Arcmage, initial/partial review

Anything related to dev. & that doesn't fit in below categories.
Post Reply
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by Q_x » Sat Dec 03, 2016 09:48

Since WT team failed, and the project was left almost untouched since around 2013, I'm just a part of the problems of the past, not a part of future solutions. Bear that, for that reason I'm no longer involved and I've happily retired. I have to say it's better to be close, but out of something that succeeded, than inside some sort of a failure. This being said, I'm really happy with the takeover.

I think constructive criticism is best when pointing errors and leaving responsible people with the information and, if possible, a part of solution. Also, it's best when errors are pointed once, and doing it twice is a waste of time, just like fixing it twice. Our life is short, reviewing the old errors, that some other person mindfully left in place without saying, is disgraceful for the reviewer. Or, assuming there's complete mutual respect, it's just an open invitation to a distinct type of game, one I don't want to play, and you, Nico, wrote me you don't want to play it as well. I suggest starting some sort of publicly open flyspray for this sort of stuff. For now it's the forums. Sorry to be the nasty, rude, filthy bastard again. As said, I'm the part of the failure.

There are some things I've noticed and I wish to point out, and that is the first part.

First, you have to stay in line with GPL license. Simple stuff.
I couldn't care less for my own work, I'm happily donating most of it under WTFPL anyways. But gosh, it's mandatory to provide copyright and licensing information every time you publish stuff, not just mention the fact, that you love free stuff and that there is a thing called GPL license somewhere in the world.

Landing page:
I take the logo to be a placeholder, at least it totally looks like one. I don't fancy Elvish, I reckon "I'm the last man standing" in plain english was just too manly for the motto, so you went with a quirky and obfuscated version for the esoteric folk.

All the tutorials:
The volume is really very low, I could barely hear what you were saying. Good headphones, volume up to 100%, pretty quiet house. Since the tutorials are incomplete, I won't complain about lack of methodology or missing subtitles for the impaired folks, I just hope it'll be good in the end. If you're worried: No problems understanding, your spoken English is way better than mine.

To be honest, I'd expect only something like a single game, meticulously directed of course, with all the elements explained in detail as you go. You're planning for more, that's really cool.

Cards. Sorry, since it was my responsibility, I have to be open about this.

What I've been telling some months ago seems still valid. Small text, that optimally would be vector and black to print well, looks like very dark blackish brown bitmaps from where I am. I've prepared the tracks for you folks, you decided to publish sub-pair stuff. Spare yourself some time, do it in MS Word, I'll be totally happy not having to care.

I just try to say these high-end cards, you've paid for more, than for collectible Piatniks, could have been printed a touch nicer if you'd care, with zero extra cost. Lack of knowledge is out of the question, it's all there, at least in three places: project pages, working files and my filthy e-mails to mr. Nico, the one who seems not to give a dime.

Nico, as long as you don't care, whatever gold you touch will turn into crap. It's that simple. You've assured me I should not have heart for this type of undertakings, for the manly folks who know better, can improve later, or just don't care at all. I see the amount of cash and time you've placed into the project, and I simply can't believe what you've done to save yourself an hour or two. And you've released PDFs, stating it's good, cause it's in CMYK. I wrote you months ago, these files will result in sub-optimal results in laser and offset. If you're waiting for the out-of-beta official release with quality step-up, I have to ask you to point a modern GPL game, that got to this state ('state' as opposed to 'statement'). Possibly some "Conway'sgame of life" clients or text-based adventure stuff...

I think there's a need for the typesetting job to be a part of the development process. I've prepared it that way with the best FLOSS tools that were available at the time, I've done the best I could. The tools got slightly better since then, some bugs have been fixed, less of a workaround is needed, and, sure, I dream never having to touch Scribus again too, but it's the only way possible for the time being. This, or "buy yourself a talented slave to make the game for you".

I've had no say as to how cards look. This is the reality of working with manly S., he allowed no changes to the template, nothing that would improve print quality, changing the looks even slightly. You've inherited a bugged template, and I've pointed out the issues in the filthy, nasty, heartless and very offensive series of like three mails to you. I'm thelast person to exhibit "my way or the highway" type of attitude, and this is exactly how S. was dealing with the templates.

You've been complaining about cards not being cut properly. This is the reality, sadly: industrial paper trimmer is not as precise, as we all wish, even knife and ruler are way better. The paper and cutting process itself is the worst enemy, entire thing can't be dealt with any better.

Safe zone and bleed are the right ways to avoid trouble and to make your life easier, not harder. Make proper 2mm bleed and 1mm safe zone and see if the cutting goes easier. 2mm safe zone would be better, but 1mm is not that much of real estate you will be giving up. Both the guy who designed the template, and the one who ordered the template, didn't knew any better. You do, you have one excuse less. Don't blame it on the guy who cuts it.

Take a look at the card I've attached. I've moved the flag's corner away from the card's right crop line to create more of a safe zone, I've extended the graphics that needs to be cropped beyond the crop lines, creating some bleed allowance. Now 0.5mm pull while cutting won't ruin the looks. It would have been easier (and actually useful) to do it in vector files, however you haven't published your source files at the time I'm writing this, and these were somewhat different from what I've been using for WT.

With 90x64mm, I suggest strongly publishing also a version with 3x3 cards on page, with tiny crop marks embedded entirely in bleed area and zero space (no bleed) between cards, it should be 274mm, so it could fit on more problematic (279mm?) letter size paper when printed on some sort of office hardware, 5mm less than paper sheet size is usually what these printers need.
Some illustrations and description of technical terms:
https://signature-book.com/Mfg_Tolerance.htm

Typography, card aesthetics:
Santi really did great job!

The vertical spaces (above, between and below textblocks) look random all over the place, right side of the text seems random too, not justified, nor aligned to left. These tings differ from card to card, sometimes even within one card. Some cards like Foul Imp and Sanctuary miss some background under the card title. Lobotomized library and other cards got lobotomized sans serif font for no apparent reason, could have been thicker/bigger/outlined/drop-shadowed variant of whatever was in place, you could have placed bullets or custom-made chars, colors, underscores, italics, fancy fonts etc. in place... You decided to vandalize the cards with some illegitimate, utilitarian lettering, that belongs strictly to an industrial and corporate world.

Scribus folks have fixed some troubling issues with drop-caps. It was a very bad idea right from the start to use drop-caps, it's the biggest character on card for no real reason, it makes cards hard to read and it's a PITA to execute it while typesetting. I'd leave something similar only for the tap marks, not as a drop-cap, but as a bullet (so displacing all lines of text in the paragraph, not just initial two). Also I'd add a new character, telling "this will happen when this card hits the table", which seems to be common mechanics.

The right border loyalty marks have to be more visible, we've had quite some trouble tracking that when playing IRL with printed cards. I think just a small dab of bling-bling goes a long way here. Also take a look on the card I've attached and compare it with the original. Just an idea.

The barb at the bottom of the flag faction logo. Excess. Take look at what I've done. Not much, but makes the template a bit less distracting and interfering.

Some card illustration have it (Grassroots), but most lack a shadow underneath. they'd pop out more with the shadow in place, it's easy choice to make if you use one or not, just stay consistent. The shadow has to be avoided under landscapes with semi-transparent skies, though it helps with all the other illustrations.

Also wording of "I" and "me" on cards seems just plain wrong. "This card" is what I'd put there. Seriously, it's as awkward, as Lewis Carroll's affection.

Sorry to be that negative blunt folk. I feel really disappointed both by S. defensive attitude towards the templates, and your 'will take care later or find a guy and pay for it' thinking.

Anyways, overall a great, great job (seriously), not much of anything I think would be wrong so far, the issues I've pointed are easy to rectify. So fingers crossed for the future.
I'll do some testing, I think. This may take some time.

Best wishes!
Cheers!
Attachments
oh.png
Uh-oh
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
ngoeminne
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by ngoeminne » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:58

Hi Lucas,

Thx for your feedback.
Q_x wrote:Since WT team failed, and the project was left almost untouched since around 2013, I'm just a part of the problems of the past, not a part of future solutions. Bear that, for that reason I'm no longer involved and I've happily retired. I have to say it's better to be close, but out of something that succeeded, than inside some sort of a failure. This being said, I'm really happy with the takeover.
I'd just want to say that there is no takeover, just extra help from new folks.
Q_x wrote:First, you have to stay in line with GPL license. Simple stuff.
I couldn't care less for my own work, I'm happily donating most of it under WTFPL anyways. But gosh, it's mandatory to provide copyright and licensing information every time you publish stuff, not just mention the fact, that you love free stuff and that there is a thing called GPL license somewhere in the world.
You're totally right, we'll fix that.
Q_x wrote:I take the logo to be a placeholder, at least it totally looks like one. I don't fancy Elvish, I reckon "I'm the last man standing" in plain english was just too manly for the motto, so you went with a quirky and obfuscated version for the esoteric folk.
The logo, is what it is, just the name, it has nothing fancy at all. You may or may not dislike it.
Q_x wrote:All the tutorials:
The volume is really very low, I could barely hear what you were saying. Good headphones, volume up to 100%, pretty quiet house. Since the tutorials are incomplete, I won't complain about lack of methodology or missing subtitles for the impaired folks, I just hope it'll be good in the end. If you're worried: No problems understanding, your spoken English is way better than mine.

To be honest, I'd expect only something like a single game, meticulously directed of course, with all the elements explained in detail as you go. You're planning for more, that's really cool.
The tutorials are just some sessions I recorded, they are not done professionally, and it's better to have some content then nothing at all. I'll try to fix the volume.
Q_x wrote:Cards. Sorry, since it was my responsibility, I have to be open about this.

What I've been telling some months ago seems still valid. Small text, that optimally would be vector and black to print well, looks like very dark blackish brown bitmaps from where I am. I've prepared the tracks for you folks, you decided to publish sub-pair stuff. Spare yourself some time, do it in MS Word, I'll be totally happy not having to care.
Well, telling is easy, doing is something else. I agree that things ar sub-optimal, and in an ideal world, everything would be pixel perfect, however, since we lack the knowlegde, time and resources, I opted to go for a playable game, and cards that for a common player live up to the expectations (the low standards as given in commercial card games, is enough, for now). Remember we are making a 'game', not a photography book, or medical images.
Q_x wrote:I just try to say these high-end cards, you've paid for more, than for collectible Piatniks, could have been printed a touch nicer if you'd care, with zero extra cost. Lack of knowledge is out of the question, it's all there, at least in three places: project pages, working files and my filthy e-mails to mr. Nico, the one who seems not to give a dime.
That's a bit unfair, I do give about the quality, however, as I stated before, I at least lack the time, and I set other priorities, the rules, the card rules themselves, getting a working database, allowing other people to do edits, an online play-able game, tutorials, a website, ... I've done a lot of work, so there are things that are sub-optimal. So, "I told you so", won't do it :-)
Q_x wrote:Nico, as long as you don't care, whatever gold you touch will turn into crap. It's that simple. You've assured me I should not have heart for this type of undertakings, for the manly folks who know better, can improve later, or just don't care at all.

Q_x wrote:I see the amount of cash and time you've placed into the project, and I simply can't believe what you've done to save yourself an hour or two. And you've released PDFs, stating it's good, cause it's in CMYK. I wrote you months ago, these files will result in sub-optimal results in laser and offset.
All, true, but at least there are pdfs, a rule set, and playable cards, and all the other stuff, and we did it in about 9 months, what had the project to show for in the 5 years before?
Q_x wrote:Sorry to be that negative blunt folk. I feel really disappointed both by S. defensive attitude towards the templates, and your 'will take care later or find a guy and pay for it' thinking.

Finally, It's as I said, a matter of priority ('will take care of it later') and time resources. First a playable game, and cards. Btw, no one is payed anything, except for Santi.

For the rest, all of the technical things you described are valid, no argue there.
However, I got the printed cards here in front of me, and to me, they are good (even the cuts of the release candidates are better, since I did add a 2mm bleed, and 0.5mm padding.)

Until know, everyone that had a look at the printed cards didn't believe that they were self-tailored at first. So to me, that's a sign that they live up to other card-games.

Hence, It seems a bit strange for you to qualify them as crap, without having a hand on the cards themselves. I'm about to mail the to the people who helped creating them. And I'll let them decide if they are crap, or acceptable.
Q_x wrote:Anyways, overall a great, great job (seriously), not much of anything I think would be wrong so far, the issues I've pointed are easy to rectify. So fingers crossed for the future.
I'll do some testing, I think. This may take some time.
Thx, we'll keep on working :-)

To conclude. If you'd like to have a set of the printed cards, fill in the from on the arcmage site, and
I'll mail them to you. Then you can gravel some more about how bad they are, or burn and dance around them. Or perhaps, take them along on one of your hiking trips, find a friend and have some fun playing the game.

Say hello to Yoda from me,
Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by Q_x » Sat Dec 03, 2016 14:45

Thanks for your reply, Nico!

I think a deck or two is too little to provide you with my postal address TBH :lol:
I'll prepare the impositions, go to a copyshop and get it printed below the cost of shipping service, I believe around 1 euro for two decks in b&w, twice more for full color.

As far as quality goes, I think you can do yourself a favor:
Take a loupe, make sure you see the print really clearly. I suggest one of those small, but really thick loupes, they give proper 7x magnification.
Image
And a desk lamp, handy one, you will have to put your nose really close to the paper while still allowing plenty of light to hit the surface.
Take a careful look at the small, blackish-brown letters of your cards, at the edges of the letters, in particular if they look somewhat uneven.
That would be the extreme case:
Image
Now take something printed,black letters on paper, stuff that's made in high volume, sothat you're sure it's offset. With similarly sized letters to these on cards. Packaging, books, whatever. Not a photocopy, not the cheaply printed academic papers, not a business card. Something that you're sure it's actually offset. Same old technique, similar machines all around the world. Take a look at these edges of these ordinary black letters. Compare. Should be crisp and well defined. Think what you like more.

It's basic 101 of proper process, nothing even close to premium features like fancy varnishes or Christmas cards with glitter, that give workers lung cancer. Glorious stuff.

As for who gets faster to the point of a release, I believe you're the first person with the priorities set right, that is that the game should be playable first. Not have fancy rules, not be mimicking some sort of system,not to be distilled over the years. Our development was held short by S. We came and wanted to help and S. was not doing really well most of the time. We tried to do something when he invited us to his place, but we played like twice in two weeks, the event was unfruitful.
As said: I wish I could simply fill in a bug report and forget it. I also wish I had nerves and devotion needed to deal with the lack of consequence and sketchy development cycle in this type of operations, with people with their standards below the waist line etc. I gave all I had already, I can only say I believe typesetting is quite important part of the process and if something happens, and I won't be dealing with medical press any more, I'll look for a completely different job. I'm burned out, and I think WT has a bit to do with that.

BTW, while hiking there's very little time, people either walk to the point of passing out from exhaustion or sleep afterwards, with about an hour daily to do the usual stuff (meals, personal hygene, camp setup/breakdown). If I camp too long, try to wait out the rain or rest in the daytime, I get bored.

Games are not that entertaining after all. You can quote me on that.

Cheers!
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by snowdrop » Sat Dec 03, 2016 21:09

Arcmage, initial/partial review
(While the review is Arc-related, it is not to be confused with a review of the gameplay itself, as the title may suggest if one is used to boardgame reviews)
1) I've had no say as to how cards look. This is the reality of working with manly S., 2) he allowed no changes to the template, nothing that would improve print quality, changing the looks even slightly. 3) I'm the last person to exhibit "my way or the highway" type of attitude, and this is exactly how S. was dealing with the templates.
Note: Numbering added by me, not in original post.

1) Yes and no: Ng has done a 100% as he has seen fit with templating and layouting et.c. when it comes to all things concerning the Arc, as should be. That basically means I have indeed not controlled anything in that process when it comes to Arc. Whatever suggestions I had and opinions about quality etc is something I have voiced per mail on occasions. So, no, it's not my reality of how I think it is to work with me.

2) a) The project has been, since day 1, gpl and fully forkable. The whole world has been able to change whatever they want. Just as Ng did and is continuing to do. In essence, I have never even been able to keep anyone from doing anything except for the info-flow on the CM etc on the site. Giving the impression of anything else is just misleading and, convenient.

2 b) It's true however that I was indeed not fond of any of the suggested changes that changed the templates a lot: That is not to be held equal to "the current templates are perfect and god can't come up with anything better".

3) I have another recollection of past times, one where I repeatedly, during several years, stated that we might need a template do-over and professional artists (re)doing it or creating it from scratch. So, I simply don't understand where that statement about my protectionism of a template - that wasn't even ever completed according to myself - comes from, with the exception of the above.

Better yet, I have during the years publicly searched for artists to recreate the templates. One such attempt was recently done in march 2016 by me: http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic. ... t=wtactics

Just for the sake of clarity, let me say it once more i public: As for Gaia (ORC ruleset), the templates are not done. While I find them personally appealing for Shadowguild and Gaia, the rest are non-existent, and even those two have room for improvement and also some issues.

From my perspective the templates are considered to be placeholders until and if better ones ever materialize in one way or the other. However, templating won't be something I invest time or money in until Gaia has reached further down the road, or Ng shares my view of the urgency, in which case we can re-visit recruiting a pro for paid work. (Yes, I don't know where else we'd find one for free...) In the best of worlds we'll share templates, and if we don't, then that's not an issue for anyone.
I think there's a need for the typesetting job to be a part of the development process.
Yes, that's true for almost any printed product, not to mention a game that's based on text. I just don't fathom anyone of us is as dedicated or understanding or competent as you or anyone with the slightest understanding of the matter for us to deal with it right now. Personally I hope to see all such matters resolved before a release of a game.
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by Q_x » Sun Dec 04, 2016 09:30

So, no, it's not my reality of how I think it is to work with me.

You work with yourself quite differently, I know :D

You're very hard to contact with, you're unreliable in that regard. Makes cooperation impossible.
You're very hard to impossible to negotiate with. Remember the templates: no changes allowed, period, no discussion, all ideas were rejected. If you were not fond of the templates, you could have at least allow them to be easier to work with. I ended up having to find ways to mitigate the problems, rather than not having to deal with anything in the first place, and it took some steam and months of time to get things done in the WT-compliant fashion. This had happened in my reality, not sure about yours.

Also you're very picky for a project leader, that has the development model based either on your private time or volunteer effort. It has little to do with artwork quality, just you being picky. I'm talking dozens upon dozens of color schemes and faction logos. Having anything to say I'd be happy to push forward way more attempts/ideas than you have, worst case to have something fitting to start with. Faction logos were the brightest example here, I'm sure there were like 50 proposals or more to end up with 4 or 5 you still was not entirely happy with, matching the less-than-ideal template. I think you understand, I doubt you were only maintaining standards really.
The project has been, since day 1, gpl and fully forkable. The whole world has been able to change whatever they want.
Stefan, please, the argument about random people not forking this moloch was heard enough times already. There was no playable game for years, nothing to grab on, just layers upon layers of collected information. There was not enough steam and buzz to even finish making and maintaining the sole WT project, not even mentioning forking anything. For quite some time our illustrations were unpublished, looking at Arcmage I believe there's still whole dropbox full of stuff that only three pairs of eyes have seen: Santi's, Sophie's and mine. Not really available for public. I'm really happy with Nico's attitude in that regard, it seems like he provides it all up for grabs now, and I think that's actually quite heroic.
Just a sidenote here... If, at some point, there's a bundle of artwork published somewhere, I suggest mailing Bart to grab and dismantle it, I think the editors will be more, than happy to digest it properly, better than anyone of us here, and the world will be forever thankful.

Also, as said earlier, most of the time Stefan was busy fixing real world problems and was impossible to contact with, and there is hardly any other representative person. I have great respect for S. and what he does professionally and it amazes me how much stress and slumber-paddling he endures in his daily life. But in FLOSS world many mails were unanswered, and because of that many people, myself included, have turned away.

Stefan, you just can't do serious business with three month mail respond time, it's not the way to go, it's never going to work. Being sorry won't solve the situation. I'm really happy I was a part of WT. It was an impossible task the way we tried to tackle it. I'm glad and sort of surprised someone got it working. Kudos, best wishes, have fun!

I think I may give new templates a go this winter, just for the heck of it. I find most of the templates incommercial games to be unpleasing TBH, my taste buds maybe off in that regard.

To draw any sort of constructive, realistic conclusion for the Arcmage project, gosh, this is what I'm here for, not to sort the old stuff...

If publishing proper, print-ready PDFs is considered to be the vital part of your development process, the templates not only have to look good and the files to meet some technical specs, there's also the requirement of the work to be easily done in open, or at least unpaid software,so that you can base it upon volunteer work.

We ended with Inkscape templates, and my solution was placing text and stuff on these in Scribus. There are other tools capable of getting this job done properly, namely TeX/LaTeX or derrived/based upon software. Inkscape alone seems to be not capable enough, some small bits will remain missing, according to Inkscape docs. Inkscape won't support spot colors, overprinting, separations and other "industrial" features, they only went as far, as color management, which at least makes it suitable for half of the task, namely designing the template.
You all have hard times dealing with WYSIWYG-ish, clickable Scribus, so I turned LaTeX options down as an impossibility, nobody in the project knew how to use it successfully and the learning curve was really way too steep to start trying.

Cheers!
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by Q_x » Mon Dec 05, 2016 07:29

And I'm back with the other half of the review. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Rules:
I think a glossary would help. "Simultaneously", for example, needs to be clearly defined. Like when a card is played, it can surely be countered by another card before the first takes full effect, which does, or does not, reverse in-game time, and the consequences can be dealt with in three distinct ways. I know this particular issue is tackled by the rules with some detail, I was just missing clear, short definitions of various terms. Cost is obvious stuff, but playing v. placing is not, in fact the way the distinction between these is tackled is as awkward, as this sentence.

There are some other awkward moments, like "Any player may react to that (e.g. killing one of the declared creatures)"... I can take that way every time!
Or "(they are on the event stack in reverse order)".I was like WTF, a second later the world just shattered.

Proposed changes:
Loyalty marks could have been solved better IMO. You have card cost now represented in two places with two distinct systems. I'd use the method common with other CCGs, that is to represent entire cost with marks of varying shape and color. More clear, more elastic, less prone to human error and just obvious, really.

Random remarks:

My problem is the game uses more tokens, markers and dice than cards. I think that's strange.

I've found the online client impossible to play in. I'm supposed to start with some cities in play. I dunno how to get them without going trough an entire deck manually. I dunno how to mark a resource card. I guess I'll see everything in the tutorials at some point.

I see the rules are similar to ORC in many regards, sharing core mechanics and concepts.
I think you're on a good way to create a proper, enjoyable game, if you keep limited deck size and fixed VPs it actually possible to balance things. At the same time, it's really tempting to change those fixed values and see how and when things will crumble.

I hope you guys have tested and proven, that creature-heavy decks are not the only winning strategy. I know the game is centered around creatures, but still.

Cheers!
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
ngoeminne
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by ngoeminne » Mon Dec 05, 2016 15:25

Hi Q_x,

Thanks for your feedback.
Q_x wrote:I think a glossary would help. "Simultaneously", for example, needs to be clearly defined. Like when a card is played, it can surely be countered by another card before the first takes full effect, which does, or does not, reverse in-game time, and the consequences can be dealt with in three distinct ways.
The event-stack is the most difficult part to explain to new players. I've tried to explain it with an (imaginary) pile of cards, but still it is hard. I agree things can be phrased even better.
Q_x wrote:Proposed changes:
Loyalty marks could have been solved better IMO. You have card cost now represented in two places with two distinct systems. I'd use the method common with other CCGs, that is to represent entire cost with marks of varying shape and color. More clear, more elastic, less prone to human error and just obvious, really.
I agree, it could be done so. But it does work, and after about one or two games, it is as natural as the different symbols.
Q_x wrote: My problem is the game uses more tokens, markers and dice than cards. I think that's strange.
It's indeed havey on the counters, however there are ways to limit them. E.g. instead of using a dice for VP and 3 dices for city damage, you could also just take pen and paper.
For the card-resource to power gem conversion you could only use one gem per faction, and group the cards by them (and mark/unmark) to show they are used.
Q_x wrote:I've found the online client impossible to play in. I'm supposed to start with some cities in play. I dunno how to get them without going trough an entire deck manually. I dunno how to mark a resource card. I guess I'll see everything in the tutorials at some point.
Nice that you took the time to try it out. It's still a rough demo version. And a lot of convenience things are not there. Such as starting with the cities in play. I'll be glad to give you a tour of the demo.

Things you might want to know.
- you can drag cards from hand/battlefield
- you can not drags form deck/graveyard (there you use the buttons to draw)
- double click (un)marks a card on the battlefield
- right click (context click) places a card face up/down (in hand and battlefield
- resource counters are in the colored squares and can be change with the mouse wheel
- victory counters are in the corners and can be changed with the mouse wheel
- that's about it, wouldn't say it is impossible, but haven't put out guidelines yet.
Q_x wrote: I hope you guys have tested and proven, that creature-heavy decks are not the only winning strategy. I know the game is centered around creatures, but still.
No we haven't, we're hoping there are other strategies, e.g. a mill deck, which we are working on right now. Small steps :-)

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: Arcmage, initial/partial review

Post by Q_x » Mon Dec 05, 2016 17:18

Hi Nico,

Your reply made me happy.

Impossible was not the best choice of word :lol: , I was the person with the vision of text-mode Sandscape back in the day, or playing via Skype. I've found it easy to just remember some things (like resource points spent in current turn) or indeed, there's nothing wrong in using pen and paper. The virtual table gets the basics more or less done, arranging and moving cards around and tracking some stuff, it comes with few bumps, but for testing purposes via internet it's sufficient. Thanks for the tips, I've noticed I wasn't using mouse wheel at all...

Cheers!
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
Post Reply