Q_x & snowdrop Chat 24 Oct
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:26
(11.38.14) snowdrop: i was at work yesterday & need to help my grandmother today... mother's birthday and stuff....
(11.38.25) snowdrop: so all plans were disrupted...
(11.38.44) snowdrop: however, i agree - we shold create all rebel cards in theory
(11.38.51) snowdrop: i think about 50 should be enough
(11.39.10) snowdrop: I'll try to write up a guide for pricing of creatures
(11.39.12) snowdrop: in wiki
(11.39.47) snowdrop: that said - im not sure where we should create the cards while raven still isnt done with the site coding
(11.39.51) snowdrop: forum?
(11.40.03) snowdrop: one trhead per card? would be easiest maybe
(12.04.16) Q_x: hi
(12.04.49) Q_x: we may make a wili page with all the Rebels cards in one and work on it
(12.05.07) Q_x: not a bunch of 50 threads
(12.06.02) Q_x: may be a table or something like this, separated into different card types
(12.07.56) Q_x: It will make easier things like comparisons and pricing
(12.26.06) snowdrop: k... a page does actually exist for thar purpose.![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
(12.26.31) snowdrop: *looking*
(12.27.21) snowdrop: http://chaosrealm.net/w/Suggested_Cards
(12.29.56) Q_x: looks good for me
(12.30.07) snowdrop: =)
(12.32.20) snowdrop: the description/story of gaia is more or less done in the wiki...
(12.32.36) snowdrop: so by using it one should get a feeling for what kind of cards and feelign we want associated with that faction
(12.33.02) snowdrop: that + http://chaosrealm.net/w/Faction_Concepts
(12.33.03) Q_x: cool
(12.33.19) snowdrop: the revels + merfolk + order of dawn = Gaia
(12.33.50) snowdrop: haven updated that brainstorm yet, but info is pretty accurate... its just that we bake those 3 together as one, which is Gaia
(12.34.08) Q_x: uhm
(12.34.54) snowdrop: you see some values from 0 to 5.... 5 is "high".... so tribaQ_x: 1 means they don't co-work much with their own.... weapons 5 means they are really good with weapons
(12.34.57) snowdrop: etc
(12.35.05) snowdrop: price 5 = they are costly.
(12.35.19) snowdrop: however, these are general outlines. not a necessary truth for each individual card.
(12.35.52) snowdrop: order of down = humans in gaia. they will also not use that name, and just be a part of gaia.
(12.36.10) Q_x: ok
(12.36.38) snowdrop: further down on the page you can see which creatures go where in the factions
(12.36.44) snowdrop: in the huge png
(12.37.04) snowdrop: apparently i decided we should only release 24 gaian creatures in teh core set
(12.37.11) snowdrop: rest = for later expansions etc
(12.37.25) snowdrop: also makes life easier for us to balance and playtest and get started in general.
(12.37.59) snowdrop: its also equal to how WotC are doing it - they seldom release more than that amount of creatures in MtG in their core sets
(12.38.50) snowdrop: so, we need to make up 16 elvish creature cards and 8 merfolk cards, which would result in 24 gaian creatures in total... and add to that about 20 additional gaian cards (magic, equip, etc)
(12.39.00) snowdrop: and that would be our 50 gaian cards ready for playtest.
(12.39.51) Q_x: well, now I'm confused about what threshold really means
(12.40.21) Q_x: am I supposed to have X creatures on tbable, X gaian or X rebels?
(12.40.40) snowdrop: threshold x means that "you need to have x amout of gaian cards in play and/or have played x amoiunt of them this turn, in order to be able to play this card"
(12.41.02) Q_x: ok
(12.41.39) snowdrop: yes, thats my my mindmap is confusing: forget all faction names on it. There are no rebel faction, no merfolk faction, and no order of dawn. There's just gaia, which is all those previous three factions baked into one single.
(12.42.14) snowdrop: In total we'll have 5 factions, which is enough and way better than having a zillion ones that are "thin" and not "rich" in culture/diversity/own history....
(12.42.19) snowdrop: relates to depth etc
(12.42.27) snowdrop: but changes very little for us dev wise.
(12.43.14) snowdrop: so, if I have a card with threshold 3, and I play 1 gaian instant, and i already had 2 gaian creatures in play, then I may play my threshold 3 card.
(12.43.37) Q_x: well, if so, what are the logos supposed to mean for the player
(12.43.38) Q_x: ?
(12.44.02) snowdrop: with oither words, threshold doesnt just take "permanents" into account (a "permanent" is WotC terminology for a card that stays on the table. Which most creatures do, and equipment etc. But events don't. )
(12.44.19) snowdrop: leaf logo = gaian logo
(12.44.38) snowdrop: there are still 5 factions, and we need to somehow identify whych card belongs to which faction.
(12.45.22) snowdrop: we could ofc just use the colour of the cardframe etc (green) but that's a problem for colour blinde and so on, and it also feels kind of really cheap - a faction should, imho, have a logo.. a mark, that its associated with
(12.45.29) snowdrop: adds to both playability and feeling
(12.46.39) snowdrop: that does however leave us the option to, if we want to, use different card frame colors for different card types... but I'm not sure thats really a good idea.
(12.47.02) snowdrop: i.e. all equipment, no matter what its faction belonging was, would have "white" card frame...
(12.47.15) snowdrop: all creatures "green" etc etc...
(12.47.40) snowdrop: but im probably against that idea... since it forces players to use LOGO to identify card belonging
(12.47.53) snowdrop: instead of as it is now - use logo OR card frame colour
(12.48.09) snowdrop: then again - it would also be only time we send the message in TWO ways...
(12.48.13) snowdrop: which also feels like overkill
(12.48.19) snowdrop: so im not sure about this really.
(12.48.55) snowdrop: when looking on a table that has many creatures/cards on it however... i think it would be confusing / bad idea to let the card drame colour equal the card type instead of the faction colour
(12.49.52) snowdrop: so i think i lean towards keeping it the way it is and only use text for card type... or maybe we hsould try to stuff an icon for that as well somewhere, but its very crowded as it is already = P
(12.52.57) Q_x: What I had in mind was - what player can do with a card that has Merfolk logo and not Rebels - what is the difference here? Of course it may be a difference if a card, like event, works only for Merfolk, but we may say it works for sea creatures or wood elves as well
(12.53.41) snowdrop: ah
(12.53.45) snowdrop: no, the merfolk logo wont exist
(12.53.55) snowdrop: it was only interesting while merfolk was a faction
(12.54.07) snowdrop: now its not - merfolk + elves + some humans = gaia
(12.54.16) Q_x: Of course card frame may be an information separate from logo, green is really good for whole gaian thingy
(12.54.50) snowdrop: originally it WAS such info: Card frame was ALLIANCE belonging... and LOGO was faction.
(12.55.32) Q_x: Well, we can always separate the factions when there will be too much cards
(12.55.35) snowdrop: problem is however that we had a zillion factions, and you get TOO much specilaziation in each and each one becomes too nisched / fragmented IF one wants to keep factions DISTINCT and their existence meaningful
(12.55.52) snowdrop: so i thought it would be better with just 5 factions instea.d
(12.56.28) snowdrop: yes, i think that if we reach a point where we have such a huge card pool and good identities for them we could re-structure the faction system and then introduce alliances as well.
(12.56.50) snowdrop: but it makes no sense to start with that system as we'd end up with very poor and depth-lacking factions.
(12.57.18) Q_x: My idea was to keep small factions with asymetric strategies, I've been writing to you about that, and the card may operate well within an alliance
(12.57.43) Q_x: But there is no reason to mark a faction really
(12.58.03) Q_x: "all elves" or "all sea creatures" will do the trick
(12.58.40) snowdrop: yeah, i agree about assymetric strategies...
(12.59.05) snowdrop: i really really believe that IF we have factions at al, then they MUST PLAY as different as possible
(12.59.22) snowdrop: to attract different players
(12.59.33) snowdrop: as well as allow the game to get more depth and replayability
(13.00.32) snowdrop: you're right that it can all be done with card type properties (i.e. Elf would be a creature card type. Human another.)... small-factions would just be a "meta "card type property, just like the current faction property is now.
(13.01.28) snowdrop: usually, one doesn't use so "wide" meta properties, since it makes a game very hard to balance and easy to abuse. I.e. "All gaian cards get +2" is a very very powerfull card... and opens up many doors
(13.01.36) snowdrop: compare that with "All Elves get +2"... =)
(13.02.21) snowdrop: to be honest, my main reason for having factions relate to deck building and what i mentioned earlier - having distinct and separate ways to play the game.
(13.02.50) snowdrop: giving the player a different feeling and also demanding that she adapats and understands the new faction, and that it can't be played as the previous one.
(13.08.07) Q_x: well, there will be a hard to design it so that it all would work
(13.08.54) Q_x: I mean you will have to bury some rules into cards description
(13.09.57) snowdrop: yes, indeed... but thats unavoidable and standard when it comes to ccg:s...
(13.10.23) snowdrop: i mean, a ccg is really just game with super-modular rules that you get in small doses, mostly on a card to card basis.
(13.10.27) Q_x: and it will be uncool to have faction behavior or strategy determined by lets say 3 events, period.
(13.11.00) snowdrop: i dont follow that one - please explain.
(13.12.10) Q_x: If you have sea creatures, or elves within the gaia, it would be not good to determine strategy of play by using small amount of cards
(13.12.44) snowdrop: ah
(13.13.31) Q_x: like three events that will make certain strategy benefit
(13.13.55) Q_x: or will make "whole strategy" dependable on the three cards
(13.14.01) snowdrop: no,intention is to design most of the gaian cards around the gaian "style"... and feeling... meaning, gaians are not really aggressive, they are loving, etc.... what defines gaian as a faction shoul dbe the SUM of all gaian cards.. not 2-3 individual cards
(13.14.24) snowdrop: meaning, much thought must actually also go into the ABLITIES that creatures of each faction has
(13.14.36) snowdrop: as it defines much of the faction capacity and feeling
(13.14.38) Q_x: uhm
(13.14.47) Q_x: thats my point too
(13.14.54) snowdrop: ah. then i do follow =)
(13.15.39) snowdrop: what we ant to avoid is a situation where factions play identical with the exception for a couple of cards that define them... and i think that's what you were saying justnow...right?
(13.15.58) Q_x: uhm
(13.16.01) Q_x: exactly
(13.16.30) Q_x: its just rude to force a certain strategy this way
(13.17.50) snowdrop: yups, agree 100%
(13.18.15) snowdrop: also, it defeats like half the purpose and beenfit a ccg bringd -- modularity and creativity to create your specific deck and strategy
(13.19.19) snowdrop: if WE tell the players "there is really only 1-2 good ways to play this faction" then the game is a failure from my perspective... it needs to be as open ended as possible... but, at the same time it should still offer diverse styles and mechanics through the various 5 factions
(13.19.52) snowdrop: back later... must run to bus... it's pouring rain outside... yum yum... can I post this convo on forum?
(13.20.16) Q_x: sure
(13.20.21) Q_x: bye
(13.20.22) snowdrop: goodie. later =)
(11.38.25) snowdrop: so all plans were disrupted...
(11.38.44) snowdrop: however, i agree - we shold create all rebel cards in theory
(11.38.51) snowdrop: i think about 50 should be enough
(11.39.10) snowdrop: I'll try to write up a guide for pricing of creatures
(11.39.12) snowdrop: in wiki
(11.39.47) snowdrop: that said - im not sure where we should create the cards while raven still isnt done with the site coding
(11.39.51) snowdrop: forum?
(11.40.03) snowdrop: one trhead per card? would be easiest maybe
(12.04.16) Q_x: hi
(12.04.49) Q_x: we may make a wili page with all the Rebels cards in one and work on it
(12.05.07) Q_x: not a bunch of 50 threads
(12.06.02) Q_x: may be a table or something like this, separated into different card types
(12.07.56) Q_x: It will make easier things like comparisons and pricing
(12.26.06) snowdrop: k... a page does actually exist for thar purpose.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
(12.26.31) snowdrop: *looking*
(12.27.21) snowdrop: http://chaosrealm.net/w/Suggested_Cards
(12.29.56) Q_x: looks good for me
(12.30.07) snowdrop: =)
(12.32.20) snowdrop: the description/story of gaia is more or less done in the wiki...
(12.32.36) snowdrop: so by using it one should get a feeling for what kind of cards and feelign we want associated with that faction
(12.33.02) snowdrop: that + http://chaosrealm.net/w/Faction_Concepts
(12.33.03) Q_x: cool
(12.33.19) snowdrop: the revels + merfolk + order of dawn = Gaia
(12.33.50) snowdrop: haven updated that brainstorm yet, but info is pretty accurate... its just that we bake those 3 together as one, which is Gaia
(12.34.08) Q_x: uhm
(12.34.54) snowdrop: you see some values from 0 to 5.... 5 is "high".... so tribaQ_x: 1 means they don't co-work much with their own.... weapons 5 means they are really good with weapons
(12.34.57) snowdrop: etc
(12.35.05) snowdrop: price 5 = they are costly.
(12.35.19) snowdrop: however, these are general outlines. not a necessary truth for each individual card.
(12.35.52) snowdrop: order of down = humans in gaia. they will also not use that name, and just be a part of gaia.
(12.36.10) Q_x: ok
(12.36.38) snowdrop: further down on the page you can see which creatures go where in the factions
(12.36.44) snowdrop: in the huge png
(12.37.04) snowdrop: apparently i decided we should only release 24 gaian creatures in teh core set
(12.37.11) snowdrop: rest = for later expansions etc
(12.37.25) snowdrop: also makes life easier for us to balance and playtest and get started in general.
(12.37.59) snowdrop: its also equal to how WotC are doing it - they seldom release more than that amount of creatures in MtG in their core sets
(12.38.50) snowdrop: so, we need to make up 16 elvish creature cards and 8 merfolk cards, which would result in 24 gaian creatures in total... and add to that about 20 additional gaian cards (magic, equip, etc)
(12.39.00) snowdrop: and that would be our 50 gaian cards ready for playtest.
(12.39.51) Q_x: well, now I'm confused about what threshold really means
(12.40.21) Q_x: am I supposed to have X creatures on tbable, X gaian or X rebels?
(12.40.40) snowdrop: threshold x means that "you need to have x amout of gaian cards in play and/or have played x amoiunt of them this turn, in order to be able to play this card"
(12.41.02) Q_x: ok
(12.41.39) snowdrop: yes, thats my my mindmap is confusing: forget all faction names on it. There are no rebel faction, no merfolk faction, and no order of dawn. There's just gaia, which is all those previous three factions baked into one single.
(12.42.14) snowdrop: In total we'll have 5 factions, which is enough and way better than having a zillion ones that are "thin" and not "rich" in culture/diversity/own history....
(12.42.19) snowdrop: relates to depth etc
(12.42.27) snowdrop: but changes very little for us dev wise.
(12.43.14) snowdrop: so, if I have a card with threshold 3, and I play 1 gaian instant, and i already had 2 gaian creatures in play, then I may play my threshold 3 card.
(12.43.37) Q_x: well, if so, what are the logos supposed to mean for the player
(12.43.38) Q_x: ?
(12.44.02) snowdrop: with oither words, threshold doesnt just take "permanents" into account (a "permanent" is WotC terminology for a card that stays on the table. Which most creatures do, and equipment etc. But events don't. )
(12.44.19) snowdrop: leaf logo = gaian logo
(12.44.38) snowdrop: there are still 5 factions, and we need to somehow identify whych card belongs to which faction.
(12.45.22) snowdrop: we could ofc just use the colour of the cardframe etc (green) but that's a problem for colour blinde and so on, and it also feels kind of really cheap - a faction should, imho, have a logo.. a mark, that its associated with
(12.45.29) snowdrop: adds to both playability and feeling
(12.46.39) snowdrop: that does however leave us the option to, if we want to, use different card frame colors for different card types... but I'm not sure thats really a good idea.
(12.47.02) snowdrop: i.e. all equipment, no matter what its faction belonging was, would have "white" card frame...
(12.47.15) snowdrop: all creatures "green" etc etc...
(12.47.40) snowdrop: but im probably against that idea... since it forces players to use LOGO to identify card belonging
(12.47.53) snowdrop: instead of as it is now - use logo OR card frame colour
(12.48.09) snowdrop: then again - it would also be only time we send the message in TWO ways...
(12.48.13) snowdrop: which also feels like overkill
(12.48.19) snowdrop: so im not sure about this really.
(12.48.55) snowdrop: when looking on a table that has many creatures/cards on it however... i think it would be confusing / bad idea to let the card drame colour equal the card type instead of the faction colour
(12.49.52) snowdrop: so i think i lean towards keeping it the way it is and only use text for card type... or maybe we hsould try to stuff an icon for that as well somewhere, but its very crowded as it is already = P
(12.52.57) Q_x: What I had in mind was - what player can do with a card that has Merfolk logo and not Rebels - what is the difference here? Of course it may be a difference if a card, like event, works only for Merfolk, but we may say it works for sea creatures or wood elves as well
(12.53.41) snowdrop: ah
(12.53.45) snowdrop: no, the merfolk logo wont exist
(12.53.55) snowdrop: it was only interesting while merfolk was a faction
(12.54.07) snowdrop: now its not - merfolk + elves + some humans = gaia
(12.54.16) Q_x: Of course card frame may be an information separate from logo, green is really good for whole gaian thingy
(12.54.50) snowdrop: originally it WAS such info: Card frame was ALLIANCE belonging... and LOGO was faction.
(12.55.32) Q_x: Well, we can always separate the factions when there will be too much cards
(12.55.35) snowdrop: problem is however that we had a zillion factions, and you get TOO much specilaziation in each and each one becomes too nisched / fragmented IF one wants to keep factions DISTINCT and their existence meaningful
(12.55.52) snowdrop: so i thought it would be better with just 5 factions instea.d
(12.56.28) snowdrop: yes, i think that if we reach a point where we have such a huge card pool and good identities for them we could re-structure the faction system and then introduce alliances as well.
(12.56.50) snowdrop: but it makes no sense to start with that system as we'd end up with very poor and depth-lacking factions.
(12.57.18) Q_x: My idea was to keep small factions with asymetric strategies, I've been writing to you about that, and the card may operate well within an alliance
(12.57.43) Q_x: But there is no reason to mark a faction really
(12.58.03) Q_x: "all elves" or "all sea creatures" will do the trick
(12.58.40) snowdrop: yeah, i agree about assymetric strategies...
(12.59.05) snowdrop: i really really believe that IF we have factions at al, then they MUST PLAY as different as possible
(12.59.22) snowdrop: to attract different players
(12.59.33) snowdrop: as well as allow the game to get more depth and replayability
(13.00.32) snowdrop: you're right that it can all be done with card type properties (i.e. Elf would be a creature card type. Human another.)... small-factions would just be a "meta "card type property, just like the current faction property is now.
(13.01.28) snowdrop: usually, one doesn't use so "wide" meta properties, since it makes a game very hard to balance and easy to abuse. I.e. "All gaian cards get +2" is a very very powerfull card... and opens up many doors
(13.01.36) snowdrop: compare that with "All Elves get +2"... =)
(13.02.21) snowdrop: to be honest, my main reason for having factions relate to deck building and what i mentioned earlier - having distinct and separate ways to play the game.
(13.02.50) snowdrop: giving the player a different feeling and also demanding that she adapats and understands the new faction, and that it can't be played as the previous one.
(13.08.07) Q_x: well, there will be a hard to design it so that it all would work
(13.08.54) Q_x: I mean you will have to bury some rules into cards description
(13.09.57) snowdrop: yes, indeed... but thats unavoidable and standard when it comes to ccg:s...
(13.10.23) snowdrop: i mean, a ccg is really just game with super-modular rules that you get in small doses, mostly on a card to card basis.
(13.10.27) Q_x: and it will be uncool to have faction behavior or strategy determined by lets say 3 events, period.
(13.11.00) snowdrop: i dont follow that one - please explain.
(13.12.10) Q_x: If you have sea creatures, or elves within the gaia, it would be not good to determine strategy of play by using small amount of cards
(13.12.44) snowdrop: ah
(13.13.31) Q_x: like three events that will make certain strategy benefit
(13.13.55) Q_x: or will make "whole strategy" dependable on the three cards
(13.14.01) snowdrop: no,intention is to design most of the gaian cards around the gaian "style"... and feeling... meaning, gaians are not really aggressive, they are loving, etc.... what defines gaian as a faction shoul dbe the SUM of all gaian cards.. not 2-3 individual cards
(13.14.24) snowdrop: meaning, much thought must actually also go into the ABLITIES that creatures of each faction has
(13.14.36) snowdrop: as it defines much of the faction capacity and feeling
(13.14.38) Q_x: uhm
(13.14.47) Q_x: thats my point too
(13.14.54) snowdrop: ah. then i do follow =)
(13.15.39) snowdrop: what we ant to avoid is a situation where factions play identical with the exception for a couple of cards that define them... and i think that's what you were saying justnow...right?
(13.15.58) Q_x: uhm
(13.16.01) Q_x: exactly
(13.16.30) Q_x: its just rude to force a certain strategy this way
(13.17.50) snowdrop: yups, agree 100%
(13.18.15) snowdrop: also, it defeats like half the purpose and beenfit a ccg bringd -- modularity and creativity to create your specific deck and strategy
(13.19.19) snowdrop: if WE tell the players "there is really only 1-2 good ways to play this faction" then the game is a failure from my perspective... it needs to be as open ended as possible... but, at the same time it should still offer diverse styles and mechanics through the various 5 factions
(13.19.52) snowdrop: back later... must run to bus... it's pouring rain outside... yum yum... can I post this convo on forum?
(13.20.16) Q_x: sure
(13.20.21) Q_x: bye
(13.20.22) snowdrop: goodie. later =)