Your opinion about the ARC Casting Cost.

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
Post Reply
ngoeminne
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Your opinion about the ARC Casting Cost.

Post by ngoeminne » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:30

Hey folks, (I'm looking for your input Matt, Ravenchild, Xarn, Snowdrop ...)

Current ARC casting cost
======================

In the ARC we have currently a combination of the Cost and the Loyalty marks to determine how you can pay the card.

e.g a "Gaian" card with cost 6 and 2 marks can be payed with either:
- 6 gaian resource cards
- 5 gaian resource cards, one resource card from any other faction
- 4 gaian resource cards, two resource cards form any other faction

So, in MtG terms, it would be 4 green mana, and 2 colorless mana.In the ARC case the loyalty marks equals the colorless mana.

To know the cards faction obliged cost the player needs to subtract the loyalty marks from the total cost. E.g. In this case 6 (cost) - 2 (loyalty marks). Once you are used to it that works,
however it seems a bit counterintuitive.

Alternative casting cost
======================

To my opinion it would be easier to have the "Gaian" card with cost 6 and 2 marks cast by:

- 6 resources of which at least 2 are gaian

The obliged factions cost can then be read directly by the loyalty marks, the total cost can be read as well. No subtractions or calculations need to be done. It is also more in line, since the loyalty marks look like gems and that works well with the new resource visualisation system.

For the ARC cards, that means inversion of all loyalty marks. The templates only support 3 loyalty marks (for now), but we could go up to five if needed. Would that suffice?

Your input is welcome.
Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Your opinion about the ARC Casting Cost.

Post by snowdrop » Thu Jun 16, 2016 16:14

To know the cards faction obliged cost the player needs to subtract the loyalty marks from the total cost. E.g. In this case 6 (cost) - 2 (loyalty marks). Once you are used to it that works,
however it seems a bit counterintuitive.
1. Why does the need of colorless resources even exist in a game where the player has total control of how/when to create each color of his gold? (I would keep it as a mechanic and card text on some cards, say for House of Nobles, but don't see anything that leads a person to come to the conclusion that it is needed in the core of the game)

2. What's counter intuitive, at least for me in both cases, is the graphical representation: It mixes a number, with graphical elements. You take the number 6, minus something you have to count as one, two, and then convert the sum of these symbols into a number, to then subtract from 2, giving you 6-2. Art wise it is huge no-go, the player shouldn't mix two totally different graphical/symbolical elements to calculate something. Either you count witt numbers, or you count symbols/icons etc. This is not a huge problem for the players, it's just a question of what I'd see as proper graphical layout of a template.
ngoeminne
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: Your opinion about the ARC Casting Cost.

Post by ngoeminne » Fri Jun 17, 2016 18:42

Hi snowdrop
snowdrop wrote: 1. Why does the need of colorless resources even exist in a game where the player has total control of how/when to create each color of his gold? (I would keep it as a mechanic and card text on some cards, say for House of Nobles, but don't see anything that leads a person to come to the conclusion that it is needed in the core of the game)
The resources themselves are not colorless. However, the payment of the cost of a card might be partly done by any of the faction's resources. This allows the same card to be in different multifactions decks, while still having some degree of flexibility on your resource management part (and at the same time keep the cost to the correct level. Hope that answers your question.

snowdrop wrote: 2. What's counter intuitive, at least for me in both cases, is the graphical representation: It mixes a number, with graphical elements. You take the number 6, minus something you have to count as one, two, and then convert the sum of these symbols into a number, to then subtract from 2, giving you 6-2. Art wise it is huge no-go, the player shouldn't mix two totally different graphical/symbolical elements to calculate something. Either you count witt numbers, or you count symbols/icons etc. This is not a huge problem for the players, it's just a question of what I'd see as proper graphical layout of a template.
Don't really think it's a visual problem at all. And as we have the templates as they are now, we better make good use of them :-)

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Your opinion about the ARC Casting Cost.

Post by snowdrop » Fri Jun 17, 2016 19:02

ngoeminne wrote:Hi snowdrop
snowdrop wrote: 1. Why does the need of colorless resources even exist in a game where the player has total control of how/when to create each color of his gold? (I would keep it as a mechanic and card text on some cards, say for House of Nobles, but don't see anything that leads a person to come to the conclusion that it is needed in the core of the game)
The resources themselves are not colorless. However, the payment of the cost of a card might be partly done by any of the faction's resources. This allows the same card to be in different multifactions decks, while still having some degree of flexibility on your resource management part (and at the same time keep the cost to the correct level. Hope that answers your question.
Yeah, I wrote it up poorly: The payment is exactly what I meant - why it is even possible or required to be able to pay with colorless.

The card working in more multi factioned decks and the flexibility of paying the cost is, I think, one and the same argument. But is such flexbility adding something? Is it mitigating what would else be a to steep "complexity" in handling the resources? I think not, especially if you consider that a player can, in a single turn, drop down +1x resource card and +1y resource card OR +2x OR +2y... Whatever the case, the resource mechanic alone that you recently introduced pretty much guarantees that you will never experience problems with playing certain cards that cost colored resources. If there is a problem it is solved within 1-2 rounds tops in 90% of the cases.

This alone, if correct, isn't a problem. It would just be having something in the game that adds admin and false depth/complexity which isn't there despite the function being there. The real problem could arise if the currency system is the main or only factor that regulates how a deck can be built (like it is in magic - it's the only thing that balances how many factions you play in a deck). If so, then there could be some huge impact on balancing decks, basically rendering that balancing hinderance ("plan ahead and manage resources more cartefully the more factions you play") useless in practice, and probably guaranteeing that the meta of the game will always favor multifactioned decks.
Post Reply