Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GendoIkari]

Ok so most people want the gained card to have conditions on it, and they want it to at least react when an opponent gains it. But, can it also react to you gaining it? Let's find out! The runoff poll closes Saturday afternoon.

[Gubump]

I think it would be interesting if it did something different based on whether it was you gaining it or an opponent. So, I voted for any player.

[Roadrunner7671]

I voted for another player. We need more stuff to happen on other people's turns!

[LibraryAdventurer]

The 'a player' option should say 'any player' to be clear.

[GendoIkari]

The 'a player' option should say 'any player' to be clear.

True. I was trying to word it the way the card would be worked, which probably wouldn't use "any", but for the poll it probably should.

[Gubump]

Hey, GendoIkari, did you intend for the poll to close during the same day it opened?

[eHalcyon]

The 'a player' option should say 'any player' to be clear.

True. I was trying to word it the way the card would be worked, which probably wouldn't use "any", but for the poll it probably should.

I'd use "any" on the card too.  Clarity is important.

[GendoIkari]

Hey, GendoIkari, did you intend for the poll to close during the same day it opened?

Mine shows to me that it closes dec 19?

[GendoIkari]

Hey, GendoIkari, did you intend for the poll to close during the same day it opened?

Oh, apparently when I changed the option wording it also updated it so that people can view results after voting instead of only after poll closes. Oops. But it's still open til Saturday.

[Gubump]

Hey, GendoIkari, did you intend for the poll to close during the same day it opened?

Oh, apparently when I changed the option wording it also updated it so that people can view results after voting instead of only after poll closes. Oops. But it's still open til Saturday.

Being able to see the results confused me into misreading it as 16th.

[liopoil]

oh boy this is a close one. I like the idea of both players in a 2 player game being able to react, so I voted for anyone.

[GendoIkari]

oh boy this is a close one. I like the idea of both players in a 2 player game being able to react, so I voted for anyone.

Hmm, this brings up a possible issue with that actually. Say it's your turn, and you gain a card. I have our reaction in-hand, but I can't reveal it quite yet; I have to wait to see if you are going to reveal it, since you would have first chance to do so as it's your turn. So I have to ask if you're going to reveal it, which also gives away some information. Maybe it's a card that you only want to reveal if you know I have one in my hand also.

[eHalcyon]

oh boy this is a close one. I like the idea of both players in a 2 player game being able to react, so I voted for anyone.

Hmm, this brings up a possible issue with that actually. Say it's your turn, and you gain a card. I have our reaction in-hand, but I can't reveal it quite yet; I have to wait to see if you are going to reveal it, since you would have first chance to do so as it's your turn. So I have to ask if you're going to reveal it, which also gives away some information. Maybe it's a card that you only want to reveal if you know I have one in my hand also.

The same kind of situation can already happen with most reactions and 3+ players.

[GendoIkari]

oh boy this is a close one. I like the idea of both players in a 2 player game being able to react, so I voted for anyone.

Hmm, this brings up a possible issue with that actually. Say it's your turn, and you gain a card. I have our reaction in-hand, but I can't reveal it quite yet; I have to wait to see if you are going to reveal it, since you would have first chance to do so as it's your turn. So I have to ask if you're going to reveal it, which also gives away some information. Maybe it's a card that you only want to reveal if you know I have one in my hand also.

The same kind of situation can already happen with most reactions and 3+ players.

Except that none of the existing reactions would cause a player to reveal or not reveal the reaction depending on if other players revealed it. Of course you can construct edge cases where it would matter, but they would be extremely rare. With something where both you and the person who gained the card can react to the gain, it seems much more likely that your decision would be based on what your opponent does. Maybe not though; really it comes down to what happens when you react. I guess as long as it's the type of thing that both players can get benefit from when reacting to the same gain, it's ok.

[eHalcyon]

oh boy this is a close one. I like the idea of both players in a 2 player game being able to react, so I voted for anyone.

Hmm, this brings up a possible issue with that actually. Say it's your turn, and you gain a card. I have our reaction in-hand, but I can't reveal it quite yet; I have to wait to see if you are going to reveal it, since you would have first chance to do so as it's your turn. So I have to ask if you're going to reveal it, which also gives away some information. Maybe it's a card that you only want to reveal if you know I have one in my hand also.

The same kind of situation can already happen with most reactions and 3+ players.

Except that none of the existing reactions would cause a player to reveal or not reveal the reaction depending on if other players revealed it. Of course you can construct edge cases where it would matter, but they would be extremely rare. With something where both you and the person who gained the card can react to the gain, it seems much more likely that your decision would be based on what your opponent does. Maybe not though; really it comes down to what happens when you react. I guess as long as it's the type of thing that both players can get benefit from when reacting to the same gain, it's ok.

Right, my point is that we can certainly make sure the reaction isn't one where the order of reveal matters.  I don't think it would be any more likely to matter with "any player" compared to "any other player" 3+ players.  If we came up with something where that would be a problem with "any player", I expect it would be just as problematic with "any other player".

[GendoIkari]

oh boy this is a close one. I like the idea of both players in a 2 player game being able to react, so I voted for anyone.

Hmm, this brings up a possible issue with that actually. Say it's your turn, and you gain a card. I have our reaction in-hand, but I can't reveal it quite yet; I have to wait to see if you are going to reveal it, since you would have first chance to do so as it's your turn. So I have to ask if you're going to reveal it, which also gives away some information. Maybe it's a card that you only want to reveal if you know I have one in my hand also.

The same kind of situation can already happen with most reactions and 3+ players.

Except that none of the existing reactions would cause a player to reveal or not reveal the reaction depending on if other players revealed it. Of course you can construct edge cases where it would matter, but they would be extremely rare. With something where both you and the person who gained the card can react to the gain, it seems much more likely that your decision would be based on what your opponent does. Maybe not though; really it comes down to what happens when you react. I guess as long as it's the type of thing that both players can get benefit from when reacting to the same gain, it's ok.

Right, my point is that we can certainly make sure the reaction isn't one where the order of reveal matters.  I don't think it would be any more likely to matter with "any player" compared to "any other player" 3+ players.  If we came up with something where that would be a problem with "any player", I expect it would be just as problematic with "any other player".

Yeah, you're right. I still had in my mind some sort of reaction where it's different when you gain a card vs your opponent gaining a card; plus somehow that your opponent reacting to his gaining would preclude you reacting to it. I dunno, I guess like my previous bad idea of gaining the card instead of him.

[GendoIkari]

Poll closes in a couple hours, but new thread won't be until tomorrow. My thought for the next poll was more general mechanics before we move into having people send suggestions of actual cards to vote on. (Does it produce coin, does it decrease handsome when played vs cantrip, etc. )

Actually, I'm thinking we should vote on price first. I was going to have us decide price later, but if we already have a card, price should just be about balance, not opinion. If we vote on price, then people can send in ideas that fit the cost we've agreed on.

[Gubump]

Poll closes in a couple hours, but new thread won't be until tomorrow. My thought for the next poll was more general mechanics before we move into having people send suggestions of actual cards to vote on. (Does it produce coin, does it decrease handsome when played vs cantrip, etc. )

Actually, I'm thinking we should vote on price first. I was going to have us decide price later, but if we already have a card, price should just be about balance, not opinion. If we vote on price, then people can send in ideas that fit the cost we've agreed on.

It's hard to make interesting cards if you think of the cost first. I disagree and think that we should do price last.

[GendoIkari]

Poll closes in a couple hours, but new thread won't be until tomorrow. My thought for the next poll was more general mechanics before we move into having people send suggestions of actual cards to vote on. (Does it produce coin, does it decrease handsome when played vs cantrip, etc. )

Actually, I'm thinking we should vote on price first. I was going to have us decide price later, but if we already have a card, price should just be about balance, not opinion. If we vote on price, then people can send in ideas that fit the cost we've agreed on.

It's hard to make interesting cards if you think of the cost first. I disagree and think that we should do price last.

Why would following a price make it harder to be interesting? It just means that you know going into it if you want to make a weak card or a strong card.

[Roadrunner7671]

Poll closes in a couple hours, but new thread won't be until tomorrow. My thought for the next poll was more general mechanics before we move into having people send suggestions of actual cards to vote on. (Does it produce coin, does it decrease handsome when played vs cantrip, etc. )

Actually, I'm thinking we should vote on price first. I was going to have us decide price later, but if we already have a card, price should just be about balance, not opinion. If we vote on price, then people can send in ideas that fit the cost we've agreed on.

It's hard to make interesting cards if you think of the cost first. I disagree and think that we should do price last.

Why would following a price make it harder to be interesting? It just means that you know going into it if you want to make a weak card or a strong card.

Chapel is a strong card. Adventurer is a weak card.

[GendoIkari]

Poll closes in a couple hours, but new thread won't be until tomorrow. My thought for the next poll was more general mechanics before we move into having people send suggestions of actual cards to vote on. (Does it produce coin, does it decrease handsome when played vs cantrip, etc. )

Actually, I'm thinking we should vote on price first. I was going to have us decide price later, but if we already have a card, price should just be about balance, not opinion. If we vote on price, then people can send in ideas that fit the cost we've agreed on.

It's hard to make interesting cards if you think of the cost first. I disagree and think that we should do price last.

Why would following a price make it harder to be interesting? It just means that you know going into it if you want to make a weak card or a strong card.

Chapel is a strong card. Adventurer is a weak card.

I'll give you Chapel, but I'm pretty sure Adventurer is only weak because it is overcosted. But either way, I guess instead of "weak card or strong card", what I mean is that it gives you more constraints. And in this type of thing, we want as many constraints as possible. Otherwise we just have a bunch of people designing a card however they want and then we vote on the winner. Which is great for a fan card contest, but not at all what we want here. We want each part of the card to be designed as a collective. This means that when we get to the inevitable "send in your card ideas and we'll vote on them", we want as much of what those cards have to contain to have been already decided as possible.

[LastFootnote]

And in this type of thing, we want as many constraints as possible. Otherwise we just have a bunch of people designing a card however they want and then we vote on the winner. Which is great for a fan card contest, but not at all what we want here. We want each part of the card to be designed as a collective. This means that when we get to the inevitable "send in your card ideas and we'll vote on them", we want as much of what those cards have to contain to have been already decided as possible.

So, just to put in my 2¢:

GendoIkari, I support your decision 100% as far as this project is concerned. This project is designed to make a card by consensus, using polls to vote on the various bits. It's an interesting academic exercise and there's no reason not to do it.

It is worth noting, though, that this is a terrible way to actually make good cards. Just completely ass-backwards. So Gubump, I agree with you 100% that cost would normally be something that is tweaked as necessary to fit the concept, but that's also true of every other card aspect that has been polled so far.

[eHalcyon]

No matter the process we take to design the card (and assuming that this does go through to completion), it's virtually a given that tweaks for balance will need to be made afterwards.  One of the major levers for that is cost.  The way I see it, even if you vote on cost to start, it will be subject to change at the end anyway.

If you accept this as fact, then we can take it two ways.  The first is that an initial vote on cost is meaningless.  But I'll go with the second instead -- we can meaningful vote on a price to be our initial target and trust in good faith that participants will try to stick to it, with the caveat that the price is not concrete and may change at the end.

[liopoil]

I'd rather leave cost for later. We're certain to either miss the balanace point or constrain ourselves to much if we decide cost now.