's just also an extremely sucky card.  If its effect was on a 4$ Peddler I bet it'd be one of the most complained-of cards in the game.

Swinginess is tied to power.  Chancellor is weak, so it is less swingy.  The upside of a single good Chancellor flip is small; the high value only comes from repeatedly getting lucky, but the chance is so small that we don't find it too swingy.

An argument from authority is always bad and reactionary. Big difference between BELIEVING that what somebody is claiming is right and actually analyzing it yourself.

I've given it enough consideration to lend it my trust.  It's not blind belief.  If you provide some analysis that contradicts what rrenaud has calculated, I would consider that too.  As it is, you haven't given me any reason to believe you know more about statistics than I do, let alone the specifics of TrueSkill and conditional entropy that are key here.  You've only made vague hand-waving statements about it.  Argument from authority is not always bad -- it's done all the time in science, and then you cite the source at the end.

Again, the Lucky Chancellor is a relevant example here.  It has especially low probability and also very high value, but most people don't consider it too swingy or luck-dependent.

First of all, you might wanna think yourself instead of just bleating with the herd. Low probability and high output is the very definition of risk. The likelihood that a house burns down is very low but the absolute value of the negative output is pretty large (in the worst case the value of the house is zero or negative if you gotta clean up the rubble).

Naturally you end up with the pretty wrong conclusions about riskiness if you are confused about what it actually means.

You're misreading again.  You really need to work on that reading comprehension.  I did not say that Chancellor isn't a risk.  Let me be clear - it is.  But it's not too swingy or luck-dependent because the probability is so low.  The modifier in that sentence is important.  I've already explained in detail in my response to pops.

eHalcyon, are you having fun?

It goes back and forth.

[theory]

I originally didn't get involved in this because I thought you guys had cooled off, but I guess I was wrong?  Consider restarting the topic if you want to try again with more civility.