file Old design choices that proved to be non-optimal

20 Apr 2019 15:50 #94590 by jamesatzephyr

LivesByProxy wrote: @James:
It's perfectly feasible and reasonable to have cards with 1 effect like Army of Rats, 2 effects like Govern, 3 different effects like Undue Influence, or the inf/inf/sup model of the Temporis and Melpominee cards.


Err, yes, we have all of those things in the game. That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was about full and partial success. Having to define full and partial success, giving you potentially six different outcomes, is massively more complex.

LivesByProxy wrote: And your point about the space for card-text is mostly fixed by using keywords for commonly used game-phrases like:


Yes, because what V:TES really, really needs is even more terminology for new players to have to understand. Making players have to understand another bunch of keywords to interact with huge amounts of cards is not a "fix", it's exacerbating a problem V:TES already has in spades.

LivesByProxy wrote: For example, just off the top of my head:


Important game design decisions shouldn't be made off the top of anyone's head.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 Apr 2019 17:48 #94591 by LivesByProxy
@James:

Lech wrote: "Sure, some cards would have binary success model, some cards would require more stealth to get full success and it should be on per card basis."


Which IMO, is the best way to go about doing it. The 'partial success' mechanic could be / should be on select cards. It could be an interesting design going forward, the same way playing with Discipline requirements (as shown previously) could be explored going forward.

James wrote: Yes, because what V:TES really, really needs is even more terminology for new players to have to understand. Making players have to understand another bunch of keywords to interact with huge amounts of cards is not a "fix", it's exacerbating a problem V:TES already has in spades.


In my opinion, the terminology that's actually a barrier to entry for this game is all of the VTM specific stuff. Words like 'damage', 'steal', 'votes', 'stealth', 'intercept', etc. are all basically explanatory. The keywords I proposed: Permanent, Singular, Attachment, and Restricted are all easy to grasp because they adhere closely to their real-world definitions. But then you have the VTM terminology like "diablerie", "torpor", "antitribu", "chimerstry", "black hand", "liabon", "priscus", "ghoul", etc. Words that - if people have even seen them before - don't coincide with a dictionary definition because WW is fond of using obscure and archaic words and changing them to mean something else entirely.

I'm surprised you're arguing against the usefulness of keywords in the game - their functionally mnemonic devices.

Also, the words themselves were off the top of my head. The concept or 'game design decision' has been present in Magic since its inception, and FFG has used keywords like that since they started their LCGs in 2010 (since their inception).

:gang: :CEL: :FOR: :PRO: :cap6: Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean :PRO: until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex :AUS:, Obfuscate :OBF:, or Potence :POT: for the current action.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Apr 2019 20:05 #94620 by ReverendRevolver
The title misled me to believe this would be a thread on Imbued and MMPA enablers.

My mistake.....

The most productive ideas pointing out problems tend to be the ones addressing a solution that enables different decks and playstyles, as those relieve potential stagnation as well as experience less backlash than "ban govern" style arguments.

The second most productive are the pre-argument parts of addressing overpowered, as of yet unfixed things, such as.....

MMPA enablers exceeding 1 at any methuselahs disposal and Imbued.

I can still dream.......

(Can we go back to "this card should be like this per the fluff" threads? Those were fun, right?)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2019 19:34 - 24 Apr 2019 19:53 #94647 by Sambomb
I think there is plenty options to design new cards.
Maybe:
:modifier: :aus: :dem: :obf: +1 bleed. If the action is blocked and this minion is ready, your prey lose 1 pool.
:modifier: :AUS: :DEM: :OBF: as above with +1 stealth ( even if not needed yet ). If no one attempt to block, gain 1 pool.

A minion can use more then one effect during this action.
:action: :AUS: + 1 hand size during this action
:action: :DEM: + 1 bleed
:action: :OBF: + 1 stealth

I liked the new keywords, but maybe we can stick to "unique" keyword and add a modifier:

Unique ( Methuselah ) - Unique PER Methuselah
Unique ( Minion ) - Unique PER Minion
Unique ( Vampire ) - Unique PER Vampire
Unique ( Combat ) - Unique PER Combat
Unique ( Action ) - Unique PER Action
Unique ( Turn ) - Unique PER Turn

Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
Last edit: 24 Apr 2019 19:53 by Sambomb.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2019 21:39 - 25 Apr 2019 07:31 #94649 by TwoRazorReign
[Note from Ankha]: I am very sorry, but I made a mistake and edited your message instead of quoting it. :( I'm leaving as much of the original message]

<message lost>

Therefore, use of parentheses in "(limited)" is divergent from use in normal English because parentheses normally indicate a nonrestrictive element (which is done on many cards). In the case of "(limited)," parentheses indicate restrictive text, meaning it can't be removed without the meaning being altered (one could play more than one card if "(limited)" does not appear).

<message lost>
Last edit: 25 Apr 2019 07:31 by Ankha.
The following user(s) said Thank You: LivesByProxy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Apr 2019 07:30 #94653 by Ankha

Sambomb wrote: Therefore, use of parentheses in "(limited)" is divergent from use in normal English because parentheses normally indicate a nonrestrictive element (which is done on many cards). In the case of "(limited)," parentheses indicate restrictive text, meaning it can't be removed without the meaning being altered (one could play more than one card if "(limited)" does not appear).

Wrong. You can remove them, and bleed modifiers would still be restricted per the rule: "No more than one action modifier card can be played to increase a bleed during a bleed action. Some bleed action modifiers explicitly state that they do not count against this limit; those can be played before or after modifiers that count against the limit."

Previously, some text between parentheses was optional, and sometimes not. We aim at consistency: all text between parentheses is optional.

We also decided to add the "(limited)" reminder text to all the bleed cards because the special rule for bleed modifiers was moved from the cards to the rulebook, and we wanted to help old players to make the transition.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.146 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum