|
Post by Killix on Mar 20, 2010 12:20:34 GMT -5
Well... depends on the card. For example, Android Shopkeeper, of which I have two, is really good against commons, easy to get into action, and doesn't go down easily. And it is actually a problem. It died before, and a large part of the reason, in my opinion, was that it just looked - and was - hard to join. Perhaps we should impose a limit on certain cards? I know there are many TCGs that have such rules where a player is only allowed one of a certain card in their deck due to it being very, very powerful. (Example: Monster Reborn in YuGiOh) If not, then a player can always work out a deal with their opponent on which cards you will both use. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 20, 2010 12:30:29 GMT -5
Well... depends on the card. For example, Android Shopkeeper, of which I have two, is really good against commons, easy to get into action, and doesn't go down easily. And it is actually a problem. It died before, and a large part of the reason, in my opinion, was that it just looked - and was - hard to join. Perhaps we should impose a limit on certain cards? I know there are many TCGs that have such rules where a player is only allowed one of a certain card in their deck due to it being very, very powerful. (Example: Monster Reborn in YuGiOh) If not, then a player can always work out a deal with their opponent on which cards you will both use. *shrug* Android Shopkeeper isn't better than any other card in general, it's just a good Common-destroyer. However, I do think we should have some sort of limit anyway. Not on specific cards, just on saying that you can only have a certain number of each rarity card, or something.
|
|
|
Post by Amneiger on Mar 20, 2010 13:00:52 GMT -5
Perhaps we should impose a limit on certain cards? I know there are many TCGs that have such rules where a player is only allowed one of a certain card in their deck due to it being very, very powerful. (Example: Monster Reborn in YuGiOh) If not, then a player can always work out a deal with their opponent on which cards you will both use. *shrug* Android Shopkeeper isn't better than any other card in general, it's just a good Common-destroyer. However, I do think we should have some sort of limit anyway. Not on specific cards, just on saying that you can only have a certain number of each rarity card, or something. ...I made Android Shopkeeper. >_> So I don't know if I should be happy that I made a card that useful, or unhappy about the balance issues it brought up. <_< Hmm...the standard deck has 30 cards, with 15 fighter and event cards. Maybe a maximum of 5 rares and 9 uncommons, with 11 rares and uncommons total (which means that a person will need at least 4 commons)? That probably won't cut down on the number of rares/uncommons actually in play (since there are plenty of useful common cards that people might want anyway), but at the same time I don't want to restrict people in their deck building.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 20, 2010 13:27:14 GMT -5
Android Shopkeeper isn't better than any other card in general, it's just a good Common-destroyer. However, I do think we should have some sort of limit anyway. Not on specific cards, just on saying that you can only have a certain number of each rarity card, or something. ...I made Android Shopkeeper. >_> So I don't know if I should be happy that I made a card that useful, or unhappy about the balance issues it brought up. <_< Hmm...the standard deck has 30 cards, with 15 fighter and event cards. Maybe a maximum of 5 rares and 9 uncommons, with 11 rares and uncommons total (which means that a person will need at least 4 commons)? That probably won't cut down on the number of rares/uncommons actually in play (since there are plenty of useful common cards that people might want anyway), but at the same time I don't want to restrict people in their deck building. It's not an unbalanced card, it's just that it's one of probably several cards that's hard for newer players to take on. xD Something like that, yeah. xD Just to stop flooding of awesome cards.
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Mar 20, 2010 18:00:59 GMT -5
*has to look up Android Shopkeeper* I can see how it would be troublesome to most commons... but I can already think of several strategies that could defeat it.
Strategies and a well-built deck are essential to playing well... sometimes even moreso than a hand full of rare cards.
Which actually makes me think about something... there's one glaring thing about our TCG's handling of rare(and therefore more powerful) cards that makes it unbalanced, and that is that there's literally NO cost for bringing them to the field.
Compare:
YuGiOh: To summon the best monsters, you have to sacrifice an amount of your weaker monsters on the field based on summoning points (really rare/strong monsters have a lot of points). This prevents any player from gaining an instant advantage over another right away because they have to have a good strategy and some luck to get it to work.
NTWF: Is it in your hand? Great, it's now in play! Good luck with that, Weewood.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 21, 2010 4:14:11 GMT -5
*has to look up Android Shopkeeper* I can see how it would be troublesome to most commons... but I can already think of several strategies that could defeat it. Strategies and a well-built deck are essential to playing well... sometimes even moreso than a hand full of rare cards. Which actually makes me think about something... there's one glaring thing about our TCG's handling of rare(and therefore more powerful) cards that makes it unbalanced, and that is that there's literally NO cost for bringing them to the field. Compare: YuGiOh: To summon the best monsters, you have to sacrifice an amount of your weaker monsters on the field based on summoning points (really rare/strong monsters have a lot of points). This prevents any player from gaining an instant advantage over another right away because they have to have a good strategy and some luck to get it to work. NTWF: Is it in your hand? Great, it's now in play! Good luck with that, Weewood. Ah, but no newbie would be likely to have a deck that contained such strategies. And once they get some uncommons, Android Shopkeeper becomes less effective anyway. They are very important, yes, but the fact is, good cards and good luck are still factors. Always will be, it's part of the whole TCG bit. No, because you still need energies. >.> Any card can be summoned, yes, but then it's just a meat shield, possibly with a special power. Not worth the spot on your bench, unless you have little choice. And then with events, the balancing becomes that the greater the effect of the card, the less likely that you'll be in a situation for that effect to be able to be used.
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Mar 21, 2010 11:50:19 GMT -5
No, because you still need energies. >.> Any card can be summoned, yes, but then it's just a meat shield, possibly with a special power. Not worth the spot on your bench, unless you have little choice. And then with events, the balancing becomes that the greater the effect of the card, the less likely that you'll be in a situation for that effect to be able to be used. I disagree. Take a look the uncommons and rares... most of them use the same amount of energies as commons. The only difference is the point-distribution, allowing them to have more HP and better specials/attacks. Example: Common Flash Drone (Light) HP: 6 (*)(*) Electric Net – 3 Damage (L)(L)(*) Flash Grenade – The target is now paralyzed. They're slower than sedated gorillas, but they sure get the job done. Max of 3 energies to use all attacks. Rare Dessan: Wanted (Dark) HP: 10 (D)(D) Stopwatch: 2 Damage, opponent is paralyzed (D)(D)(D) Rise to Power: 6 Damage Max of 3 energies to use all attacks. So they're the same in terms of energies. The only meat shield in that matchup would be the common. It is worth a slot on your bench because it's no more taxing on your energies than a common that's weaker. With the help of certain event cards and maybe some fighters, too, you can easily add enough energies to a card in 2 turns. So I think my point is still proven. XD (That our TCG is unbalanced because it takes no effort or strategy to put stronger/rarer cards on the field)
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 21, 2010 12:33:21 GMT -5
(L)(L)(*) is better than (D)(D)(D). And in any case, Flash Grenade has far too many energies on it, it only really needs to be (L). And Flash Drone wins that partiular matchup, thanks to the elemental advantage. xD But if you look closely, commons usually have a 1-energy attack, and a 2-energy attack, whereas Rares mostly have at least two energies on their lesser attack. The two exceptions are:
075: The Solitary Mage (Light) HP:9 Special: Gather - You may not attach energies to this card from your hand. At the start of each turn, roll a dice. If the result is even, add a (L) energy to this Fighter from your deck (This does not count as adding an energy for this turn). In addition, no energies may be stolen from this card. (L) Blind - Roll a dice. If the result is even, paralyse the opponent. 1 Damage. (L)(L)(L)(L) Light Blast - Discard 2 energies and retreat this card. 8 Damage.
078: Times Superstar (Colorless) HP: 12 Special Ability: Constructive Criticism - When this card becomes Active, heal each of your benched cards 1 HP. (*)Hate Mail - 2 damage. (*)(*)(*)Extremely Harsh Review - 5 damage. "Been there, done that."
And the first of those two is special, and has to be on for at least a turn to get the first energy.
So basically, Times Superstar is the only thing, and until it gets the three energies it can be taken on with retreating, healing, preventing, and so on until you get something to take it on. It's hard, but not impossible, and considering this is a rare, that's what you want. xD If rares were as good as commons, there'd be no point in them. You just don't want them to come on and destroy everything without giving the other side an opportunity.
But going back to the no cost for summoning thing, the point I was trying to make was that the only thing you get from getting them on the field is the health, and occasioanally the special power. Until you pay out energies, you can't gain much ground against the opponent.
And also,
What you mean is, with luck. xD Which works just as well both ways, because you could end up getting no energies, but loads of cards for putting them down.
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Mar 21, 2010 13:00:38 GMT -5
I only said they were similar, I didn't say that they weren't poorly made. XD (E)(E)(*) isn't much of a difference from (E)(E)(E) unless your deck is badly scrapped together and you have too many different elements going on. XD But going back to the no cost for summoning thing, the point I was trying to make was that the only thing you get from getting them on the field is the health, and occasioanally the special power. Until you pay out energies, you can't gain much ground against the opponent. but the point you were trying to make was exactly what I was talking against. The rarer cards have better health and specials, and can also afford a bunch of status effect attacks. A rare can possibly toast most commons (4-6HP) in two turns. Let's imagine a situation where the players get the energies they need on the first draw: player1 summons an average common and attaches an energy.(6HP) player2 summons a rare and attaches an energy.(10HP) (Both cards use the same amount of energies.) player1(6/6HP) attaches an energy, puts another common on the bench, attacks for 3 damage and ends the turn. player2(7/10HP) attaches an energy, uses an event to attach another energy, puts another rare on their bench, attacks for 6 damage (killing player1's common in one hit) and ends their turn. Now player1 has to send their benched card to the field, and probably wont have enough time to add enough energies to it because now player2 has a fully powered fighter on the field with an attack that does 6 damage. XD Even if player1 somehow finds a way to disable or dispatch player2's rare fighter, player2 has already added another one to their bench. Exactly. and newbies have no more or no less luck than anyone. (is that what we were even talking about? I forget. XDXD)
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 21, 2010 13:17:38 GMT -5
I only said they were similar, I didn't say that they weren't poorly made. XD (E)(E)(*) isn't much of a difference from (E)(E)(E) unless your deck is badly scrapped together and you have too many different elements going on. XD But going back to the no cost for summoning thing, the point I was trying to make was that the only thing you get from getting them on the field is the health, and occasioanally the special power. Until you pay out energies, you can't gain much ground against the opponent. but the point you were trying to make was exactly what I was talking against. The rarer cards have better health and specials, and can also afford a bunch of status effect attacks. A rare can possibly toast most commons (4-6HP) in two turns. Let's imagine a situation where the players get the energies they need on the first draw: player1 summons an average common and attaches an energy.(6HP) player2 summons a rare and attaches an energy.(10HP) (Both cards use the same amount of energies.) player1(6/6HP) attaches an energy, puts another common on the bench, attacks for 3 damage and ends the turn. player2(7/10HP) attaches an energy, uses an event to attach another energy, puts another rare on their bench, attacks for 6 damage (killing player1's common in one hit) and ends their turn. Now player1 has to send their benched card to the field, and probably wont have enough time to add enough energies to it because now player2 has a fully powered fighter on the field with an attack that does 6 damage. XD Even if player1 somehow finds a way to disable or dispatch player2's rare fighter, player2 has already added another one to their bench. Exactly. and newbies have no more or no less luck than anyone. (is that what we were even talking about? I forget. XDXD) Well Flash Drone really needs adjusting, anyway. xD Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the situation and the deck. In order for that situation to work, player two needs to get, in a few turns, the rare (2, if you want another benched one. Remember that no deck is all rare. That'd burn energies so fast it just wouldn't be funny. Seriously, 30 card decks are not good for wasting cards), the exact event, and enough energies in the first few turns. The other player, on ther other hand, gets no events or half decent cards. It's really really bad luck on player one's part. And yet, even through that player 2 hasn't won outright. It's still possible to pull out of that, with less luck than player 2 had. I'd call that pretty balanced. xD And see, this is why I said it would be unfair on newbies not to reset. At the very least, we /definitely/ need to encourage oldies to use common decks against newbies. Although luck does affect higher powered stuff more. xD But no, I've no idea where this has gone either.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 21, 2010 13:25:27 GMT -5
I have to ask what's fair about wiping out the hard work and successes of everyone else just because it "might" be unfair to a few new people who aren't as experienced. There's nothing fair about that. This is how TCGs work. And instead of wiping out the old cards, why not just release a new booster/set? XDD Old cards are still available and new cards become available! And boosters almost always help equalize the playing field by offering new strategies to get around old powerful combos, etc. Axing old cards doesn't ever work well (Killix has described why it didn't work the last time). Even if the card list gets bigger, as sets get released, some cards will see use, others won't. It's just what happens. If a card gets to be too powerful, you add an errata or ban/limited list for official/tournament play--you don't just delete the card. It's really not all that hard.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 21, 2010 13:42:43 GMT -5
I have to ask what's fair about wiping out the hard work and successes of everyone else just because it "might" be unfair to a few new people who aren't as experienced. There's nothing fair about that. This is how TCGs work. And instead of wiping out the old cards, why not just release a new booster/set? XDD Old cards are still available and new cards become available! And boosters almost always help equalize the playing field by offering new strategies to get around old powerful combos, etc. Axing old cards doesn't ever work well (Killix has described why it didn't work the last time). Even if the card list gets bigger, as sets get released, some cards will see use, others won't. It's just what happens. If a card gets to be too powerful, you add an errata or ban/limited list for official/tournament play--you don't just delete the card. It's really not all that hard. Having played the most out of anybody who had records kept by Vyt, and most probably everyone anyway, I get the whole wiping out hard work bit. But it's been so long now that I honestly just don't care, I'd rather start fresh. ...though you seem to be a little confused here. I don't mean we should get rid of the card list. I mean we should get rid of the cards and shinies people had on their portfolios. Because that way everyone starts with brand new stuff. Which, what with us probably revising the old card list, both which cards there are and what they do (and no axing, hopefully putting back things we've already axed), helps stop confusion and so on, as well as stopping people who played a lot before from having a lot of stuff that newbies don't. (I had, I think, 1080 shinies worth of stuff, plus my starter cards, which is basically like winning 20 matches and losing four. I didn't play that many games though, some of those shinies were bonus from the tournament.) I'm all for adding new cards on top of what we got, I don't think having the card list too long was the problem. The problem was just that everything was unorganised, and inefficient. Oh, and matches took too long, but I can't really think of any way to change that bit.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 21, 2010 13:53:10 GMT -5
I have to ask what's fair about wiping out the hard work and successes of everyone else just because it "might" be unfair to a few new people who aren't as experienced. There's nothing fair about that. This is how TCGs work. And instead of wiping out the old cards, why not just release a new booster/set? XDD Old cards are still available and new cards become available! And boosters almost always help equalize the playing field by offering new strategies to get around old powerful combos, etc. Axing old cards doesn't ever work well (Killix has described why it didn't work the last time). Even if the card list gets bigger, as sets get released, some cards will see use, others won't. It's just what happens. If a card gets to be too powerful, you add an errata or ban/limited list for official/tournament play--you don't just delete the card. It's really not all that hard. Having played the most out of anybody who had records kept by Vyt, and most probably everyone anyway, I get the whole wiping out hard work bit. But it's been so long now that I honestly just don't care, I'd rather start fresh. ...though you seem to be a little confused here. I don't mean we should get rid of the card list. I mean we should get rid of the cards and shinies people had on their portfolios. Because that way everyone starts with brand new stuff. Which, what with us probably revising the old card list, both which cards there are and what they do (and no axing, hopefully putting back things we've already axed), helps stop confusion and so on, as well as stopping people who played a lot before from having a lot of stuff that newbies don't. (I had, I think, 1080 shinies worth of stuff, plus my starter cards, which is basically like winning 20 matches and losing four. I didn't play that many games though, some of those shinies were bonus from the tournament.) I'm all for adding new cards on top of what we got, I don't think having the card list too long was the problem. The problem was just that everything was unorganised, and inefficient. Oh, and matches took too long, but I can't really think of any way to change that bit. I was talking on two different topics myself. Because there are others that were advocating getting rid of all the cards and starting entirely fresh. Anyway, I know this... if I had been involved in the TCG and I had my record and collection wiped out because it just wasn't "fair"... I'd be livid and never play again. It's completely ridiculous. I mean, what are you going to do about people that know strategy more? Restrict the number of cards they can use, etc? I've been a gamer for years, involved in many real life TCGs, etc. When you're a newcomer and others aren't, this is an expected way of doing things. Do you think wiping stuff out now will prevent this same situation from happening again? The second one person wins a match it's immediately unfair to newbies under the same arguments you're making now. There's no reason to do what you're suggesting. I don't see where any confusion would be. If old cards get removed from legal play, that card in the portfolio can stay and just not be used for typical sanctioned play. If they get errata'd some, then people just need to check on what the cards do, etc. But there's still no logical argument for wiping everything out.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Mar 21, 2010 14:18:39 GMT -5
Having played the most out of anybody who had records kept by Vyt, and most probably everyone anyway, I get the whole wiping out hard work bit. But it's been so long now that I honestly just don't care, I'd rather start fresh. ...though you seem to be a little confused here. I don't mean we should get rid of the card list. I mean we should get rid of the cards and shinies people had on their portfolios. Because that way everyone starts with brand new stuff. Which, what with us probably revising the old card list, both which cards there are and what they do (and no axing, hopefully putting back things we've already axed), helps stop confusion and so on, as well as stopping people who played a lot before from having a lot of stuff that newbies don't. (I had, I think, 1080 shinies worth of stuff, plus my starter cards, which is basically like winning 20 matches and losing four. I didn't play that many games though, some of those shinies were bonus from the tournament.) I'm all for adding new cards on top of what we got, I don't think having the card list too long was the problem. The problem was just that everything was unorganised, and inefficient. Oh, and matches took too long, but I can't really think of any way to change that bit. I was talking on two different topics myself. Because there are others that were advocating getting rid of all the cards and starting entirely fresh. Anyway, I know this... if I had been involved in the TCG and I had my record and collection wiped out because it just wasn't "fair"... I'd be livid and never play again. It's completely ridiculous. I mean, what are you going to do about people that know strategy more? Restrict the number of cards they can use, etc? I've been a gamer for years, involved in many real life TCGs, etc. When you're a newcomer and others aren't, this is an expected way of doing things. Do you think wiping stuff out now will prevent this same situation from happening again? The second one person wins a match it's immediately unfair to newbies under the same arguments you're making now. There's no reason to do what you're suggesting. I don't see where any confusion would be. If old cards get removed from legal play, that card in the portfolio can stay and just not be used for typical sanctioned play. If they get errata'd some, then people just need to check on what the cards do, etc. But there's still no logical argument for wiping everything out. Didn't see people saying that. >.> I thought it was just revising the card list, in terms of changing the cards where need be, and stuff like that. Well, since strategy is basically what makes the game, no. xD But see, nobody has played this in a year and a bit. Things are already all over the place. The way things are going, with the card revision stuff, and the fact that this place has been dead so long, we're basically just starting the whole thing over. If we're going to do that, we might as well do it properly by starting over what people have done so far. That's where the confusion can come in. Once it gets going, it will be unfair on newbies for those reasons, yes, but that's why they should have the opportunity to say that they only want to fight people with Common decks. Mainly for the sake of letting them have a chance to win and stay interested. Also, in most TCGs, you can get good cards when you start playing. Because it works on booster packs, and you can earn money without playing games. >.> Then it comes down to practise. For this, it's both practise and cards. And like I said, I know about the losing bit. And also like I said, it's been so long that it doesn't matter to me any more. It's just like you quit the game, sold your cards, then got back into the game again.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 21, 2010 14:32:41 GMT -5
That's just it, though. I'm your targetted new player, am I not? Someone not playing but one that might get into the game? 1) It doesn't bug me that people have been playing for awhile and that they would have cards I do not and I need to work to get up to for a deck. That's life. 2) I don't find anything particularly confusing. TCGs have changes. It's what they do. 3) It does bug me to see that you're talking of wiping out everyone's portfolio, because what that tells me as a potential player? "Doesn't matter what you do, we have the option of taking it all away from you and making your efforts pointless. We will screw over the people actually playing for the sake of trying to attract new people." This actively discourages me from wanting to play the game (and yeah, I've been thinking about trying it out if it ever got resurrected--now I'm less likely to).
If you want to wipe out your own portfolio for these reasons, go for it. But why force it on everyone else? Or how about starting new players off with a bigger leg up or something. But thumbing your nose at everyone that had played in the name of some sort of fairness (which it's extremely unfair, so you're not even doing what you aim for) isn't the way to go about it.
|
|