Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 327  All

Author Topic: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100  (Read 1639787 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #825 on: November 27, 2018, 12:00:39 pm »
+1

I think that in general the price does not matter that much with all these Treasures. You want to actually see the bottom part of the pile in some games so being a bit too cheap is not a big issue and $2 vs $3 doesn't matter much.
Unless there are extra Buys. Just imagine Fool's Gold with an extra Buy, it'd probably have to cost $4 because it would be otherwise far too easy to snowball and pick up a lot of them.
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +1006
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #826 on: November 27, 2018, 12:28:56 pm »
+4



5 Horses on top, 5 Paddocks below, like a standard split pile. If a Goat is allowed to be a Treasure then Horse is too! It also trashes things a bit like Goat. Horse might be able to get away with costing $2? I thought I'd play it safe but am open to changing it. At first I had Paddock revealing for treasures first before the +3 Cards, but I like it this way because it works with Wishing Well type things which is always fun. I didn't want the cards to specifically mention each other like a lot of split piles do.
Logged

terminalCopper

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
  • Respect: +759
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #827 on: November 27, 2018, 02:12:16 pm »
0


Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0*
[*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP
I think the flavor implications of buying multiple Brides for the sole purpose of impregnating them and have them raise children easily beat Harem in terms of offensiveness.


5 Horses on top, 5 Paddocks below, like a standard split pile. If a Goat is allowed to be a Treasure then Horse is too! It also trashes things a bit like Goat. Horse might be able to get away with costing $2? I thought I'd play it safe but am open to changing it. At first I had Paddock revealing for treasures first before the +3 Cards, but I like it this way because it works with Wishing Well type things which is always fun. I didn't want the cards to specifically mention each other like a lot of split piles do.
Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?
Logged

faust

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3399
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5206
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #828 on: November 27, 2018, 04:05:04 pm »
0

Yes.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1979
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #829 on: November 27, 2018, 08:15:45 pm »
0

Scrap my other submission, I've come up with something I like better:

« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 08:17:43 pm by Commodore Chuckles »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5352
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #830 on: November 27, 2018, 09:08:28 pm »
0

I feel like Contract should be more expensive. In the majority of situations, it is better than CotR.

I agree with Faust, but I think that villa is the closest relative. Both net a buck, an action and a buy at the cost of one card. Also, both synergize with draw to X, notably bookkeeper. That being said,  3$ seems logic as price, because this is what villa effectively costs.
Well, CotR generates one Action more, but doesn't generate a buy. It also removes itself from your deck until called, and honestly I wasn't sure whether I should consider that a downside or upside. And of course, there are 10 coins, not 5. Anyhow, it's not like I hate the idea of costing Contract at 3$ - at the very least it would make it more different from CotR.

About the comparison with Villa, that one of course gives its Actions immediately - and has an on-gain that is pretty central to its design.
Logged

Project Grantwood

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #831 on: November 28, 2018, 12:23:22 am »
+1

Hi all! This is my first post! I made an account just for this! Yay Cards!

This pile is split 5/5 (Not trying to rock the boat, here)

The Writ of Credit is a silver that lets you trash for benefit, but it also gains (and punishes) debt. It's a little scary to consider buying on its own, but if you get ahold of the Margin Trader, it could help you get that debt back under control and even turn a nice little profit, plus it gives you an extra buy so you can use the profit right away. It's also a sort-of trasher, but you'll want to save it more for a sweet ending move rather than to thin out your deck... and the coffer bomb could backfire if you're not trading on margin ;)

Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5352
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #832 on: November 28, 2018, 03:54:46 am »
0

Yee-haw, welcome to the forums! Nice to have you around  :)
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5352
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #833 on: November 28, 2018, 04:02:23 am »
0

Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

Equus equum lupus est.
Translation: A horse is a wolf to horses.

The question that bothers me more is, why you no interact with Horse Traders?
Logged

terminalCopper

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
  • Respect: +759
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #834 on: November 28, 2018, 05:56:14 am »
+1

Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

Equus equum lupus est.
Translation: A horse is a wolf to horses.

The question that bothers me more is, why you no interact with Horse Traders?

At least, itís great with butcher.
Logged

crlundy

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
  • Shuffle iT Username: crlundy
  • Respect: +324
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #835 on: November 29, 2018, 01:23:38 am »
0


Looks pretty good, but Wages should probably have some kind of "If it's not your Action phase, return to it" wording. Not sure if this is the best wording or not.
Looking at Villa, it should probably be "If it's your Buy phase". Also, Treasures should say "When you play this".

]

Sorry mine also has a card named Smelter.  I had this made a while ago and just didn't post it.  Hopefully since the first card is different it is unique enough.
Mould should say "that you don't have in play", since now other people might have Treasures in play on your turns (Capitalism + Caravan Guard). ;)
Logged

terminalCopper

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
  • Respect: +759
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #836 on: November 29, 2018, 02:27:04 am »
0

Great challenge this week! Indeed, itís not easy to create a desirable Treasure, which also synergizes with the Action ... my attempt is to make the treasures available later and provide a way to bump them up. It took some time to balance it out, and the following cards require some patience, but when they finally exploded, it was real fun:

**********************************

Goldsmith, 5$, Action

+3 cards

You may reveal 3/4 differently named treasures for 1/2 villagers.

**********************************

Medallion, 2$, Treasure

Worth 1$ for every two villagers you have (round down).

**********************************
 
Remarks:
There are 5 Goldsmiths on top, with 5 Medallions below.

If you play Goldsmith and reveal 3 differently named treasures, you get 1 villager, if you reveal 4 differently named treasures, you get 2 of them. But not on top: itís at most 2 villagers in total. If you donít like the wording, Iím happy about better suggestions!










Remarks: There are 5 Gold Smithies on top
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #837 on: November 29, 2018, 10:00:00 am »
0

I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.
Logged

UmbrageOfSnow

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Umbrageofsnow
  • Respect: +301
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #838 on: November 29, 2018, 10:14:58 am »
0

This whole thread is a really cool idea


And I'm breaking with convention: pile is 7 Gilt on top, 3 Lilies underneath.

Edit: Updated Gilt wording to prevent Estate gains.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 02:41:43 pm by UmbrageOfSnow »
Logged

UmbrageOfSnow

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Umbrageofsnow
  • Respect: +301
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #839 on: November 29, 2018, 10:32:18 am »
0



I absolutely love the theme of these, and the backwards village-smithy play order concept in general. Definitely the ones I most want to try out proxied.

Villa says "If it's your Buy phase return to your Action phase."
Logged

Fly-Eagles-Fly

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
  • Respect: +190
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #840 on: November 29, 2018, 10:43:43 am »
+2


Here's my submission, for now. I used the names/art of some of my other cards.
Logged

Chappy7

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +662
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #841 on: November 29, 2018, 11:17:44 am »
0


Looks pretty good, but Wages should probably have some kind of "If it's not your Action phase, return to it" wording. Not sure if this is the best wording or not.
Looking at Villa, it should probably be "If it's your Buy phase". Also, Treasures should say "When you play this".

]

Sorry mine also has a card named Smelter.  I had this made a while ago and just didn't post it.  Hopefully since the first card is different it is unique enough.
Mould should say "that you don't have in play", since now other people might have Treasures in play on your turns (Capitalism + Caravan Guard). ;)
I thought about that and I'm okay with how it is.  I think it's kind of a fun interaction
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #842 on: November 29, 2018, 11:32:45 am »
0

This whole thread is a really cool idea


And I'm breaking with convention: pile is 7 Gilt on top, 3 Lilies underneath.
No card from this pile will ever be bought in non-Shepherd Kingdoms without $2 Kingdom cards: you play Gilt, trash a Copper, gain a Gilt and when you later trash a Gilt via a Gilt you gain an Estate.
I don't see much of an interaction between Gilt and Lily.
Logged

terminalCopper

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
  • Respect: +759
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #843 on: November 29, 2018, 11:36:53 am »
0

I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.

Thanks for your feedback, but I donít think so: To avoid this, I put the treasures below ...

Great challenge this week! Indeed, itís not easy to create a desirable Treasure, which also synergizes with the Action ... my attempt is to make the treasures available later and provide a way to bump them up. It took some time to balance it out, and the following cards require some patience, but when they finally exploded, it was real fun:

**********************************

Goldsmith, 5$, Action

+3 cards

You may reveal 3/4 differently named treasures for 1/2 villagers.

**********************************

Medallion, 2$, Treasure

Worth 1$ for every two villagers you have (round down).

**********************************
 
Remarks:
There are 5 Goldsmiths on top, with 5 Medallions below.

If you play Goldsmith and reveal 3 differently named treasures, you get 1 villager, if you reveal 4 differently named treasures, you get 2 of them. But not on top: itís at most 2 villagers in total. If you donít like the wording, Iím happy about better suggestions!

I also playtested it: with good sidekicks (Splitters helped saving Villagers, other Treasures helped gaining 2 per Goldsmith), the first medallion was already a gold, and ended up being better than platinum.

Of course, this was an extreme edge case (simulation with Forager and Coin of the Realm, which fit perfect). Without splitters or other Treasures, Medallion might be worth 0 and be skipped.

But then again, I donít think a card is badly designed if sometimes half of the pile isnít bought. I even think that a good ratio is e. g. if a card is entirely skipped in 30% to 60% of all games, and if it is the best card in the kingdom at a rate of roughly 10%.

What do others think?

Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #844 on: November 29, 2018, 11:41:50 am »
0

I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.

Thanks for your feedback, but I donít think so: To avoid this, I put the treasures below ...
Sorry, I totally overread this. With the Treasure underneath it is of course totally fine.
Logged

UmbrageOfSnow

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Umbrageofsnow
  • Respect: +301
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #845 on: November 29, 2018, 11:50:32 am »
0

No card from this pile will ever be bought in non-Shepherd Kingdoms without $2 Kingdom cards: you play Gilt, trash a Copper, gain a Gilt and when you later trash a Gilt via a Gilt you gain an Estate.
I don't see much of an interaction between Gilt and Lily.

Maybe this got lost in different versions, I did have Lily costing $2 at one point and then had Lily being stronger than it is, but the idea was emptying the estate pile and fueling Lily with it (and hence Gilt needed to also be basically impossible to drain.)

I think they have a good amount of interaction though, Gilt is a hurdle to get to the Lilies, and you pull tricks like trashing Silver to gain the Lily and then trashing Gilt to put it back on the pile over the other Lily, and Gilt as perpetual point engine components for the player who got 2 Lilies, forcing the other to try to race out the Provinces.

I was actually worried about this being too game dominating, which is why I maybe over-nerfed, but it's a kinda-sorta Fortress-Bishop split pile and I think that's a pretty significant interaction.

Should I somewhat un-nerf Lily, or should I do something with the trash clause on Gilt like "and you may trash a card from your hand" or something like that?

I didn't really want Gilt at 2, Lily at 5 because an exactly-2 clause makes it easy to pile Pearl Divers or whatever with your coppers.
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #846 on: November 29, 2018, 01:08:56 pm »
0

Gilt as perpetual point engine components for the player who got 2 Lilies, forcing the other to try to race out the Provinces.
Gilt isn't "perpetual", you still have to gain it somehow again after you trashed it and returned it to its pile. In the absence of spammable extra Buys the cheap price of Gilt is fairly irrelevant and in far more Kingdoms you'd gain fodder for Lily via gainers.
I also think it is hard to make a powerhouse out of Lily. You need to draw 2 cards to get 1VP and you later have to somehow regain a card to feed Lily. So you need draw power and gainers or Buys to get at best, if you have all 5 Lilies, 5VPs per turn. In a Kingdom with gainers or extra Buys and card that provide draw power going for an engine that can buy 2 Provinces per turn in the endgame seems like the wiser choice.
Logged

UmbrageOfSnow

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Umbrageofsnow
  • Respect: +301
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #847 on: November 29, 2018, 02:04:51 pm »
0

Gilt feeds you other stuff when trashed, and then can be bought without depleting piles is the thing I was talking about, for the player who is behind trying to catch up.

I'm thinking a lot about endgame pile control with this. I'm trying to make it not about VP generation on it's own, but about getting a lead and draining the pile.

Also, +Buy is more common than gainers, isn't it? Certainly not far less common. You don't need a million Buys, you need a few extra.

Note that there are only 3 Lillies, I think 5 is nuts. That's 5 VP a turn and, if you have an engine with some overdraw, milling 5 provinces off the supply if you've bought 1.

Idea that just occurred to me: maybe Gilt should gain an Action or Treasure card costing exactly $1 more.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 02:32:48 pm by UmbrageOfSnow »
Logged

UmbrageOfSnow

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Umbrageofsnow
  • Respect: +301
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #848 on: November 29, 2018, 02:32:38 pm »
0


Idea that just occurred to me: maybe Gilt should gain an Action or Treasure card costing exactly $1 more.

Updated the original post with this change
Logged

Holunder9

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Respect: +382
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
« Reply #849 on: November 29, 2018, 02:50:23 pm »
0

Gilt feeds you other stuff when trashed,
If that is your intention, you have to word it differently. As it is currently worded it only trashes a Treasure at the end of the turn if it is in play, i.e. if you trash Gilt via another card like Lilies this Upgrade effect doesn't happen.


Note that there are only 3 Lillies, I think 5 is nuts. That's 5 VP a turn and, if you have an engine with some overdraw, milling 5 provinces off the supply if you've bought 1.
Sure, the Transmogrify / Salt of Earth like pile control is nice but in order to pull that off you'd need to draw 10 cards: 5 Lilies and 5 cards you don't want anymore. And this or next turn you'd have to regain 5 cards to feed Lilies.
I don't see any craziness.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 327  All
 

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 21 queries.