Equipment stacking & English

[Q_x]

How about this restrictions:

A creature is allowed to carry maximum of 4 equipment cards, including maximum of one weapon, one shield and one armour?

This are strictly derived from Talisman board game, but we may go to a maximum of 5 or 3. Mor ethan four cards stack is hard to parse in mind quickly or memorize.

BTW - do we use BE (-our) or AE (-or) language here?

[snowdrop]

How about this restrictions:

A creature is allowed to carry maximum of 4 equipment cards, /../ Mor ethan four cards stack is hard to parse in mind quickly or memorize.

If the reason is for the player to be able to memorize the exact ability and stats of each creature then we shouldn't allow any extra cards to be put on a creature, really. Most humans would fail even that. I certainly would, but maybe it's just me. Instead of taking my word on it why not do a test and check your own ability:

Play a couple of MtG games and use a simple restricting rule - only allow one single card to be attached to a creature, no matter what the card type is (meaning, only one equipment OR only one enchantment etc). I am certain there will be very very few moments in any of your games where you knew all or even half of the info/abilities and stats of the creatures on the table.

Reason would be that there are so many combos in a CCG and so huge variation on table, not to mention people change decks and also tweak their decks between games. That, and the fact we have pretty poor memory. Honestly, I wouldn't be able to play MtG with creatures only even without having to read on their cards.

So, memory issues don't seem to actually motivate such a restriction. If anything, they should motivate 0 extra cards attached, or possibly maybe 1 card attached, if any. Am I mistaken here? Do I underestimate the average persons abilities? (Would really be cool if some of you did the test... it's maybe me that's brain damaged.. lol...)

I just also re-read your suggestion, and there you mention only Equipment specifically, so maybe it wasn't related to memory issues at all? Because it would still allow a creature to get other cards on it as well, not to mention to be under the influence of another creatures abilities (Ex: Elvish captain while defending). What I mean is that if it is a memory issue, then we have it all over the game and would need to re-vamp plenty of things that would be on the verge of redefining it as CCG. However, since all other CCGs seem to work fine (or do they? is this a problem I have missed out?) maybe there is no memory issue? I'm not sure here...

I any case, since the equipment that shares a subtype doesn't stack, most of the time a creature would seldom have more than 3 equipments on it as it is already, especially if "weapon / armor / other" are made into equipment subtypes ( examples: Sword / helmet / potion) It should limit the amount of data to parse/memo.

BTW - do we use BE (-our) or AE (-or) language here?

I see no reason to use AE anywhere as it's just a copy of the BE. However, I master none and mix all myself, so we'd have to let our lingo expert look at all cards etc. Or what do you think? Maybe most people, internationally, are used to seeing the AE and would find the BE strange? It's important that we don't alienate the players and use a language that is easy to understand.

[TorbenBeta]

I'm against a limit on stacking as, I think Q_x, mentioned somewhere that this would be bad design wise.
And I'm for British English.
But make a poll about this, if possible.

[snowdrop]

And I'm for British English.
But make a poll about this, if possible.

While polls are interesting when it comes to see what people think, they really don't matter much if we try to make the best decision (whatever that is would of course depend on the criteria and goals): There's no inherent or logical relationship between democracy and the "correct" decision. A good example would be to have a poll about the nature of the world on the time of Columbus - a majority people would have voted for the notion that the world was flat, while in reality, it doesn't seem to be.

Point being, decisions aren't supposed to be made democratical in this (or even most floss) project(s), as set out in the general design document. They should be done on merit. In this particular case we'd need somebody with good english skills and some knowledge about what kind of english most people around the world are acquainted with. As such, I'll pass this issue forward to our english expert and the decision would be his/her if it appears to be sound.

Sadly I suspect that it will end up being AE since the north american culture has such a strong influence on the english language and the world at large.

[pennomi]

Sadly I suspect that it will end up being AE since the north american culture has such a strong influence on the english language and the world at large.

As the only native AE speaker on the team, my opinion is that either one would work. I doubt BE would alienate any players here, as it's just as easy to read as AE. I think the important thing is to be consistent, though.

One small difference between the two is that AE spellings are typically slightly shorter. (eg. color vs. colour, armor vs. armour, etc.) Also, if we go with AE, I can proofread everything.

[snowdrop]

One small difference between the two is that AE spellings are typically slightly shorter. (eg. color vs. colour, armor vs. armour, etc.)

If this is a general truth, coupled with the suggestion that it doesn't matter much, then that would be a point for AE maybe..

[DaBASCHT]

In my opinion limitation of equipment is just a realistic factor.
And I agree with pennomi that being consistent in language is the primary thing.
Most people do not even know there is a difference between BE and AE.
In conclusion I prefer AE. because all programming languages are AE and AE is closer to german than BE xD.

[TorbenBeta]

From where do you draw your information that American English is closer to (High) German than BE?
Give me an example.
And what does Programming languages have to do with this? Most English dramas are in BE.

[DaBASCHT]

Ok, it's my subjective impression that AE is closer to German than BE.
My favorite example is center(AE)/centre(BE) ... excepting the c you can pronounce the AE version german, but the BE verison would fail.
anotherthing example is favourite(BE)/favorite(AE) = favorit(de)
licence(BE)/license(AE)=lizens(de)
catalog(AE)/catalogue(BE) = katalog(de)
cheque(BE)/check(AE) = scheck (de)
...
and i noted one britishform is closer to german than AE,too. *mhm*
e.g. zivilisation (de) = civilization(AE/BE) or civilisation(BE)


....

In addition [...] other accretions from foreign languages came with 19th and early 20th century immigration; notably, from Yiddish (chutzpah, schmooze, tush and German —hamburger and culinary terms like frankfurter/franks, liverwurst, sauerkraut, wiener, deli(catessen); scram, kindergarten, gesundheit; musical terminology (whole note, half note, etc.); and apparently cookbook, fresh ("impudent") and what gives? Such constructions as Are you coming with? and I like to dance (for "I like dancing") may also be the result of German or Yiddish influence.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_E ... Vocabulary

[pennomi]

DaBASCHT, thanks for reinforcing my point about AE being slightly shorter when spelled.