|
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
My comments are going to be all over the place, as I'm just going to do this on the fly as I read.
For someone who complains about their example of a card not conforming to MTG standards and templating, you seem to be absolutely annihilating the color pie and not templating your own cards correctly.
On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
...I assigned each race a different primary, secondary and tertiary mana color... so that it's easy to play as only a single race with this Starcraft 2 MTG set...
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
You should definitely not allocate colors to races the way that you do. That's not how MTG design works. The reason you see certain tribes affiliated with certain colors is because the colors represent the mechanics of the cards in that tribe, then there's post-hoc flavor justification.
On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I decided to adhere as best I could to the following rules:
1. The set should follow established MTG rules and conventions.
2. The cards should accurately represent concepts in Starcraft 2.
3. The races should be divided by color and also be relatively balanced.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
Cloaking isn't remotely black, making permanents untargetable is historically divided between blue and green (see: Shroud/Hexproof) and unblockability is primary in blue.
It's true that unblockable isn't a feature of black, but shadow and fear certainly are. I mentioned in the original post that I considered using shadow, but decided to create my own mechanic. Also, as I already noted, my division of color is not based solely on adherence to MTG conventions.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
With regards to the "blockers", like the ebay and pylon, if you want them to be able to block, they have to be creatures. Non-creature permanents also cannot have power and toughness, as you have placed onto those cards.
On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I decided that structures should function like walls — creatures that can’t attack.
You're probably right, but I had to introduce a new card type anyway, so I thought it would be okay to allow structures to have power and toughness and such.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
Malevolence and mindlessness are not even slightly black. Black isn't intrinsically evil, and black's flavor backing is all about ambition. Something mindless cannot express ambition.
Skeletons, zombies, rats, vampires and ghosts are all associated with black. Sacrifice, fear and deathtouch are also features of black cards.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
Red's the color that gets flying the second least, with an exception being made for dragons and wacky limited crap like Goblin Balloon Brigade.
Correct, but again, complying with MTG convention was not my only goal. Assigning color based solely on precedents in MTG would have ruined race cohesion. I mean, imagine if all Terran, Zerg and Protoss flying units were the same color.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
Phoenix: No comma separating the mana component and the tap component of the cost, and tap target card makes no sense. Do you intend to tap cards on the stack? Tap target permanent might be what you're looking for.
On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
Perhaps if you hadn't skimmed the post, you would have realized that I used the Zealot as an example of a poorly made card.
The same goes for the Phoenix.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
Stimpack: it seems like you chose the colors for this completely at random. Haste and double strike are both very red abilites. Also, the card doesn't target, so that last clause is meaningless. A more correct clause would be "If this effect would reduce a creature's toughness below 1, that creature is not affected by stimpack". Admittedly that's still probably not right, there aren't any effects I can think of to name that I can compare it to. The alternative is to surround it in an if clause, like the errata on blood lust.
Fair points.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
Carrier doesn't work the way you think it should. by the time you've declared it as either an attacker or blocker, it's too late for you to use those tokens that are created, because you've passed your declare attackers or declare blockers step.
Shoot, you may be right. I guess I have to go with the counter method proposed by goody153.
On December 14 2013 17:02 ThrowLikeEG wrote:
I could probably address each card individually but that's pretty time consuming. These were amongst the biggest things I could point out.
Thank you for your contribution.
|
I've always wanted to see this come to life in an intelligent way. This is cool.
Brood Lord's 1/1 spawns should come into play "tapped and attacking," I think, a la Geist of Saint Traft's Angel token.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Well, we should have Hearthcore: Heroes of Starcraft (core instead stone, cus it's sci-fi universe)
|
On December 14 2013 17:17 BoX wrote:
I think the amount of thought and effort you've invested is commendable.. If you polish it, you could really have something to be proud of!
Thanks, but I'm already proud of it. 
On December 14 2013 17:17 BoX wrote:
For the Zergling.. It's cool how it is because it's like any 1/1 basic creature. But lings have a swarming feel to them in SC2 that is intrinsic to the Zerg. So to address that, maybe have a spawning pool that like a multiple ability artifact. For example (and this may be massively stupid or imbalanced, but anyways)
I can see what you're getting at. Perhaps something like Aurochs?
On December 14 2013 17:17 BoX wrote:
Spawning Pool 2R
RRR: All Zerglings gain double strike until end of turn (cracklings)
RR: All zerglings gain haste until end of turn (adrenalings)
RR, destroy this card: Place 6 Zergling tokens on the field. These tokens have haste and banding?
I have similar mechanics in the Hatchery and Adrenal Glands cards.
On December 14 2013 17:17 BoX wrote:
Edit: So I was thinking, destroying the pool would kill the upgrade-ability of the lings. So maybe instead, the pool can be tapped to create 1 Zergling token? Or, it could be like (X)mana, tap: place (X) 1/1 zergling tokens on the field, where X is the amount of mana spent? So that the more mana you have at your disposal, the more ling tokens you could crank out?
On the Battlecruiser, I think it's a little wicked as it stands.. Why would anyone ever attack normally? Two mana and I can kill anything I want!
Maybe, instead, you require two Yamato counters in order to use the Yamato ability? Or, you require the card be tapped in addition to the mana cost in order to place a Yamato counter. That way there's a penalty for using Yamato, and ordinary attacking has a purpose and could be use more strategically. For example, if you went the tap + mana cost route, you could use some kind of "untap target creature" ability to spit out yamato blasts in the same turn. Then, you could limit yamato counters to allow only 1 yamato blast per turn, so it's not abused.. Stuff like that! Make the card interesting!
You're right; it's probably overpowered. The effect you're describing might be too complicated, but I like the idea of using counters.
|
On December 14 2013 17:51 poeticEnnui wrote:I've always wanted to see this come to life in an intelligent way. This is cool. Brood Lord's 1/1 spawns should come into play "tapped and attacking," I think, a la Geist of Saint Traft's Angel token.
Tapped and attacking? Of course! That's the perfect solution.
Thanks for the compliment and for the help.
|
Terran may work better using Esper color and concept. Protoss could be Bant or UWR. Zerg could be Jund. However, it could be better if you just use the MTG base rules and retranslate the rules to SC universe. For instance:
3 colors instead of 5 colors. That way you can establish color identity better and you can have cards that use Terran/Protoss, Zerg/Terran, and so on.
Mana system could be different. Maybe you could a spiced up version of Heartstone system.
Maybe buildings could be a different card type and could work like planeswalker. I mean, you can attack buildings (their life could be tracked by a dice the same way as planeswalkers) and if you're researching something, it could take some turns to complete. Upgrades could be emblems. Example: +1/+0 to all Air Units and take 2 + Number of emblems already in play (so 2/3/4) and you could have only 3 of the same type of emblems maximum.Wording can be a bitch thou.
|
Good job, once completed this could be a fun play
You might want to note that your wording of "cloak" doesn't need to have the "except for detection" addition because your "detection" ability doesn't target creatures.
|
wow nice. I made ~50to100 cards myself once.
Really nicely done!
Btw, I think Jim Raynor, Zeratul, Kerrigan should be mythic!
|
In order to assign completely unique colors to each race, I'd go this way:
Zerg: chaos and death - Red and Black
Protoss: order and interdependence - White and Green
Terran: logic and tech - Blue
I'd say Zerg: Red, with some Green and Black.
Protoss: Blue/White
Terran: Green/White
|
there are definitely a few cards that would need adjustments for "real" mtg play, like Brood Lord and Kerrigan's mana costs, but overall good work!
|
Sorry, haven't played MTG in over 5 years before the term "reach" was created. Anyone care to explain what that is in old mtg terminology?
|
On December 14 2013 19:16 Shinta) wrote:
Sorry, haven't played MTG in over 5 years before the term "reach" was created. Anyone care to explain what that is in old mtg terminology?
The creature can block creatures with flying.
|
Really cool read, I liked what you did.
You could do with losing the attitude when responding to people though 
|
Definitely great cards. I love them, and I love how most of the effects and abilities are well-thought and goes with the SC2 gameplay and lore(well kind of). There are definitely some balance changes I would like to see. For example, Swarm Host can have a higher cost, and can produce 2x 2/1 Zerg creatures with haste, since it is pretty obvious that Locusts are really strong a lot stronger than Zerglings or Broodlings that have the same stats here. Also, what somebody said already, I also think that Battle Cruiser should do 5 or 6 damage to the target creature or structure.
Overall, amazing cards. I hope that you will update with more creatures, can't wait to see Siege Tank, Infestor, Archon, Roach, Viper, Marauder etc.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On December 14 2013 16:23 Duncan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I had seen a few cards that others made, but many of them were about players, not the units and abilities of the game. Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
It’s tempting to make cards complex and powerful, especially the legendary cards, but most existing MTG cards are fairly basic. Why is this card 8/8? Why is is it green and blue? Why is it a Foreigner type and not a creature? Why is there grammatical errors, and why is the wording inconsistent with traditional MTG? This card is the antithesis of everything I spoke about in the original post. Congratulations on winning the thread.
oh relax, it's not like your wording is quite correct either ;p
|
On December 14 2013 19:34 Superiorwolf wrote:Really cool read, I liked what you did. You could do with losing the attitude when responding to people though
I apologize if anyone was offended. I may have been bothered by the fact that the first few people to respond did so without bothering to read the original post. One of them is mentioned in the following reply:
On December 14 2013 19:53 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 16:23 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 14:36 BisuDagger wrote:GG ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/b/b5/Draco.png) On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I had seen a few cards that others made, but many of them were about players, not the units and abilities of the game. On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
It’s tempting to make cards complex and powerful, especially the legendary cards, but most existing MTG cards are fairly basic. Why is this card 8/8? Why is is it green and blue? Why is it a Foreigner type and not a creature? Why is there grammatical errors, and why is the wording inconsistent with traditional MTG? This card is the antithesis of everything I spoke about in the original post. Congratulations on winning the thread. oh relax, it's not like your wording is quite correct either ;p
You're right, my cards aren't perfect. The difference here that I spent a lot of time creating something and asked for feedback, not for someone to disregard everything I said, say, "GG," and post a gag card that someone else made years ago.
On December 14 2013 18:23 Geiko wrote:Good job, once completed this could be a fun play You might want to note that your wording of "cloak" doesn't need to have the "except for detection" addition because your "detection" ability doesn't target creatures.
Are you sure? I know that creatures with hexproof can still be sacrificed and such, but aren't they immune to spells that target all creatures, like Wrath of God?
On December 14 2013 19:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
...There are definitely some balance changes I would like to see. For example, Swarm Host can have a higher cost, and can produce 2x 2/1 Zerg creatures with haste, since it is pretty obvious that Locusts are really strong a lot stronger than Zerglings or Broodlings that have the same stats here.
I think that at one point locusts were 2/1, but I changed it for some reason. Maybe I thought too many of Zerg's creatures were expensive.
On December 14 2013 19:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
Also, what somebody said already, I also think that Battle Cruiser should do 5 or 6 damage to the target creature or structure.
Thanks! I just updated it. I also changed the Thor's ability, since it no longer has 250mm Cannons.
|
On December 15 2013 01:37 Duncan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:34 Superiorwolf wrote:Really cool read, I liked what you did. You could do with losing the attitude when responding to people though I apologize if anyone was offended. I may have been bothered by the fact that the first few people to respond did so without bothering to read the original post. One of them is mentioned in the following reply: Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:53 opterown wrote:On December 14 2013 16:23 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 14:36 BisuDagger wrote:GG On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I had seen a few cards that others made, but many of them were about players, not the units and abilities of the game. On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
It’s tempting to make cards complex and powerful, especially the legendary cards, but most existing MTG cards are fairly basic. Why is this card 8/8? Why is is it green and blue? Why is it a Foreigner type and not a creature? Why is there grammatical errors, and why is the wording inconsistent with traditional MTG? This card is the antithesis of everything I spoke about in the original post. Congratulations on winning the thread. oh relax, it's not like your wording is quite correct either ;p You're right, my cards aren't perfect. The difference here that I spent a lot of time creating something and asked for feedback, not for someone to disregard everything I said, say, "GG," and post a gag card that someone else made years ago.
You do realize that you're getting butthurt from a couple of jokes right? Lighten up already geez. Nobody cares if you try to offend them, it just makes YOU look bad.
About the post though, pretty cool stuff. I used to play MTG a lot around 12 years ago. It would be cool to have a sc2 deck ;D
The things that really stuck out to me were things you already changed and/or were pointed out.
The grammar also needs fixing.
On December 14 2013 19:19 ibraishome wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:16 Shinta) wrote:
Sorry, haven't played MTG in over 5 years before the term "reach" was created. Anyone care to explain what that is in old mtg terminology? The creature can block creatures with flying.
lol thx man.^^ that makes sense then.
|
On December 15 2013 03:34 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 01:37 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 19:34 Superiorwolf wrote:Really cool read, I liked what you did. You could do with losing the attitude when responding to people though I apologize if anyone was offended. I may have been bothered by the fact that the first few people to respond did so without bothering to read the original post. One of them is mentioned in the following reply: On December 14 2013 19:53 opterown wrote:On December 14 2013 16:23 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 14:36 BisuDagger wrote:GG On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I had seen a few cards that others made, but many of them were about players, not the units and abilities of the game. On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
It’s tempting to make cards complex and powerful, especially the legendary cards, but most existing MTG cards are fairly basic. Why is this card 8/8? Why is is it green and blue? Why is it a Foreigner type and not a creature? Why is there grammatical errors, and why is the wording inconsistent with traditional MTG? This card is the antithesis of everything I spoke about in the original post. Congratulations on winning the thread. oh relax, it's not like your wording is quite correct either ;p You're right, my cards aren't perfect. The difference here that I spent a lot of time creating something and asked for feedback, not for someone to disregard everything I said, say, "GG," and post a gag card that someone else made years ago. You do realize that you're getting butthurt from a couple of jokes right? Lighten up already geez. Nobody cares if you try to offend them, it just makes YOU look bad.
Well he said in the OP that he purposefully didn't make cards of players and didn't want to see them for various reasons. It's not unreasonable to get annoyed when someone comes in to your 3000+ word thread, types "GG" (which can easily be interpreted as "I win/I win the thread") and posts something you purposefully excluded because you thought it was dumb. Additionally, it can be frustrating when you say something like, "here's an example of a bad card," and then someone replies to the thread with, "hey that card is bad, you should change it," clearly signifying that they didn't read it. You know?
I like your signature btw!
|
On December 15 2013 05:59 Shebuha wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 03:34 Shinta) wrote:On December 15 2013 01:37 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 19:34 Superiorwolf wrote:Really cool read, I liked what you did. You could do with losing the attitude when responding to people though I apologize if anyone was offended. I may have been bothered by the fact that the first few people to respond did so without bothering to read the original post. One of them is mentioned in the following reply: On December 14 2013 19:53 opterown wrote:On December 14 2013 16:23 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 14:36 BisuDagger wrote:GG On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I had seen a few cards that others made, but many of them were about players, not the units and abilities of the game. On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
It’s tempting to make cards complex and powerful, especially the legendary cards, but most existing MTG cards are fairly basic. Why is this card 8/8? Why is is it green and blue? Why is it a Foreigner type and not a creature? Why is there grammatical errors, and why is the wording inconsistent with traditional MTG? This card is the antithesis of everything I spoke about in the original post. Congratulations on winning the thread. oh relax, it's not like your wording is quite correct either ;p You're right, my cards aren't perfect. The difference here that I spent a lot of time creating something and asked for feedback, not for someone to disregard everything I said, say, "GG," and post a gag card that someone else made years ago. You do realize that you're getting butthurt from a couple of jokes right? Lighten up already geez. Nobody cares if you try to offend them, it just makes YOU look bad. Well he said in the OP that he purposefully didn't make cards of players and didn't want to see them for various reasons. It's not unreasonable to get annoyed when someone comes in to your 3000+ word thread, types "GG" (which can easily be interpreted as "I win/I win the thread") and posts something you purposefully excluded because you thought it was dumb. Additionally, it can be frustrating when you say something like, "here's an example of a bad card," and then someone replies to the thread with, "hey that card is bad, you should change it," clearly signifying that they didn't read it. You know? I like your quote btw!
I understand why he could get annoyed, but my main point is that this: he's trying to not be mocked, but he's throwing up a bad impression which only goes precisely against his goal.
It would be better to laugh at jokes and maintain the thread as well as his composure.
And thanks. That's been my signature on forums since I first joined one back in my high school days =p
|
On December 15 2013 01:37 Duncan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:34 Superiorwolf wrote:Really cool read, I liked what you did. You could do with losing the attitude when responding to people though I apologize if anyone was offended. I may have been bothered by the fact that the first few people to respond did so without bothering to read the original post. One of them is mentioned in the following reply: Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:53 opterown wrote:On December 14 2013 16:23 Duncan wrote:On December 14 2013 14:36 BisuDagger wrote:GG On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
I had seen a few cards that others made, but many of them were about players, not the units and abilities of the game. On December 12 2013 11:09 Duncan wrote:
It’s tempting to make cards complex and powerful, especially the legendary cards, but most existing MTG cards are fairly basic. Why is this card 8/8? Why is is it green and blue? Why is it a Foreigner type and not a creature? Why is there grammatical errors, and why is the wording inconsistent with traditional MTG? This card is the antithesis of everything I spoke about in the original post. Congratulations on winning the thread. oh relax, it's not like your wording is quite correct either ;p You're right, my cards aren't perfect. The difference here that I spent a lot of time creating something and asked for feedback, not for someone to disregard everything I said, say, "GG," and post a gag card that someone else made years ago. Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 18:23 Geiko wrote:Good job, once completed this could be a fun play You might want to note that your wording of "cloak" doesn't need to have the "except for detection" addition because your "detection" ability doesn't target creatures. Are you sure? I know that creatures with hexproof can still be sacrificed and such, but aren't they immune to spells that target all creatures, like Wrath of God? Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
...There are definitely some balance changes I would like to see. For example, Swarm Host can have a higher cost, and can produce 2x 2/1 Zerg creatures with haste, since it is pretty obvious that Locusts are really strong a lot stronger than Zerglings or Broodlings that have the same stats here. I think that at one point locusts were 2/1, but I changed it for some reason. Maybe I thought too many of Zerg's creatures were expensive. Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 19:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
Also, what somebody said already, I also think that Battle Cruiser should do 5 or 6 damage to the target creature or structure. Thanks! I just updated it. I also changed the Thor's ability, since it no longer has 250mm Cannons.
Wrath of God doesn't target creatures, so creatures with shroud or "can't be the target of spells or abilities" still dies to it.
If "detection" is "all creatures your opponents control lose cloak" then you don't need the "except for detection" line in your "cloak" description.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
