double mark or not?

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:
double mark or not?

Post by snowdrop » Sun Nov 21, 2010 14:20

Image is dead 21 nov 1512 GMT or something around that.

This is more or less a repetition of what was said by me on channel some day ago in a convo between Q_x and me:

Double mark is a problem as it hides the cards face from all players. We shouldn't rely on players memory more than necessary and should avoid having rules that hide anything unless the whole point is to have it hidden (example - MtG has cards that come into play face down, they are hidden, abilityless 2/2 creaturesm until they are turned face up, in which case they have to be paid once more(?) and gain their proper stats and abilies.) Top that off with the fact that a card would have other cards on it plenty of times and with multiplayer games with 3 - 4 players, not to mention more, where there would be more of those cards around on the table.

In addition, there is no clear and logical way this far to distinguish when double mark should be used instead of token, nor how conflicts with several abilities that use it would be solved/paid for. While these two last remarks could be solved (and was so quite well by Q_x when he compared the DM with the M as a boolean thingie) the info-hiding part is an unsolvable problem.
User avatar
pennomi
developer
Posts:151
Joined:Mon Nov 01, 2010 02:11
Location:Utah, United States

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by pennomi » Sun Nov 21, 2010 22:25

snowdrop wrote: Double mark is a problem as it hides the cards face from all players. We shouldn't rely on players memory more than necessary and should avoid having rules that hide anything unless the whole point is to have it hidden (example - MtG has cards that come into play face down, they are hidden, abilityless 2/2 creaturesm until they are turned face up, in which case they have to be paid once more(?) and gain their proper stats and abilies.) Top that off with the fact that a card would have other cards on it plenty of times and with multiplayer games with 3 - 4 players, not to mention more, where there would be more of those cards around on the table.
Oh, I was under the impression "double marked" meant rotating the card 180 degrees rather than the typical 90 degrees for single mark. That way, nothing is hidden.
User avatar
TorbenBeta
Posts:122
Joined:Fri Aug 13, 2010 19:33
Location:Germany Niedersachsen/Lower Saxony

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by TorbenBeta » Sun Nov 21, 2010 23:39

Double mark means rotating a card 180 degree.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by snowdrop » Mon Nov 22, 2010 08:58

Double marked is the same as flipping the card face down. That's what Q_x meant, if I understood him correct. It is not the same as the 180 rotation.

The 180 rotation is discussed in a blog post by me some time ago and it's also a bad idea for other reasons, mainly relating to that if you remove the text and art and just look at the cards rectangular shape ad position, 180 is the same state as a card is in when it's unmarked and comes into play normally.

Only way to tell a 180 card apart from a 0 degree one is to look at the art and text. I think that while that is fully possible and way more playable than using a face-down solution, it is not as obvious and direct as looking on a 90 mark (casual mark): Since the 90 mark uses the geometry itself it is easy for a player to instantly identify states on table. 180 doesn't use the geometry. Furthermore, there is no obvious intuitive usage scenario for when this would be used instead of placing a token. The 180 mark suggests that a card can mark twice. It can't, marking is a boolean state, so....
User avatar
TorbenBeta
Posts:122
Joined:Fri Aug 13, 2010 19:33
Location:Germany Niedersachsen/Lower Saxony

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by TorbenBeta » Mon Nov 22, 2010 14:22

But a token adds more administration what about 135 degree? So that it is between 90 and 180 degree?
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by snowdrop » Mon Nov 22, 2010 15:38

TorbenBeta wrote:But a token adds more administration what about 135 degree? So that it is between 90 and 180 degree?
If you do a test of putting 100 tokens (one per card) or trying to adjust 100 cards 135 degrees once per card (and then try to keep them that way + the cards on them + after moving etc) I suspect, but can't honestly know for sure right now, that tokens will prove to be somewhat smoother. This is however just my guess here as I haven't done such a test myself, but I think it's a good guess that will probably prove to be true. The administration would either be about the same or it would be harder in the 135 degrees. The problem with 135 degrees is that, while it solved the geometry issue I wrote about, is easy for normal marked or unmarked cards to come into that position when people play sloppy. With other words, it requires players to be very exact. Compare it with us having a rule that demands that tokens are placed on a pre-deterined red area that is 2x2 cm and that we as designers have drawn somewhere on each card. That's the kind of precision the 135 system would require.

And the main question still remains: When and for what, why, would we use such a system? We can't ditch tokens altogether anyway. So the two would co.exist, and that's bad on its own.
User avatar
pennomi
developer
Posts:151
Joined:Mon Nov 01, 2010 02:11
Location:Utah, United States

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by pennomi » Tue Nov 23, 2010 15:40

snowdrop wrote:
TorbenBeta wrote:But a token adds more administration what about 135 degree? So that it is between 90 and 180 degree?
The administration would either be about the same or it would be harder in the 135 degrees. The problem with 135 degrees is that, while it solved the geometry issue I wrote about, is easy for normal marked or unmarked cards to come into that position when people play sloppy.
Plus, I don't think I can do that in LackeyCCG. Besides, it just looks funny to have cards in a non-orthogonal direction. It shouldn't be a problem to throw in a stun counter. Currently, it's the only counter required by our cardlist, and I can't imagine that we'll need many more.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: Merman Brawler

Post by snowdrop » Tue Nov 23, 2010 19:00

pennomi wrote:Plus, I don't think I can do that in LackeyCCG.
Maybe you're right about the technical restriction. However, we shouldn't ever let that on itself restrict our design of a real card game ;) If the idea was/is good it should be implemented and we'd simply get somebody to code on the software (now, this is an obvious case where LackeyCCGs none-open source policy is a problem and hinder...but there are other open source engines that would allow the 135 thingie to be coded with ease.)
pennomi wrote:Besides, it just looks funny to have cards in a non-orthogonal direction.
Unconventional, yes. Agree. And for a reason. Maybe the one I suggest, don't know... would be nice to hear other designers input on the subject, no matter what type of game they designed as long as it involved many cards in those positions and cards moving on table.
pennomi wrote: It shouldn't be a problem to throw in a stun counter. Currently, it's the only counter required by our cardlist, and I can't imagine that we'll need many more.
Yeah, we shouldn't ever release a set of cards where like 50% of the cards generate tokens. We should try to avoid token generation in general, and maybe only let about 5% max of the cards (at least creatures) generate a token.
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts:334
Joined:Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: double mark or not?

Post by Q_x » Thu Nov 25, 2010 19:40

If we will keep double marking as a rare event, it doesn't matter how it would be performed - we may simply let players to invent the way that will work for them. Let it not be an ability that will be often used. It holds a card for two rounds - its a long time, really.

Important thing is the last part: card is put into marked state at the beginning of player's turn. How it would be performed - irrelevant to me.

The discussion is do we need such condition, or maybe there should be other ways of making player should feel bad about something, like marking 2 cards or graving one.
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
User avatar
pennomi
developer
Posts:151
Joined:Mon Nov 01, 2010 02:11
Location:Utah, United States

Re: double mark or not?

Post by pennomi » Fri Nov 26, 2010 01:50

Q_x wrote:If we will keep double marking as a rare event, it doesn't matter how it would be performed - we may simply let players to invent the way that will work for them. Let it not be an ability that will be often used. It holds a card for two rounds - its a long time, really.
I guess that's true. We technically don't tell anyone how a card is supposed to be "marked" so it's possible we don't tell them how to "double-mark" something, as long as they know that once a double-marked card is unmarked, it then becomes single marked.

If we use stun counters, it's possible for a card to become stunned for more than one turn. Imagine a card that somehow successfully fights 3 Merman Brawlers and survives. It would be either double-marked (2 turns to unmark), or have 3 stun counters (4 turns to unmark).
Post Reply