Print

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

[BaruMonkey]

Idea sparked by blueblimp's post here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2439.msg41136#msg41136

While we're finding flaws, here are some I see.
...
Gold is a little bit too good.

• If gold weren't available, you'd need a bit more creativity to buy a province. To buy provinces without kingdom cards, you usually need gold. In my experience, the $8 will mostly come from hands like GGCC, GSSC, GSCCC, while SSSS and SSSCC are quite unusual. The problem is that it's not very interesting to buy a province using only basic cards (unless you did something clever like using a kingdom card to flood your deck with silver).
• $5 kingdom cards compete with gold. It's not uncommon to play a game where you rarely hit exactly $5, and in these games, gold is often a better buy than the $5 kingdom cards. I'd prefer to buy something more interesting, but it's hard to compete with non-terminal $3 you never draw dead.

If Gold cost $7 instead of $6, would that fix this problem? What game-breaking utter chaos would ensue?

[WanderingWinder]

If by 'fix', you mean 'make the game worse', then yes

[eHalcyon]

That would break some cards.  For example, Mine becomes even less desirable because it can no longer upgrade Silver.  Also, if you change the price of Gold, would you also change the price of other treasures?  I'm mainly thinking of Bank and Hoard.

Edit: It also makes gold-gaining cards much more powerful, e.g. Tunnel, maybe Fool's Gold, maybe even Explorer.

[Dsell]

Upgrade looks pretty nice. Oh, and governor sucks now.

[HiveMindEmulator]

If you make Gold cost $7, it becomes harder to get, but not weaker. So it just makes the game more swingy, not more balanced/better.

[O]

If you make Gold cost $7, it becomes harder to get, but not weaker. So it just makes the game more swingy, not more balanced/better.

I don't think gold should cost 7$ but this argument just makes... absolutely.. no sense whatsoever.

I mean, you can apply the same logic to a price change at any price point. Say gold was 5$, you could make this argument against changing it to 6$....

[HiveMindEmulator]

If you make Gold cost $7, it becomes harder to get, but not weaker. So it just makes the game more swingy, not more balanced/better.

I don't think gold should cost 7$ but this argument just makes... absolutely.. no sense whatsoever.

I mean, you can apply the same logic to a price change at any price point. Say gold was 5$, you could make this argument against changing it to 6$....

If Gold cost $5 and the game were balanced, then yeah. But that's not the case...

The point is that $6 is something that you can strategize to get to with low-cost cards, and if you luck into $6 with a really good turn 3-4 draw or something, you're not that far ahead. At $7, on the other hand, you're less likely to hit it right away, but if you do, you're way ahead of someone trying to build up to be able to hit $7. Hence, more swingy.

Of course it would also be less swingy at $5, since everyone can hit $5 all the time. But then the game would also be boring, because there'd be an overpowered $5 card in the game every game.

[Axxle]

How about "if this is the second gold you've played this turn it gives $2 instead"

edit: Although that might Tunnel and Hoard, and by no means can be called a simple treasure. Hmm...

[Dsell]

How about "if this is the second gold you've played this turn it gives $2 instead"

This gives me an idea for a card...

[popsofctown]

Is Gold really too good for 6$?

[yudantaiteki]

I don't think it's possible to make changes to the basic VP and treasure cards without causing massive balance problems throughout the whole game.