Woo, that was a long
Here goes nothing:
Vampire Buddha, I think I just lost every ounce of respect I had for you. I don't even know where to begin with that post.
This is called an ad hominem. It's never a good idea, because it makes people lose respect for you. Ironic, eh?
Dredge. If you know anything at all about MTG, that's all I should have to say.
Now see, I can counter this with something you say later:
While I'm at it, you need to stop using MTG examples. ... This game is not Magic and Tropes are not Instants. ...
Dredge is a very
specific analogy, you know. It wasn't just Dredge itself that broke the game, it was a whole bunch of cards that get some effect from being discarded or in the graveyard. I don't think you can use it at all as an analogy without being horribly hypocritical.
The next few paragraphs are a jumbled mess of misused logic, but I can try to sum it up. You claim that because some Tropes should be powerful, all Tropes must have extra costs tacked on. Then, because all Tropes must have extra costs, that cost must be SP. That is your logic stream. It makes multiple illogical leaps without any backing.
The logic goes like this:
- Some Tropes are going to be overpowered without having a cost.
- SP is the only cost we have that works on all cards regardless of what they do.
- Therefore we should put SP on some Tropes.
- But we can't have SP on some Tropes and no SP on other tropes.
- Therefore we should put SP on all Tropes.
While I'm at it, you need to stop using MTG examples. I use them rarely to illustrate either specific similarities between minutia of mechanics or overarching requirements of TC Gs in general. This game is not Magic and Tropes are not Instants. They may appear similar at first, but stopping to examine the effects that they are intended to have on the game there is a noticeable difference in that Instants are entirely reactionary while Tropes are mostly action-oriented.
Again, you using the way-far-out there analogy of Dredge but criticizing the much closer analogy of Instants is hypocritical.
And I assure you, no matter what we intend, Instants and Tropes are going to end up having equivalent effects just because they both work exactly the same. Well, except that Tropes don't cost anything, which is going to make them overpowered no matter how good we are at designing cards.
Again, another Magic analogy, Wizards makes unbalanced cards pretty often and they do this professionally. We are definitely going to make unbalanced cards considering we're a bunch of nerds on the internet.
I'm at a loss for words. I just . . . wow. Wow.
That was the idea. He was tossing your own words back at you. It didn't really make all that much sense, but that was the idea.
This from the guy who made the cards of Killed Off For Real, Dropped A Bridge On Him, Bus Crash, Anyone Can Die and Mcleaned. Five of the most horrifically broken and unbalance cards to be seen so far in this topic. And in a game where we said we only wanted limited character removal.
What? Who said we only wanted limited character removal? Considering we've got two whole graveyards for characters and one for everything else, we seem to be expecting HUGE character removal.
Furthermore, you don't even know how the other cards in the game work, as per your description of Happily Ever After. The card is a permanent that sits in play and triggers on your draw step if the conditions are met. W Hich means you, under the system you advocate I can play The Power Of Love during the opponent's turn and throw away Happily Ever After in order to play it.
This is true, or at least it was true until Ironeye posted. I don't see why it's a problem, though; this is a card game, we can't model actual writing perfectly.
I'm sorry, Vampire Buddha, but after a display like that I can't take anything you say seriously any more. I don't know what you attachment to SP costs and removal is, but it probably isn't healthy for this game. I think you need to re-evaluate how much you think you know about making games. Consider taking a step back for a bit and just thinking about how the game will actually play out when the cards are put into decks, shuffled up, and drawn.
Again, ad hominem. It doesn't make you look good to anyone, you know.
''Thanks for the clarification on that. That actually does fix the Happily Ever After problem, but I'm afraid it only solves it because of the card's type, not because of the innate issues.
An important issue here is the ability to use your opponent's characters. If my opponent has a character in play and I play an Ending that would trigger on my draw step because of my opponent's character, then my opponent can just play any Trope and throw out their character. This is not good. ''
Now, that's true. I'm not really sure it's not good, though, because I doubt you'd be able to use your opponent's characters for most endings anyway (otherwise the win would just count for your opponent).
You are right, the getting everything back right away isn't as much of a worry. The action of putting resources like characters and Plot Devices into other zones as a cost of playing powerful cards is the problem. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Dredge decks that overran Extended in MTG last rotation, but they were based around a similar idea. A mechanic like this would probably create strategies based around using powerful Tropes to gain advantage and other powerful tropes to reverse the costs just paid, turning the costs into actual benefits, just as Dredge did. A card game uses the deck as the resources and the graves as the expended pile. Dredge operated by making the graveyard their resource and their deck the waste pile. It did this by dumping cards into the grave as a "cost". Mechanics that do this are dangerous.
And now you've actually explained your Dredge metaphor, and I still think it's too specific to Magic even so.
But I've also noticed that you are a lot more polite to Ironeye then you were to VB even though they're saying the exact same thing.
Why? Why is this idea some kind of abomination of card games when VB wants it and just maybe a bad idea when Ironeye wants it?
Furthermore, I still do not believe that Tropes require an SP cost. A trope can be built to cause a powerful effect without needing a cost. Again, see The Power Of Love I made above. Of course, an extremely powerful trope would need a cost.
That's true. And for every other card in this game, that cost is SP. I think it's just silly to not use the same mechanic for tropes.
The not quite famous Rocks Fall Everyone Dies card that I made for someone kills off every character, but forces a severe IP payment and causes the player to skip three turns. A Trope like [example would go here]
Those work, for those cards. You again, can't do that for every card.
That is a powerful card that provides excellent card selection. It does not need a cost. Nobody has addressed the fact that I can keep making these Tropes that are both quite powerful and perfectly balanced without tacking on any additional costs. No IP, no SP, no discard, no sacrifice, nothing at all. The card is strong and balanced.
You don't know it's balanced, you've never played it. I assure you, sometime someone is going to use those costs as an advantage just like the guys who thought of Dredge did with discard effects.
That is what I mean when I said to put effort into designing balanced cards. Adding a universal variable cost of SP is a cheap design trick used so that designers can make whatever they want without worrying about power level and then just tack on a number to rank the card as being really strong. It requires no thinking or ingenuity.
A game where cards are easy to make balanced will be more balanced then a game where cards are difficult to make balanced.
I'd like to see a smooth, professional, streamlined game that looks like the designers carefully hand-crafted every card, not just slapped numbers onto effects.
And I'd like to see a game that's not broken.
But also, you don't seem to have a problem with SP on every other card, why just tropes?
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1