Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Supernerd]

I'd really like to give advice, but as the GM I feel I must remain impartial.

[Stirk]

The trick is to make copies of our best cards. That's what I did with UB :-/.

[TricMagic]

Multiple specifics, vs just being untargetable by card effects? And Spring Maiden was originally put forth as a 1 star quickplay. Three effects, reveal it and put it on the bottom for a star, play it to draw 2, and return to top of the deck when destroyed.

...Summer Maiden is a bit silly though due to it's rng nature. You either get a quickplay damage bomb in a pure color deck, or 3 stars in a multicolor.

I'd really like to give advice, but as the GM I feel I must remain impartial.

Pats the superninjanerd. Just toothing problems on the new format.

[Supernerd]

Next question: Is the 2v1 format something that we should continue doing, or do you think is it more problematic than fun?

[FallacyofUrist]

In an exceedingly long game, there's the problem that one player is drawing twice as fast - and thus deck exhausting - twice as fast as the others.

In any 2v1, there's the problem that the 2 players have more deck variety to work with than the 1 player. I'm definitely feeling it.

It's not unfixable, but it does need fixing.

[NUKE9.13]

More deck variety is bad. Consistency is king.
The main issue is that it takes much longer, since you need three people to be around at the right time to make rapid progress.

[Supernerd]

Team 1 doesn't seem to want to make any cards this design phase for some reason... I'm not entirely sure how I am supposed to deal with that.

[NUKE9.13]

Defeatism, I guess? Maybe it's time to reset? Ask everyone for feedback, and call this the beta test. I, for one, would definitely join a sequel.

That the game breaks if someone drops out is a weakness. Although I can't think of a simple solution that preserves the core gameplay.

[dgr11897]

Half that, half we're waiting on happerry and some other people to do some card analysis. Also I got pretty burnt out on this game I think, so that doesn't help.

[FallacyofUrist]

We've been... pretty outmatched at nearly every point in the game, with no easy or visible solution in sight. Suffice it to say motivation is not high. You could even say that it's at the opposite point.

[TricMagic]

I've at least had an idea to help the tide turn. Hopefully.

[Supernerd]

Having waited almost a week, I have decided that there's really no excuse for delaying any further. Thus, I am implementing a 24 hours deadline for getting your card designs in before I start the next battle phase.

[Supernerd]

Welp. dgr11897 sent me a pm, and they are out now.

[TricMagic]

Welp.. (Least if we restart we'd have teams of three?)

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah, I think the game's too far along to have much chance of attracting new players at this point. And continuing with a 3:5 ratio wouldn't be fun. I really think that calling it would be the best choice. Then discuss how things went, what worked, what didn't work, and how things might be improved. A forum game, especially a complicated and competitive one, is very hard to get right in one go.

Some suggestions I thought up already:

I think the stat-cost-balance should be better outlined. Not set in stone, but currently the only hard data is

A card that costs no stars to play would typically have a combined stat total of 5. (Example, 2 attack and 3 hearts). Useful effects will generally lower this, and detrimental effects can raise it. You can also make cards with no hearts which act like "Spells". Each star a card costs will typically raise its base stat total by 3 or 4. Very high star costs can have ridiculous effects.

Defining the 'cost' of some common effects would help calibrate expectations. Like, "Gens one star on ETB = -2 stats", "Deals 1 damage on ETB = -1 stat", "Flying = -2 stats", "Causes bleeding = +2 stats", etc. Obviously a comprehensive list would be impossible, but half a dozen examples would be good, I think. Also, examples of 'spell' (0-heart) card effects. I still think that 0 stars for a 4-damage boardwipe is too strong- and while balance is not my call, having it stated upfront what sort of strength one can expect spells to have would be useful.

Speaking of balance, I think that it would be good if we could all say what we thought about the balance of cards in this game, and discuss it. While democratic card-balancing is not viable, being able to give feedback is likely to make the next instalment more enjoyable. I mean, one need only look at the Card Repository to see that balance in these games can be a bit all over the place- which makes sense, given that IRL TCGs are balanced by large teams over the course of months, and even then unbalanced stuff slips through the cracks. Expecting one person to be able to perfectly balance ten cards in a day or two is unrealistic (this is not criticism, to be clear- I think Supernerd has done a pretty good job).

Another thing- I played a game of this on Discord with DGR, and it worked quite well. I think it's worth considering the possibility of having the Battlefields be Discord channels, rather than threads. This would be beneficial for two reasons: one, it would allow for faster gameplay (if both players are online at the same time, that is. If not, it's the same speed as a forum thread). Two, it would take up less space on the first page of FGRP- which is a limited resource, and having one game with seven threads is a bit excessive.