| Forum Index > General Games |
MoonBear
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On March 27 2013 06:59 iGrok wrote: He's 10. I know I should have started with the core set but I never draft or buy those. Now I'm stuck - do I get him M13 now or wait and suffer until M14? Why not get him Duels of the Planeswalkers? | ||
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
edit: no offense to those who play it >__> | ||
|
DennizR
Sweden653 Posts
On March 27 2013 07:34 iGrok wrote: I want to get him into actual cards rather than the shitty videogame version edit: no offense to those who play it >__> Ask your local store if they have something suitable for completely new players. I know there are some stores that have free decks with old core-set cards; basically monocolored preconstructed decks with only commons/cheap uncommons, but good enough to teach someone the basics. | ||
|
Audemed
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On March 27 2013 07:34 iGrok wrote: I want to get him into actual cards rather than the shitty videogame version edit: no offense to those who play it >__> The video game version isn't shitty at all. It's an excellent place for a new player before he commits to the much more expensive cards. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
Edit: I think iGrok meant that he'd rather have his little buddy play with actual people and actual cards instead of a video game. | ||
|
MoonBear
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On March 27 2013 07:34 iGrok wrote: I want to get him into actual cards rather than the shitty videogame version edit: no offense to those who play it >__> I'm not terribly familiar with the products, but perhaps the Duel Decks might be interesting to try then? They're very thematic which is nice if either of you is really into fluff and setting. Also provides a nice pathway into deck construction, card selection while being able to explore themes, stories, etc. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
Rowrin
United States280 Posts
But there are still $10-14 intro decks / two player decks. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1511 Posts
My current idea for the rules is this: 1v1 game. Each player has a turn, and then there is a TD round where runners spawn. There are 3 types of cards. Runner cards you play on your opponant's lane, and they spawn there every round as long as they are in play. Tower cards you play and then you place them like a tower next to your own lane. The tower card also remains in play, and if anything happens to that card it also happens to your tower. Action cards are like spell cards of magic with various effects, from upgrading runners or towers to drawing cards. Instead of Lands, I'll have a gold system. Each player gets gold at the beginning of each round depending on how many runners he spawns. Each player also gets gold for killing the runners of his opponant. The amount of gold gained each round from killing runners is roughly equal to the amount of gold your opponant gains from spawning the same runners. Almost every single card has a gold cost to be played. Win conditions are if your opponant runs out of either lives or cards in his deck. I am also heavily considering having players draw 2 cards per round. I know this is probably better suited for blogs (and I will make one once I have a bit more to show), but I wanted to get the magic community's feedback specifically first. So, what are your thoughts? I have ~80 cards brainstormed, and I've started coding and making the art already. I have gotten positive feedback from pitching this advice to my friends, but I'd like to know what the real card players think. I'm sure that this community knows a lot more than I do about card games, so I want to tap that knowledge as soon as possible. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On March 30 2013 01:39 jrkirby wrote: So I am making an online card game right now. It's actually a tower defence/card game combo. My current idea for the rules is this: 1v1 game. Each player has a turn, and then there is a TD round where runners spawn. There are 3 types of cards. Runner cards you play on your opponant's lane, and they spawn there every round as long as they are in play. Tower cards you play and then you place them like a tower next to your own lane. The tower card also remains in play, and if anything happens to that card it also happens to your tower. Action cards are like spell cards of magic with various effects, from upgrading runners or towers to drawing cards. Instead of Lands, I'll have a gold system. Each player gets gold at the beginning of each round depending on how many runners he spawns. Each player also gets gold for killing the runners of his opponant. The amount of gold gained each round from killing runners is roughly equal to the amount of gold your opponant gains from spawning the same runners. Almost every single card has a gold cost to be played. Win conditions are if your opponant runs out of either lives or cards in his deck. I am also heavily considering having players draw 2 cards per round. I know this is probably better suited for blogs (and I will make one once I have a bit more to show), but I wanted to get the magic community's feedback specifically first. So, what are your thoughts? I have ~80 cards brainstormed, and I've started coding and making the art already. I have gotten positive feedback from pitching this advice to my friends, but I'd like to know what the real card players think. I'm sure that this community knows a lot more than I do about card games, so I want to tap that knowledge as soon as possible. It sounds like a good concept. You might want to check out Netrunner, since that game worked off the same idea, and a lot of people liked it. The hard part about making any game is the balance/execution, though. I'd suggest making it more interactive than a typical TD, where you can also use spells and temporary summons to defend. And make sure drawing a terrible imbalance of offensive/defensive cards won't screw you over too badly (i.e. I drew all runners this turn, guess I leak for 50, gg). | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1511 Posts
On March 30 2013 01:45 Cel.erity wrote: It sounds like a good concept. You might want to check out Netrunner, since that game worked off the same idea, and a lot of people liked it. The hard part about making any game is the balance/execution, though. I'd suggest making it more interactive than a typical TD, where you can also use spells and temporary summons to defend. And make sure drawing a terrible imbalance of offensive/defensive cards won't screw you over too badly (i.e. I drew all runners this turn, guess I leak for 50, gg). Wow netrunner looks pretty complicated. I'm hoping that this will be a lot simpler than that. Yeah, I know balance is going to be difficult. Yes, I am considering adding in instant spells - ones that can be played during the round, not just on your turn. I'm not sure I will, but it's definitely something on my mind. The part about drawing cards imbalance: yes, that is an issue. But I'm hoping there won't be any way for your opponant to kill you in under three turns, even if you have nothing to defend. Also you will have to balance your deck. Just like having too many or too few creatures or lands screws you over in magic, having too many or too few runners or towers will screw you over in this. Also I could implement some kind of mulligan like in magic, and having player draw 2 cards per round instead of one also helps alleviate this issue. I am more worried about stalematish situations: when both players have too many towers and too few runners, and the game becomes boring. That is why I'm considering adding in neutral runners or boss runners or something, but I'm still undecided on that. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On March 30 2013 02:14 jrkirby wrote: Wow netrunner looks pretty complicated. I'm hoping that this will be a lot simpler than that. Yeah, I know balance is going to be difficult. Yes, I am considering adding in instant spells - ones that can be played during the round, not just on your turn. I'm not sure I will, but it's definitely something on my mind. The part about drawing cards imbalance: yes, that is an issue. But I'm hoping there won't be any way for your opponant to kill you in under three turns, even if you have nothing to defend. Also you will have to balance your deck. Just like having too many or too few creatures or lands screws you over in magic, having too many or too few runners or towers will screw you over in this. Also I could implement some kind of mulligan like in magic, and having player draw 2 cards per round instead of one also helps alleviate this issue. I am more worried about stalematish situations: when both players have too many towers and too few runners, and the game becomes boring. That is why I'm considering adding in neutral runners or boss runners or something, but I'm still undecided on that. You could also have every card be a split card, so, it'll be either a Tower+Runner split, or an Offensive/Defensive Spell split, like: 5 - Vine Tower - 8/14 Entangle -or- 5 - Vinebeast - 5/5 Burrow 3 - Lightning Bolt - Deal 3 damage (line) to 5 runners. -or 3 - Lightning Bolt - Deal 6 damage to target tower. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1511 Posts
On March 30 2013 02:37 Cel.erity wrote: You could also have every card be a split card, so, it'll be either a Tower+Runner split, or an Offensive/Defensive Spell split, like: 5 - Vine Tower - 8/14 Entangle -or- 5 - Vinebeast - 5/5 Burrow 3 - Lightning Bolt - Deal 3 damage (line) to 5 runners. -or 3 - Lightning Bolt - Deal 6 damage to target tower. That feels a bit complicated for the feel I'm going for. I might do something like this for the occasional card, but I don't think I want to do this for every card. It's an interesting idea though. | ||
|
Salivanth
Australia1071 Posts
What about having two decks? Each turn, you draw one offensive card, and one defensive card. Defensive spells and towers are classified as defensive, runners and offensive spells are offensive. At any time, you may discard two cards in order to draw one. Once per turn, you may discard a card and draw another. Creatures and towers are the same card. You may play a creature as a creature, or as a tower. A tower cannot attack and gains +1/+2 or some other block of stats. Some creatures are offensive or defensively oriented. Offensively oriented creatures have abilities that only work as creatures, or only work when attacking. Defensively oriented creatures gain more stats, or gain special abilities that only work when defending. Examples: Offensive Bro: 2/3. When Offensive Bro attacks, he gets +2/+0 until end of turn. Defensive Bro: 4/4. Defensive Bro may block two creatures at once. This has the added advantage of making offense more powerful as the game goes on. Since the stat bonuses don't change, they matter less and less as the creatures get bigger and bigger. These are just some ideas I've thrown out there. I personally like the last one the best. It allows for every card to be a split card without worrying about making two versions of everything. It also allows for some interesting dynamics. For example: Defense > offense, but if you're being attacked, you have to play your creatures as defenders, preventing you from attacking yourself. There should be some way for decks to be rewarded for not being pressured, or to turn their redundant attackers into something useful. Offense should be slightly stronger than defense to make a good game. Bouncing unneeded towers back to your hand allows you to change them into creatures later on. Alternatively, if you're being pressed hard, you can bounce one of your creatures and turn it into a tower. You can build offensively or defensively minded decks by picking Offensive Bro / Defensive Bro related cards, but can still play the opposite role if you get the right hand or are forced into it. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
Salivanth
Australia1071 Posts
On March 30 2013 17:25 Cel.erity wrote: ^Isn't that exactly what I just suggested? Very close to it, but your suggestion was more complicated mechanically. I got the idea off you. The difference between my idea and yours is that your idea involves each card having two distinct versions, whereas mine involves a single rule for all creatures. "You may play a creature as a tower. If you do, it gains +X/+Y and defender." Basically, it's an attempt to simplify your concept, since it was too complicated for the desired complexity of the game. Not bagging on your concept at all either, it's great, hence why I tried to adjust it to the needs of the game  On March 30 2013 17:37 spinesheath wrote: Having a lot of cards capable of doing different things doesn't strike me as good design. Same thing with free looting and such. I agree with the latter, but not the former. Free looting isn't that great, but I love cards doing different things. Many of my favourite cards in Magic can do different things. I love the Charm cycles. I love Mizzium Mortars and Tragic Slip. I love Kicker. I love cards that can do a few different things depending on the situation. I'm a sucker for that kind of mechanic | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
And yeah, Charms, split cards etc., are all along the same philosophy. It's cool that you can play a card which either deals 2 damage or makes a 3/3 because it reduces variance in gameplay. I don't think it makes the game more complicated at all, and I certainly don't see how it's poor design. | ||
|
Salivanth
Australia1071 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
SHIN vs Rogue
ByuN vs Solar
MaxPax vs TBD
herO vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
IPSL
Art_Of_Turtle vs KameZerg
Radley vs George
BSL
Artosis vs Dewalt
Ret vs Tech
SOOP
soO vs FanTaSy
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
GSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
