Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 189 190 [191] 192 193 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1565454 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Something_Smart

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
  • Shuffle iT Username: S_Smart
  • Respect: +185
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4750 on: February 14, 2020, 09:36:21 am »
+2

Scolapasta, since you're tightening up the wording, do you need "When you play this" in there? By default, cards take effect when played.
A lot of (possibly all?) official Treasures with special effects say that, so it was probably just to be consistent.
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 529
  • she/her
  • Respect: +409
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4751 on: February 14, 2020, 11:38:17 am »
+1

Scolapasta, since you're tightening up the wording, do you need "When you play this" in there? By default, cards take effect when played.
A lot of (possibly all?) official Treasures with special effects say that, so it was probably just to be consistent.

Fool's Gold and Crown don't specify their "when you play this" trigger. Crown is also an Action card, so maybe that's why. I don't know about Fool's Gold. Maybe it just has too much text already? As far as I can tell, those are the only two exceptions. (Ducat, Plunder, etc. don't count; they have only vanilla effects.)
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 579
  • Respect: +738
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4752 on: February 14, 2020, 12:36:31 pm »
+2

Took me a while to hunt this down, but this was asked to DXV in the interview thread. I chose to stay with that consistency.

Why do Treasures say "When you play this" before listing their on play effects?
It's kind of a bummer that they do - it adds all that text to those cards, and they already use a bunch of space on the giant coin.

They say it because it seemed important for clarity when special treasures first appeared. The first one was Philosopher's Stone (due to Alchemy sneaking ahead of Prosperity) and it had to be clear, when does the number of cards in your deck matter. It matters right when you play the treasure; you count the cards then and only then.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4753 on: February 14, 2020, 01:26:25 pm »
+1

Like I said in the original post, this contest is gonna run slightly more than a week. I'm going to start judging the submissions on Sunday morning. The last time to submit will be Saturday night (my time). I would give a 24 hour warning, but can't because I'll be observing Sabbath at that point. So here's your 36 hour warning.
Logged

naitchman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4754 on: February 14, 2020, 01:32:51 pm »
+1

Challenge 61: Create a New Simple Mechanic Submission:

First of all, I'm not sure this submission qualifies as it adds an extra game setup step. If it doesn't I'm happy to remove it!

Leader Cards: These play exactly like Projects. The big difference is each player may chooses one and only one Leader for free before the start of the game. All Leaders are available to be chosen and they are not pile limited (so multiple players may choose the same Leader). All Leaders provide a benefit, but beware, all Leaders also have drawbacks. If the Kingdom lacks an extra Action, the Industrious Leader might look appealing, but all non-terminal Actions will cost you $1 extra for the whole game!

   
   

These may not be exactly balanced, but again these are just to highlight the concept. Thanks for looking!


Challenge 61: Create a New Simple Mechanic Submission:
Industrious: At the start of your turn, +1 Action. During your turns, cards with +Action amounts in their text cost $1 more.

Devout: During your turns, once per phase, when you discard a card (from anywhere), you may trash it. At the end of each turn you trashed any cards with this, each other player gets +1VP.

Political: During your turns, Victory cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, +1VP.

Tactical: At the start of the game, take 9debt. At the start of your turn, +$1.

Not Sure if I understand correctly, but it sounds like you'd use cubes to denote who has which leader. In that case, it wouldn't work because of the extra components needed.

I'm kind of on the fence if you would use 4 copies of each card, and each player would take one before the game. It feels pretty similar to shelters and heirlooms (maybe even a little worse, since setup takes a little extra time while you wait for everyone to make their leader choice). I think I'm going to rule that it won't count. Sorry for the delay in getting to you on this.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4755 on: February 14, 2020, 02:24:41 pm »
0

Not cool, dude. Kudasai‘s concept is one of the best ones posted, exists for quit some time so quite some thought went into it ... and whether you use cubes or several copies of each card is fairly trivial and only relevant for choosing between a secret or open setup.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1004
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4756 on: February 14, 2020, 02:36:49 pm »
+2

Not cool, dude. Kudasai‘s concept is one of the best ones posted, exists for quit some time so quite some thought went into it ... and whether you use cubes or several copies of each card is fairly trivial and only relevant for choosing between a secret or open setup.

I mean I think he's doing Kudasai a favour saying this in advance because he obviously wouldn't have had a chance at winning with this entry anyway. Now Kudasai gets another chance.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4757 on: February 14, 2020, 02:56:53 pm »
0

Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1004
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4758 on: February 14, 2020, 03:09:46 pm »
+2

Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?

It's pretty obvious to me that even if Leaders weren't disqualified naitchman wouldn't have chosen them as the winner.
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4759 on: February 14, 2020, 03:12:28 pm »
+3

Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?

This challenge's rules, for one, cares about that.

It was clearly stipulated in the limits imposed by this challenge:

By simple mechanic I mean the mechanic must have no extra setup (beyond the pile itself) - No tokens, Mats, extra piles/cards that have to be pulled from the box (even if they are exclusive to that pile like Hermit, Urchin, Young Witch, travelers, or Artifacts etc.), or cards to replace starting deck (Heirlooms/Shelters).

These play exactly like Projects. The big difference is each player may chooses one and only one Leader for free before the start of the game.

This is in direct contradiction with the rules of this challenge. Everyone had to abide by them and the difficulty of it was to work within the limits of said rules. Otherwise, it would have been easier for us all to find alternatives. The moment you start being lenient toward a particular user, then you open a whole can of worm. If it is okay for someone to overstretch the rules of the challenge, then it should be okay for everyone else to abuse as well.

Now, truthfully, I'd be glad if this (very awesome, by the way) submission gets accepted regardless. The whole idea of this thread is to have fun, after all! But I can’t help but think that calling someone who’s going to spend hours to judge our creations uncool is what’s really uncool about this situation. Booing from the sideline as both parties are in agreement anyway is kind of out of place. Kudasai himself said that he could change his entry or work around it, if needed. So what’s the issue here?
Logged
Bottom text

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4760 on: February 14, 2020, 03:15:49 pm »
0

Huh? You print one card per player, period. No issue at all.

This is about ideas, not about excluding cool ideas because of utterly irrelevant implementation trivia.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 03:27:12 pm by segura »
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1004
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4761 on: February 14, 2020, 03:41:35 pm »
+3

Based on naitchman's comment I was under the impression the issue was more about choosing between the 4 Leaders at the start of the game. That seems quite against the no setup part of this week's challenge to me.
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4762 on: February 14, 2020, 03:44:17 pm »
+1

Huh? You print one card per player, period. No issue at all.

This is about ideas, not about excluding cool ideas because of utterly irrelevant implementation trivia.

It’s not « utterly » (lol) irrelevant implementation: Implementation IS the challenge! I dunno why you make it a point to dismiss that. If I make a challenge that says “Create a card that costs ” and someone creates a really neat card that involves a novel and never-seen-before concept, but prices it at , then it would be disqualified regardless because it did not follow what the hearth of this challenge was. Sure, the card is awesome and the ideas behind it are excellent, but it wasn’t implemented correctly for that week’s challenge. Then, imagine getting deemed “uncool” because you let that person know about the error. Yeesh.

I’ve been enamored by Kudasai’s idea as well. But don’t trivialize this incoherence just because your favourite candidate’s creation has a problematic implementation. Anyway, this is for naitchman to decide. I will stand by his decision and whether Kudasai’s submission makes it in or not is not important: I just thought your disgruntled attitude toward him was really not within the good vibes one can usually find in this thread.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 03:46:57 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4763 on: February 14, 2020, 03:47:38 pm »
0

Dude, implementation refers to whether you do this via one copy of each Leader and cubes or via several copies. But only few people here use fan cards IRL which is why the focus should be on the idea. When somebody posts a split pile and claims that it should be 4-4 or 6-6 folks should not sweat that: it only matter if you print the card and then you can still change that very parameter.
And before you claim that Kudasai‘s idea that he has worked on for some time is „incoherent“, you might wanna check the inconsistent wording on your own cards first.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 03:59:33 pm by segura »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4764 on: February 14, 2020, 03:53:14 pm »
0

Based on naitchman's comment I was under the impression the issue was more about choosing between the 4 Leaders at the start of the game. That seems quite against the no setup part of this week's challenge to me.
I don’t know, every new mechanism takes up setup time as you gotta explain it. Ironically overwrought mechanics swallow up more setup time than formal setup stuff like Baker or sideway cards. For example choosing Leaders would take far less time in my gaming group than explaining them how Strength is supposed to work.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 03:56:25 pm by segura »
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4765 on: February 14, 2020, 03:58:05 pm »
+1

I don’t think bringing “learning the rules of a new mechanic” is arguing in good faith. It simply is not part of the setup. It isn’t something that’s required to do before you start a game. You read the rules and learn the mechanics once and then you’re good to go for all subsequent plays. The mechanics we implemented do not force the players to go over the rules when a game begins.

Otherwise, learning about how to play an Action card, for instance, would be, according to you, an extra setup step too, since it’s a mechanic that requires the rules to be read at least once before. That’s a broken logic.

As a quick reminder, “Create a new mechanic with quick to explain rules” was not part of this challenge. “Create a new mechanic with no extra setup steps”, however, is very much in naitchman’s post.
Logged
Bottom text

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4766 on: February 14, 2020, 04:03:26 pm »
0

I don’t think bringing “learning the rules of a new mechanic” is arguing in good faith. It simply is not part of the setup. It isn’t something that’s required to do before you start a game. You read the rules and learn the mechanics once and then you’re good to go for all subsequent plays. The mechanics we implemented do not force the players to go over the rules when a game begins.
Does not sound like you play the same game I do. Or your gaming group features players of equal strength / rule knowledge.

We always read all the cards and talk about them before we play a game of Dominion in my gaming group such that everybody is on an equal footing ... and if there are cards with complex mechanics or interactions that takes far more time than grabbing for some Shelters.

So yeah, IRL complex mechanics take more setup time than formal setup stuff. Like grabbing for some cards or cubes or whatever.

You can of course try to argue that you could simply pull out some of your Strength cards and let the other suckers figure them out for themselves. But you know very well that this is not how you would behave, you would explain them and answer all rule questions before you started the game. And you would explain rule ambiguities or even make a new ruling during the game. And if folks forgot some stuff, you would explain it again before the next game.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 04:11:15 pm by segura »
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4767 on: February 14, 2020, 04:14:13 pm »
+1

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.
This strawman of an argument is going too far; If we are deriving into “Welp explaining the rules are part of the setup anyway so everything submitted thus far disqualifies harr harr” territory, then I’ll quiet down. Deep down, I’m sure you know what naitchman meant.

In the end, I just wished naitchman’s decision wouldn’t have been met with open negativity like that. Especially since, to me, it seems kinda unjustified.

Let us reestablish this thread’s status quo of friendliness. It’s good for everyone. :)
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 04:17:19 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4768 on: February 14, 2020, 04:20:49 pm »
0

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.
You really wanna claim that you would behave like a total jerk and make the other players read the rules about your Strength cards and not explain them to them? Dude, we talk about board games, as in social stuff, not algorithms.
Wherever and with whomever I have played, whoever knew more about a particular game has always explained it. And that happened while/before/after we set up the game.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 04:23:58 pm by segura »
Logged

hypercube

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
  • Shuffle iT Username: xyrix
  • Respect: +326
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4769 on: February 14, 2020, 05:29:30 pm »
+4



Inventions are cards which you can play as one-shots by meeting some condition which is described for each card below the dividing line. You can also buy and play them as normal.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 07:54:16 am by hypercube »
Logged
I have sigs off.

Gubump

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gubump
  • Respect: +1684
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4770 on: February 14, 2020, 07:01:54 pm »
+2

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.
You really wanna claim that you would behave like a total jerk and make the other players read the rules about your Strength cards and not explain them to them? Dude, we talk about board games, as in social stuff, not algorithms.
Wherever and with whomever I have played, whoever knew more about a particular game has always explained it. And that happened while/before/after we set up the game.

And would you then play the exact same set with the exact same people and still explain the same things you just explained to them the previous game? According to your "logic," you should, since that's apparently a set up rule. According to your reasoning, all possible entries for this contest would be disqualified.
Logged
All of my fan card mockups are credited to Shard of Honor and his Dominion Card Image Generator (the new fork).
If you're having font issues with the generator, click this link and click on the button to request temporary access to the demo server that loads the font.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4771 on: February 14, 2020, 07:19:33 pm »
0

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.
You really wanna claim that you would behave like a total jerk and make the other players read the rules about your Strength cards and not explain them to them? Dude, we talk about board games, as in social stuff, not algorithms.
Wherever and with whomever I have played, whoever knew more about a particular game has always explained it. And that happened while/before/after we set up the game.

And would you then play the exact same set with the exact same people and still explain the same things you just explained to them the previous game? According to your "logic," you should, since that's apparently a set up rule. According to your reasoning, all possible entries for this contest would be disqualified.
I never play the same Kingdom again. You seem to confuse rules with common decency, algorithms with what actually happens when people play a boardgame.

IRL some messy mechanic like Strength swallows up far more time during setup than Leaders.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1004
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4772 on: February 14, 2020, 07:37:11 pm »
+9

Due to the excellent points segura has brought up I've decided to change my entry. Introducing Blank cards:

Blank cards are a new card type with zero rules text. This innovation means that Blank cards add no extra set up time, in fact they don't even have a randomizer card! I demand that naitchman disqualifies all other entries this week as all of them add extensive extra setup to games by virtue of having rules text.
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1551
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thre
« Reply #4773 on: February 14, 2020, 07:53:21 pm »
0

Quite ironic that your sarcasm misses that I this entire discussion started with my arguing for INCLUSION of a good card idea and not for the exclusion or disqualification of anything.
And your point is still factually wrong. Setting up stuff is quicker than explaining stuff, taking out Potions takes a fraction of the time it takes to understand and explain Possession.

Leaders are good and simple, kinda like Preludes in TM but with downsides. But if folks care more about rigid contest rules (why do I get such heavy autistic vibes?) than how things work IRL games, who am I to object and defend a good card design against the algorithmic crowd.

User was temp banned for this post
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 09:40:33 pm by theory »
Logged

X-tra

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 464
  • Text under avatar
  • Respect: +1113
    • View Profile
    • a
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #4774 on: February 14, 2020, 08:19:59 pm »
+7

Report and move on, people. Trolls tend to do that: they swallow up a good portion of a thread and gain self-gratification as any ounce remaining of common sense in a would-be civilised debate gets obliterated. Golden rule of the Internet: When we have a very good moment together, this is where people with self-destructive behaviour chimes in.

All I can say, Kudasai, is that I’m sorry that you must bear the awkwardness of that disruptive follower of yours. I know his thinking doesn’t mirror yours and don’t think for a second that we think any lesser of you because of that. Same with you, naitchman. Your week’s contest, your rules. It is an excellent contest and yielded a lot of really cool ideas from the community (even if, apparently, understanding the instructions of that challenge was errr... hard to grasp for some, lol). Everyone is giving their best here and I can’t say that there has been one single effortless entry since the start (well, maybe the blank card, but again: lol). Keep up the good and hard work, people!

Let’s get back on track now. 😊
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 09:03:21 pm by X-tra »
Logged
Bottom text
Pages: 1 ... 189 190 [191] 192 193 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.541 seconds with 20 queries.