Champions of Cagn Unbound!

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

johannes wrote:

ICL wrote:

(snip)
3. Not every card is intended for every player, something Magic's lead designer mentions frequently. (snip)

...
3. I dont´understand it, can you elaborate?

I think ICL is talking about ideas like:

1) Some people love to play "Green". So any number of kickass "White" or "Red" cards aren't going to be much interest to them.
The VTES Analogy is that almost everyone has a favourite clan, if you love your Brujah then something like Eternals of Sirius isn't going to float your boat

2) Some people love certain tech... Vote, Bleed, Block, Grinder, S&B, Allies, etc. If you love your Grinder-Wall decks, then realistically you aren't going to be too thrilled by an Obfuscate card which says "You may tap X younger vampires with [obf] to add +1 stealth to the current action".

3) Lots of cards, like knives/blades, can have vastly different uses in different combinations. Some people will want to use their cards like scalpels. Others will prefer to use their cards like a bayonet.

I think the Magic reference is to Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. They represent different player archetypes, as part of making sure that every card set has cards that appeal to different kinds of players.

mongrel222 wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

johannes wrote:

ICL wrote:

(snip)
3. Not every card is intended for every player, something Magic's lead designer mentions frequently. (snip)

...
3. I dont´understand it, can you elaborate?

I think ICL is talking about ideas like:

1) Some people love to play "Green". So any number of kickass "White" or "Red" cards aren't going to be much interest to them.
The VTES Analogy is that almost everyone has a favourite clan, if you love your Brujah then something like Eternals of Sirius isn't going to float your boat

2) Some people love certain tech... Vote, Bleed, Block, Grinder, S&B, Allies, etc. If you love your Grinder-Wall decks, then realistically you aren't going to be too thrilled by an Obfuscate card which says "You may tap X younger vampires with [obf] to add +1 stealth to the current action".

3) Lots of cards, like knives/blades, can have vastly different uses in different combinations. Some people will want to use their cards like scalpels. Others will prefer to use their cards like a bayonet.

I think the Magic reference is to Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. They represent different player archetypes, as part of making sure that every card set has cards that appeal to different kinds of players.

Just to break it down for non mtg folks,

Timmy is a powergamer. Or so he thinks. He is all about the fluff. If he plays magic, he takes all elves, even if running llanowar elves, troll ascetic, and birds of paradise is more optimal.
As a vtes player, timmy would never run harbingers with giovanni, because they hate those usurping bastards.

Johnny is the combo player. He would rather lose than win in a non-creative fashion. In mtg, several classic combos, especially Trix and necro potence are the poster children. In vtes, its the guy with the off the wall type stuff, who influences out roxanne, plays madness network, then gets oit 3 2 caps with donimate, and plays fortitude version of renewed vigor, freak drive, baltimore purge, freak drive, pass the turn, and stacks 5 purges by thier untap in order to graverob the table.
Spike must win at any cost. He will play anything to win. In vtes, hes as cool with stealthbleed as he is with girls decks.

Now, i feel these mentalities fit nicely into the far simpler mtg mimdset than the more complex vtes one. We have very timmy and johmny type players, but almost everyone has some spile mentality, and most folks have the creative angle of the johmny mentality. Ive met one guy ever who just netdecks and is ok with that in vtes.

So, the colors to clans angle has far more merit, since the paralel loosley at best fits the player psyche stuff.

As far as deaign, vtes isnt magic. Even some cards i hate, i play. Cog and mimdrape spring to mind, as does sense dep. Or amaranth. Ive eaten loads of vamps in combat, agg poke to amaranth. But damn, i get irate when i get entombment amaranthd. Frickin obtenebration.

I highly recommend to anyone who is interested in CCG design to read Mark's articles: www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/archive.aspx?tag=making%20magic&description=making%20magic

Not because I agree with everything he says but because there's a strong argument that he's the best CCG card/set designer in the history of the human race. And, when you don't agree with him, you should have thought out arguments since, you know, he has been Magic's lead designer for a long time and the rest of us haven't.

Then, besides Timmy, Johnny, Spike, there's also Melvin and Vorthos: www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278

Few comments about Danse Macabre that I think are relevant to this tangent we got off on.

1. I don't see DM as being much of a "set". I see it as a bunch of individually designed cards thrown together to address aspects of the game, which, actually, is what it was intended to be from what I read. The reason a set is so much harder than individual cards is because each new card has the potential for changing the metagame that every other new card needs to be conscious of, one. Two, a set should be more than a collection of cards - it should have themes, internal synergies, branch out into new design space.

2. DM comes across as a set (sure, I'm willing to call it a set as it's clear enough what is meant) that was designed by a bunch of spikes who, at the same time because of V:TES's history, didn't want to push the power level too much. Now, I may have missed some cards that would appeal more to Timmies or Johnnies as I haven't had a chance recently to review the set again, but let me get into non-DM examples.

Mythic Form. It sucks. Would it suck at one less blood? Probably show up, crowding out Body Flare, to the extent that anyone plays Body Flare. Do I wish or think the card should be cheaper? No. It's fine the way it is, IMO, because it's not a Spike card. It has some Johnny appeal in trying to make it cheaper or more relevant, but I tend to see it as a Timmy card. I've played it in multiple decks because, amazingly enough, not everyone is trying to build optimal decks all of the time. Many, many people who play CCGs aren't the core tournament crowd.

Some have made comments about how CoC cards were top down design from the IP. That those cards might not be that good doesn't mean they (necessarily) have no value. Not every card is going to be good. (Which is a whole other topic that isn't worth going into in this thread.) But, every card might see play because some folks will find value in the card beyond just how effective it is.

My last tournament winning deck had Clan Impersonation in it. Johnnies may appreciate that where Spikes are just bewildered.

Lambach wrote:

Basically I think calling the set AWFUL is pretty silly. Not every card in the set is stunningly awesome it's true, but as ICL pointed out, this is pretty much the case with every expansion ever released for any ccg. I think you're strongly overstating the bad and turning a blind eye to the good.

I agree. I'll also point out that Juggernaut's initial negative post regarding the Champions of Cagn set was almost entirely done by mocking the cards by changing their names. That low tactic actually undermines any credible criticism he has levied against the various cards by demonstrating that he has little faith in his arguments to begin with.

I would be very curious to see him do the same treatment with the Danse Macabre cards. How many lines of text do they have? How many of them are simply derivatives or combinations of existing cards?

ICL wrote:

1. I don't see DM as being much of a "set". I see it as a bunch of individually designed cards thrown together to address aspects of the game, which, actually, is what it was intended to be from what I read. The reason a set is so much harder than individual cards is because each new card has the potential for changing the metagame that every other new card needs to be conscious of, one. Two, a set should be more than a collection of cards - it should have themes, internal synergies, branch out into new design space.

I agree with this sentiment. DM isn't much of a set. But that wasn't really the goal of DM. (It is debatable whether the goals were met.)

ICL wrote:

2. DM comes across as a set (sure, I'm willing to call it a set as it's clear enough what is meant) that was designed by a bunch of spikes who, at the same time because of V:TES's history, didn't want to push the power level too much. Now, I may have missed some cards that would appeal more to Timmies or Johnnies as I haven't had a chance recently to review the set again, but let me get into non-DM examples.

Just in case people aren't sure who Spike is:

Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory.

Spike cares more about the quantity of wins than the quality. For example, Spike plays ten games and wins nine of them. If Spike feels he should have won the tenth, he walks away unhappy.

R&D makes plenty of cards for Spike. Unlike the Timmy and Johnny cards, Spike cards are relatively easy to make. Spike plays what wins, so if R&D makes a card good enough, Spike will play it.

Yeah, a bunch of Spikes.

ICL wrote:

Some have made comments about how CoC cards were top down design from the IP. That those cards might not be that good doesn't mean they (necessarily) have no value. Not every card is going to be good. (Which is a whole other topic that isn't worth going into in this thread.) But, every card might see play because some folks will find value in the card beyond just how effective it is.

I'll also point out that we intentionally designed many cards to have subtle but important effects. For all the hate directed at Ere Ibeji (ZOMG! A Camera Phone clone!), it was designed to give a slightly better and flavorful offensive boost to the Laibon. Problem?

And just to point out the subtle mechanic from this particular card: First act with Laibon A. Then equip an Ere Ibeji with Laibon B and give the bonus Ere Ibeji to the already tapped Laibon A. It's effectively a free action that also thins your library.

Joscha wrote:

I said this many times before and still am mad about it, because two of my favourite cards couldn't become official VEKN-cards because of it.

I am curious, which two cards? Does this mean that the VEKN was going to use appropriate Guardians of the Faith cards for use in Danse Macabre after all? Does this mean that the GotF cards are actually...good? Even...better?