PDA

View Full Version : Character Cards, the new Standard for Deck Design



dutpotd
10-06-2010, 11:20 AM
So, Jason posted a very good reply to our stimulating discussion amd posed a question of his own,

"I also want to know what the public view is on Character cards being the focal point of your deck?"

-Jason

I'm starting this thread for this very reason. I will edit in my own formal responde to this ASAP but feel free to start dicussing/answering here beforehand.

- dut

Hayamachop
10-06-2010, 11:24 AM
Isn't that how all decks should be played? Building great combos with different cards you put in your deck. Its the only ability that you will always for sure have.

Hatman
10-06-2010, 11:28 AM
Character cards are the start and end of your deck.

Or at least, they should be. One of the decks I'm planning has interchangeable character cards.

If I had to classify how powerful cards should be, it'd be, from top to bottom :

Characters
Actions
Attacks
Assets
Foundations.

Attacks before Assets because Attacks carry the inherent penalty of being a bad check.

failed2k
10-06-2010, 11:56 AM
If I wanted to play a game where the character cards don't matter, I would play Magic.

Playing and synergizing with your character IS the game to me.

dutpotd
10-06-2010, 11:57 AM
Isn't that how all decks should be played? Building great combos with different cards you put in your deck. Its the only ability that you will always for sure have.

Not necessarily... Note that 8hs Gill is usually just that, symbols and cards. It is also a question of card support. Should there be x number of cards that highlight and accentuate a character ability, or should these support cards be more useful in general by all characters with shared symbols?

Think more deeply about the question as it relates to the power of non-character cards in relation to character cards, the overall balance of the game, etc.

I am still writing my response to go in the opening post.

- dut

RockStar
10-06-2010, 12:10 PM
I ONLY build decks around characters that i'm invested in, either because they were my favorite characters at the arcades/consoles (SSIV, Tekken, or SoulCal, or SNK...), or because there is something very interesting about a character's look or background/story.

So, for me, the character is THE starting and focal point of this game!

Heck, when i describe to people why i love this game it goes something like this..."I love this game, because i can play my favorite arcade fighting characters, AND i get to design their kung fu!!"

~ RockStar

tannerface
10-06-2010, 12:29 PM
I think character cards are definitely what get people into this game. The mechanics are what keep them coming back for more. As far as deckbuilding, characters have been useless as far as abilities go in the past, since all you need is an 8hs and OP cards in your deck (looking at spiral arrow and it's enablers). I would like to see things get back to where your character makes a difference in your deck. However I would also like to see more character only stuff. Character only things give you more reason to play a character over another. Like off earth, if astaroths throw was like a 4 diff, than you would play him over king for that reason (maybe not a good reason but you see what I'm getting at).

Judas225
10-06-2010, 02:49 PM
Typically you choose character for their specific abilities and build a deck around that, which is something we need to keep people interested. However, whether you realize it or not that character is simply an enhancement of the overall deck. Could you put another character in front of the deck? For most characters, yes you could, and the deck would still run 90% the same with a few specific exceptions. You character may be the basis for your design, but more often than not it ends up being a choice of how to "top off" your deck.

Astrid and Heihachi are the only characters that come to mind right now (I'm sure I'm missing somebody) that make the deck work specifically because of their abilities. Nearly all other characters allow you to build a deck with several different strategies in mind. Not saying it's a bad thing, I like that you can change your character between games, so therefore while character choice and design may be a major focal point for the overall game, a character should not always force a specific way to build a deck around that character to be effective. I much prefer the open-ended "built for one character but can change to another character if needed" that we have now.

Although at the same time I do think there should be a few more character only cards, as this would give individual characters a more definite identity. Just not something as bad as Christie's Fruit Picker that's just not worth playing because of the combo requirements and the difficulty. For that effort there are a ton of better ways to go for the kill. Just using that as a reference, nothing more.

Amaru
10-06-2010, 04:12 PM
I mostly agree what the list Hatman posted, Characters are the heart of this game, and as such they need to carry abilities that are more developed and more interesting than most others card types (Actions being the only exception I could see). However as was seen in the past. Characters can end up becoming just Symbols and Hand size, the cause of that being very VERY bad design!

To avoid ending up with wasted Characters there are a few things that need to be changed with the way Characters are made, and some stuffs that could be done to make them better:

- If we are following the 2 abilities per character, the first ability should mostly ALWAYS be an Enhance that can be played on the maximum of attacks. That means the enhance must have low cost (free behind the best option everytime, if balance permit). Such enhance help not only define the Character has they 'reflavor' every attack that are used by them or against them. This is a kind "hey this is what I do!", either it is boosting attack or reducing damage. Those abilities need to be extremely balanced as they are the one that people will see around a lot, and in the past are the one that ended dominating in the past (like one making people discard all around the game)!

- If we are still following the 2 abilities per character, the second ability should always be the big ability, close to game-turning, ability. Creating situations that are either very disrupting for the opponent or very helpful to you. No character should be denied this kind of ability as they give some 'boom' aspect to the character. Those abilities should be expensive, and synergistic with the character .

- Do not make reactionary or situational abilities on character cards. I mean really, that just dumb! You just condemn this character to a life of never be used for itself but be valued from another character card. Give those to the Action and the Foundation cards, those are the ones that can support being made against a strategy, a mechanic, to put it simply, be used for meta-gaming.

I will post other design points but I think those are the most important.

Tagrineth
10-06-2010, 04:52 PM
I don't think Amaru's suggestion of there being a "formula" for characters' abilities is any good at all. :s I don't want EVERY character to have an Enhance ability, that's just asinine. Continue to be flexible.

The only character that was ever truly blank with just symbols and hand size was Gill, and that's because he's a frigging 8/20 with three of the best symbols in his format.

edit: oh right and more on topic. Characters have always been the focal point of deck construction. Why do you think Nakoruru2 was so good?

Amaru
10-06-2010, 05:06 PM
I don't think Amaru's suggestion of there being a "formula" for characters' abilities is any good at all. :s I don't want EVERY character to have an Enhance ability, that's just asinine. Continue to be flexible.

The EVERY in your post is pretty important, as is the "mostly" in my post.

Not gonna lie, I think you are being biased on this one, Enhance are one of the most defining mechanic of this game, of course not all characters should have enhance, but you mostly want that. Characters represent a character fighting, Enhance represent what they do of their attacks which seems pretty important to me. Forms are less exciting than Enhance, and Responses make the character dependent on what happens, or worse, on what the opponent do. Characters need to stand by themselves.

If Characters have always been the focal point of deck construction, why was it noted that you could swap characters on the same deck and still have it perform the same? Don't seems to 'focus'-like to me...

Tagrineth
10-06-2010, 05:23 PM
I disagree because we just got a brand new, all-response-based character who isn't dependent on what her opponent does (though which one she needs to focus on IS dependent on her opponent, but that's part of the spice of CCGs!).

If MOST characters are just E: Do Stuff, Doesn't Matter What Your Opponent Does, you'll see mostly solitaire beat-face decks (which is what the format is right now, and kinda bland at that).

Forms are hardly boring. Look at Mitsurugi and King. They're both amazing Form-based characters whose Enhances are borderline throwaway effects.


Also, who noted that swapping characters got you the same performance? Maybe if you swap two very similar characters (like, say, Cammy3 and Cassandra3 back in the day)... but generally swapping characters is done to get you slightly different performance against different opponents (using another Death example, leading with Cassie3 and subbing into Nakoruru2 against opponents that sided anti-discard). Usually this involves reducing your main deck's performance slightly (you're still running Ancient Insights and possibly other discard-related stuff even though your character no longer supports the tactic).

So yes, characters have always been the focal point of deck construction. To say otherwise is insane.

Hatman
10-06-2010, 05:35 PM
Forms are hardly boring. Look at Mitsurugi and King. They're both amazing Form-based characters whose Enhances are borderline throwaway effects.

additional fuel for People's Hero lol

Amaru
10-06-2010, 06:06 PM
I disagree because we just got a brand new, all-response-based character who isn't dependent on what her opponent does (though which one she needs to focus on IS dependent on her opponent, but that's part of the spice of CCGs!).

So the card is indeed dependent on what the opponent do. It's not the spice of CCGs, it's bad design. Again as I said, Characters need to be able to stand by themselves, Responses are very bad for that, and if they are triggered out of your own action, then yes, in this case you are likely to see solitaire decks. There is less interactivity in a Response than there is to an Enhance.

A very simple test to your point is would you want the game to be comprised of mostly Response based characters? I expect newcomers to be disappointed a lot in this case, when they do not get the opportunity to play their characters in some matches. Also good luck designing characters in this case, you would rapidly end up with more complicated triggers, and broken things that only ability negating effects can get rid off, you might like that, newcomers probably not.

When you turn this to Enhance, you end up with way less problem.



If MOST characters are just E: Do Stuff, Doesn't Matter What Your Opponent Does, you'll see mostly solitaire beat-face decks (which is what the format is right now, and kinda bland at that).

Forms are hardly boring. Look at Mitsurugi and King. They're both amazing Form-based characters whose Enhances are borderline throwaway effects.


If I want to play a form based game I can always go play Magic. The 'less than Enhance' in my post is pretty important. I think you are looking at this problem with the wrong view. As Enhance can be based around the attacks they are going to be played on and they have everything Forms have. In a design, and not competitive, point of view, Enhance are better.



Also, who noted that swapping characters got you the same performance? Maybe if you swap two very similar characters (like, say, Cammy3 and Cassandra3 back in the day)... but generally swapping characters is done to get you slightly different performance against different opponents (using another Death example, leading with Cassie3 and subbing into Nakoruru2 against opponents that sided anti-discard). Usually this involves reducing your main deck's performance slightly (you're still running Ancient Insights and possibly other discard-related stuff even though your character no longer supports the tactic).

Judas255 did, and if you take into account all the emphasis the game put on Symbols I can see that easily happening. Granted I quitted the game for a time so I can't give you specific examples, but I'm sure that people who have been around can give you example of decks who were pretty much the same except the character card (and hell, you even provided one).



So yes, characters have always been the focal point of deck construction. To say otherwise is insane.

It is because you say so right?

Judas225
10-06-2010, 06:16 PM
I disagree because we just got a brand new, all-response-based character who isn't dependent on what her opponent does (though which one she needs to focus on IS dependent on her opponent, but that's part of the spice of CCGs!).

If MOST characters are just E: Do Stuff, Doesn't Matter What Your Opponent Does, you'll see mostly solitaire beat-face decks (which is what the format is right now, and kinda bland at that).

Forms are hardly boring. Look at Mitsurugi and King. They're both amazing Form-based characters whose Enhances are borderline throwaway effects.


Also, who noted that swapping characters got you the same performance? Maybe if you swap two very similar characters (like, say, Cammy3 and Cassandra3 back in the day)... but generally swapping characters is done to get you slightly different performance against different opponents (using another Death example, leading with Cassie3 and subbing into Nakoruru2 against opponents that sided anti-discard). Usually this involves reducing your main deck's performance slightly (you're still running Ancient Insights and possibly other discard-related stuff even though your character no longer supports the tactic).

So yes, characters have always been the focal point of deck construction. To say otherwise is insane.

I mentioned decks running near identical if you swap characters around but I guess I skipped over a point or two. What I was trying to say is pretty much in line with what you just said. "Slightly different performance". For the most part the deck is going to play the same regardless of who you put in front of it, as a result of what you put in the deck. However, the deck will present a slightly different focus when you change to a different character.

My point was, because of this ability to swap characters and therefore alter the way your deck performs, that in my opinion characters are more of an "ehancement tool" used to either compensate for the deck's shortcomings (Cassandra's E with deck focusing mostly on damage pumps) or to enhance and support the deck's overall strategy (Lu Chen rewards you for playing reversals and blocking).

Yes you have decks built around characters. Yes characters are still considered the focal point of deck building. I mean if you build a reversal deck you're not going to play Astrid in front of it. It's just that some decks are able to change characters freely whereas some decks have to be focused on explointing one specific character. I like the versatility of this, I don't want every character to end up like Heihachi or Astrid.

Amaru
10-06-2010, 06:18 PM
So characters have not always been the focal point of deck construction. Do you agree to that?

Tagrineth
10-06-2010, 06:21 PM
So the card is indeed dependent on what the opponent do. It's not the spice of CCGs, it is bad design. Again as I said, Characters need to be able to stand by themselves, Responses are very bad for that, and if they are triggered out of your own action, then yes, in this case you are likely to see solitaire decks. There is less interactivity in a Response than there is to an Enhance.

Interaction between both players is bad design? what

Enhances have less interactivity by definition. You use an Enhance. end of story. Your opponent can't chain to it, they can't do anything with their own Enhances in response (barring the mundane example of +/- damage, for example). Responses beget more responses, and foster interaction between both players. Isn't that the reason we PLAY these games?


A very simple test to your point is would you want the game to be comprised of mostly Response based characters? I expect newcomers to be disappointed a lot in this case, when they do not get the opportunity to play their characters in some matches. Also good luck designing characters in this case, you would rapidly end up with more complicated triggers, and broken things that only ability negating effects can get rid off, you might like that, newcomers probably not.

you're taking things to their most illogical extreme. I never said I thought "most" characters should have responses either.

I don't think "most" characters should have the same abilities. There are three different ability types, WHY shouldn't they be represented relatively evenly between the character types?


When you turn this to Enhance, you end up with way less problem.

yeah instead you end up with... the current format. /yay


If I want to play a form based game I can always go play Magic. The 'less than Enhance' in my post is pretty important. I think you are looking at this problem with the wrong view. At Enhance can be based around the attacks they are going to be played on and they have everything Forms have. In a design, and not competitive, point of view, Enhance are better.

Again, illogical extremes. I never said cards should be predominantly Form-based. They're just another option to foster different methods for playing and different triggers for your opponent, as well as giving options like having a one-time cost across the turn (which Enhances don't unless you want them to be stackable, which results in stuff like Jin...)


It is because you say so right?

:):):):) you, I'm using examples and reasoning. You're the one making illogical arguments based on slippery slopes and extremes.

edit:

So characters have not always been the focal point of deck construction. Do you agree to that?

ILLOGICAL
EXTREMES.

Judas225
10-06-2010, 06:28 PM
So characters have not always been the focal point of deck construction. Do you agree to that?

Characters dictate what decks are worth building and what decks aren't going to be effective. Yet certain characters tell you to build a specific style of deck that only works with that character. So in that sense, yes, they are the focal point. I'm not referring to anything outside of Standard right now.

Astrid without weapons may as well be blank. Christie without kicks or Temujin without combos or momentum gen would be much the same. You can build a Chaos Jin or Kazuya deck and swap into Kilik, but if you aren't running enough momentum gen or enough defense to wall up Kilik isn't going to be very effective. On the other hand, Life Tira swapping into Life Kisheri or Xianghua would change the overall way the deck plays without changing the primary focus of the deck itself.


I support Tag and his opinions on this matter, as they are roughly identical to my own.

Amaru
10-06-2010, 06:28 PM
Responses begets more responses, and will make the game uber complicated, it would be revelating if you don't see how.

So the type of ability original to this game have less interactivity than something based on a specific event happening from time to time. That might be a problem that need to be dealt with if you want my opinion.

I'm sure newcomers to the game would love your idea of what the game should be.

You know what, whatever you say dude, let's get some other input in this thread.

B-Rad
10-06-2010, 07:07 PM
Responses begets more responses, and will make the game uber complicated, it would be revelating if you don't see how.

So the type of ability original to this game have less interactivity than something based on a specific event happening from time to time. That might be a problem that need to be dealt with if you want my opinion.

I'm sure newcomers to the game would love your idea of what the game should be.

You know what, whatever you say dude, let's get some other input in this thread.

If you want to go play a dirt simple, I smash you in the face game then go play Pokemon. UFS has always been about interaction between players and their respective decks.

Back to the point at hand, in this format now the majority of characters (with a few key exceptions) can more or less be swapped with impunity. A Fire deck is a fire deck for the most part. You'll see the same thing over and over again, but such is the case with the limited card pool we have. A Fire Paul deck can run the same attack lineup as a Fire Cassandra deck and roughly the same in the standings. Now granted there are exceptions as I mentioned above (King and Astrid come to mind) but on the whole, one could play a toolbox deck off the majority of symbols and not have too many problems.

Tagrineth
10-06-2010, 07:19 PM
Responses begets more responses, and will make the game uber complicated, it would be revelating if you don't see how.

Only if the cards are designed badly (which they have been in the past lolHigherCalibur) but saying we shouldn't have any responses or response-based decks because it over complicates things... is over simplifying things.

If the game becomes nothing but Attack-E-E-block-Attack-E-E-block-Attack-E-E-block... I'll quit.

Amaru
10-06-2010, 07:24 PM
@B-Rad
I like how you are agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time :D.

One point before whats important, the "if you don't like it go play something else" is the WORSE thing you can ever come up while discussing this game. SERIOUSLY, if after two bankrupt you guys still don't realize that this game need players and the worst thing you can do is scare them to another game, we are in trouble.

Back on track, having characters with at least one Enhance in general is far from saying those enhances should be "smash in the face"-like. You also don't want them to be over-complicated too, what they should be is middle-range in complexity, with the focus being on making the ability original and flavorful.

Interaction with Enhance is better cos they can be modulated on which attack they are played on, enhancing their role in the process, and attacks are another defining element of the game. How else can you interact with Responses other than reacting to the same trigger?? Since responses can be triggered out of virtually everything, good luck with making that happens often.

Cetonis
10-06-2010, 07:42 PM
Wait, so why is it we want to cut off vast swaths of design space all of a sudden...?

RockStar
10-06-2010, 07:47 PM
Seriously, i'm not exactly sure what all the fuss is about. I think we can all agree that what we are wanting to see from future Sets are characters that are well-designed in that, not only are they very unique and have unique/fresh abilities, but that they are balanced within the same power level of the current Meta.

Whether or not characters have abilities that are F, E, R, or even FirstF or FirstE...i don't care...just make it cool!!

Amaru
10-06-2010, 07:49 PM
Wait, so why is it we want to cut off vast swaths of design space all of a sudden...?

Huh? I don't really understand?

Hatman
10-06-2010, 07:49 PM
Whether or not characters have abilities that are F, E, R, or even FirstF or FirstE...i don't care...just make it cool!!

First E/First R aren't remotely being used enough.

yes first R.

Judas225
10-06-2010, 08:02 PM
@B-Rad
I like how you are agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time :D.

One point before whats important, the "if you don't like it go play something else" is the WORSE thing you can ever come up while discussing this game. SERIOUSLY, if after two bankrupt you guys still don't realize that this game need players and the worst thing you can do is scare them to another game, we are in trouble.

Back on track, having characters with at least one Enhance in general is far from saying those enhances should be "smash in the face"-like. You also don't want them to be over-complicated too, what they should be is middle-range in complexity, with the focus being on making the ability original and flavorful.

Interaction with Enhance is better cos they can be modulated on which attack they are played on, enhancing their role in the process, and attacks are another defining element of the game. How else can you interact with Responses other than reacting to the same trigger?? Since responses can be triggered out of virtually everything, good luck with making that happens often.

Most players would favor the versatility of having characters that can have a combination of F, R, and E without giving an overwhelming focus to one combination. I remember it being stated some time ago that characters like King and Mitsurugi were almost printed without their E abilities, and I tihnk that would have been perfectly fine.

Not every character needs to have two abilities. Not every character needs to have one enhance ability to go along with whatever else they have. It may add versatility, but if one effect is powerful enough by itself you don't necessarily need to have a second ability. Characters need to be versatile in both play and design. Give characters R's and F's. Hell give characters a static ability strong enough that it doesn't need anything else.

As far as "how else can you interact with responses?" Your example is assuming you both have the same type o So let's see what some triggers would be for responses hmm?

When your combat phase begins. When you play an attack. When your opponent plays an attack. When your opponent plays a foundation. After a card has been resolved. When your opponent plays an enhance. When your opponent plays a response. If this attack deals damage. Before this attack deals damage.

There are a ton of situations that would let you play responses. That is interaction. Having to wonder whether or not your opponent is going to respond when your attack is blocked makes you think twice about what resources you want to put into an attack. That is interaction. Deciding whether to negate this enhance or wait for the next one. It all leads to interaction. Because you, or your opponent, doesn't have to just sit there and watch everything you do until the block step, it gives players more options and more things to consider.

Having to go E,E,E,E, block step on every attack is only interaction if you have something that specifically applies to your opponent's attack. It already happens now and it's not very fun if it happens all the time.

Starsoulklr
10-07-2010, 12:15 AM
Reactions aren't a bad thing but reaction wars can really draw out a game especially negation ones. Punishment reactions I find to be fun:

"Didn't play an attack? I'll Commit a card and you discard one."

However Characters should be the main staple of a deck. Sure you can say your deck use this or those symbols but naming the character themselves adds some personality to it.

RockStar
10-07-2010, 04:56 AM
First E/First R aren't remotely being used enough.

yes first R.

As i stated...don't care that it's a FirstR...just make it cool!!

JinKazama
10-07-2010, 06:33 AM
Forms are hardly boring. Look at Mitsurugi and King. They're both amazing Form-based characters whose Enhances are borderline throwaway effects.

I agree with you tag, but did you say mitsurugi's E is a throw away effect?

Hatman
10-07-2010, 08:12 AM
"Didn't play an attack? I'll Commit a card and you discard one."

However Characters should be the main staple of a deck. Sure you can say your deck use this or those symbols but naming the character themselves adds some personality to it.
There's a reason I build decks with Mini-Wheats and Tower of Remembrance : Degradation (or whatever the Nightmare terrain is). That's precisely the reason.

Amaru
10-07-2010, 01:19 PM
I stand by my point that Characters should all support Enhances has their main form of abilities, they are the most original to the game from the all 3 abilities, easy enhances on a characters reinforce the need to choose the best attacks for your characters instead of just the best attacks of his or her symbols (If the enhances are modulated in function of the attack they are played on), and they are what would be most intuitive and exciting to learn for the newcomers (You want newcomers to learn about Enhances and like them). The nature of Character cards should favor Enhances (they should ALWAYS get at least one Enhance ability) with lower emphasis on Forms, and as little emphasis as possible on Responses. Actions should be the ones supporting Responses and Forms, and Foundations should support Enhances and Responses.

Now to continue on the subject, other design points on the making of Characters cards:

- Make using different versions of the same characters matters. Kazuya was an interesting try on that, but what really need to be done is sometimes create more linking between the abilities of different versions, I liked the interaction between Sophitia 1 and Sophitia 3 Defense Tokens abilities. It would be nice to see that happens more often.

- As a result of that, The whole trying to vary the symbols on new iterations of the character, this shows one of the weakness of the resource symbols system as a descriptive system. You know this is not going to get you far, so far from what I see at each iteration of the character the 2 symbols defining the character and the extra symbols is changed. A good example is Taki, she is Air and All, at each iteraction she got Death, then Life, then for some reasons she shifted to Air-Evil and got Order, then she want back to Air-All and got Balance, and then got Evil O.o, and then Void. The problem is simple to see here, what are you going to do after you give her all symbols as extra symbol??? Oh I know shift her to Air-Evil and then repeat the cycle?? And after that?? In the end you end with a character with all freaking symbols!
I'm not going to discuss how in my opinion it shows how the resource rule fail at describing what a character is about or their style. What I will discuss is how the emphasis on the symbols need to be reduced, you do not need to change the symbols on each Character iteration, hell you just can't as I showed, what is important is the variation in character abilities on each iteration.

- And as a continuation of that, Stop the whole Point numbering system to differentiate the different versions of the character. I'm surprised this standard managed to stay for so long, it is literally stupid. One of the defining points of fighting games are the flavors of each characters, their style, their stories, ect..., it is an insult to it that the only system found was a stupid point numbering system, I mean really. I remember talking about Freeman about this whole and he said it was a temporary system, well it is time to move on this thing.
I don't know if you have been following what Wizards is trying to do with the last sets of Magic, if you did you must have noticed that now they are focusing on making the game more flavorful, what is M10 and M11 but attempt to make the game resemble what a fantasy themed game should be. Zendikar was based on a fantasy world that captured and was one of their most successful set in a long time. Scars is broken as hell, but the designers have stated that what they wanted to do with the cards is have them relate a story, the story of the invasion of Phyrexia of the Mirrodin plane.
The point is Wizards know that Flavor Sells! One of the thing FFG and STG never got is complexity attract nobody but the hardcore players, and not only there is not a lot of them, but nobody like to play with them. The casual players are the one who are going to make you sell things, and what attracts them is not numbers, but flavor, card art, being able to make the deck that is fun to play to them. Having them see the 36th version of Kyo is not going to evoke anything more than "oh, Another One", thats what they will instinctively thinks with this number system. On the other side, if they see something like "Kyo, on Fire", THAT can evoke something to them. Of course the "on Fire" can be anything more evocative, but at least with a title system you have a chance to evoke something on the player's mind.
If for some reasons thats no argument enough for you just ask yourself what you gonna do when we get to Nehtali 17, sound inspiring huh. Bet they will end with a roman number system when they wont be enough space on the cards for the dots LOL, way to be current.

I have presented this point to both STG and FFG for a long time and they always fail to realize the truth behind them. I have faith that Jasco Games will see the reasoning behind it, hell it doesn't take a genius to realize that. Characters cards ARE the face of the game, as Planewalkers became the face of Magic, Wizard made a great job at making flavorful (and didn't fall for the simplistic idea of just numbering the Planewalker version, and they could, after all they did it in Pokemon) by also naming spells at the planeswalker using it (like Jace's Ingenuity, ect...). The faces of our game need to be represented by more than freaking numbers.

Tagrineth
10-07-2010, 02:15 PM
- Make using different versions of the same characters matters. Kazuya was an interesting try on that, but what really need to be done is sometimes create more linking between the abilities of different versions, I liked the interaction between Sophitia 1 and Sophitia 3 Defense Tokens abilities. It would be nice to see that happens more often.

James had actually been working on this since we'd been telling STG and FFG for years that we wanted more character-stacking interactions. The only strong characters before James's cards that really benefited from stacking were Twelve, Yo:):):):)ora, and Cody... James gave us Kazuya, Jin, and Astrid, literally doubling our quality stackable character count in one set (all three characters are technically 'tied' to the Tekken release period). (note: I don't count Yi Shan as he was never any good in the meta)

I'm assuming Jason's aware of how much we love stacking characters for additional effects, so I'm sure we'll see more in due course.



I'm not going to discuss how in my opinion it shows how the resource rule fail at describing what a character is about or their style. What I will discuss is how the emphasis on the symbols need to be reduced, you do not need to change the symbols on each Character iteration, hell you just can't as I showed, what is important is the variation in character abilities on each iteration.

This whole tack just fails.

No, characters should not retain the same three symbols forever.

The symbols don't just represent that character's specific style, but ever since set 1 they've also represented what play style the developers wanted to give the character access to. Good example: Cody. Look at the four different versions of Cody.

Cody1: Momentum generation, CC modification. Air/Evil/Fire. Fire is his primary symbol that suggests an aggressive style. Air and Evil are momentum and control check centric.
Cody2: Foundation lockdown, along with momentum reliance. Air/Death/Fire. Again, Fire is primary and supports aggression. His ability needs momentum, so he gets Air again... and Death supports foundation lockdown while still being more on the aggressive slant.
Cody3: Hand control and negation. Evil/Death/Fire. Again, he gets Fire because he's intended to support aggression if desired. Evil and Death are both hand control/negation themes, so... Also, Cody3 intentionally does not share more than 1 symbol with his other versions, to retain the difficulty of the costs of his effects.
Cody4: Card draw and... aggression. Air/All/Fire. All is generally card draw related, so he was given All to support that concept. Fire is his common symbol, and he was given Air to support use with Cody1 and Cody2 for his trigger.

If all four versions of Cody had the same three symbols... Cody3 would probably be borderline banworthy.

Amaru
10-07-2010, 03:54 PM
You realize thanks to character stacking Cody has potentially the ability to play Fire, Air, Evil and Death. Oh btw I see a lot of focus in the ability the different Cody have in terms of ability :P. I'm sure Foundation lockdown, Hand Control, and Negation totally fits a "Fire" Character :P.

It is good that you noticed the underlined "need" in my post :P. You can change the symbols from time to time, you just should NOT feel obliged to do it everytime. Focus on making the abilities change and stay on focus with what the character is, instead of always having to go in every freaking direction because you have to change the symbols everytime. There is only a finite number of variation you can end up with before having the same combination again or denaturing what the character is about.

Oh and again, I AM NOT taking this on the competitive or tournament-worthy point of view but on the DESIGN point of view.

Me out.

Da_ghetto_gamer
10-07-2010, 04:09 PM
This thread has got me thinking about the alot of characters and thier abilities right now and while i think about this my 3 out of my 4 favorite charcters dont even have forms....Padma, Nehtali, and Nina all 3 charcters support a different kind of deck and work fine without any kind of enhance ability(the 4th being yun-seoung whos main focus is his form as well)....so to be fair it really just depends on your playstyle and what you like, which is why we need to keep things open and fresh

I do however like the idea of every character having more then 1 ability unless that ability is one that cant really be messed with by your opponent because if it the focal point of the deck and your opponent has ways around it then your decks in a bad situation if it has another ability that can compliment what your trying to do it wont be as bad.

Lets just let the designers of the game come up with whatever fun and exciting abilities they can and no matter what they happen to be then as long as they are balanced and fun i think we can all find something we like and can play around with

Amaru
10-07-2010, 04:55 PM
This thread has got me thinking about the alot of characters and thier abilities right now and while i think about this my 3 out of my 4 favorite charcters dont even have forms....Padma, Nehtali, and Nina all 3 charcters support a different kind of deck and work fine without any kind of enhance ability(the 4th being yun-seoung whos main focus is his form as well)....so to be fair it really just depends on your playstyle and what you like, which is why we need to keep things open and fresh

Don't forget that I'm trying to see all of this through the eyes of a newcomer, it doesn't surprise me that most people here are somewhat shocked when I start saying that Enhance should the focus point of Characters, people here have been trained to like that, what surprise me is that they refuse to consider the view of someone who is not playing the game when what the game need so badly right now IS new players.

Enhance are what are going to make someone like this game and go "woah" when you explain him how it is. Next, Character abilities are going to be the ones you are going to always see through your game, and that you probably have this expectation of being played often because thats what your character is, thats what he does. Implementing that with Response is complex and dangerous as you run the risk of making this ability never playable cos of lack of trigger at the right moment, or worst having to be played too much everytime cos of the frequency of the trigger, you pretty much end up reacting to triggers than playing the ability.

When it comes to form there is one thing you might have noticed is that most of the Forms of the characters you have cited are playable once a turn, granted they would be great high cost 2nd ability if they were costed and more "boom" like, but by themselves they just make the character card less influent on what happens in the game.



I do however like the idea of every character having more then 1 ability unless that ability is one that cant really be messed with by your opponent because if it the focal point of the deck and your opponent has ways around it then your decks in a bad situation if it has another ability that can compliment what your trying to do it wont be as bad.

I guess we can agree to that :D.



Lets just let the designers of the game come up with whatever fun and exciting abilities they can and no matter what they happen to be then as long as they are balanced and fun i think we can all find something we like and can play around with

The main designer of Magic as a saying about that ala "Limit breed Creativity". If you can do everything there is no point in design. One limit that I see would be profitable to design and gameplay would be the 1 Easy Enhance ability for Character card.

Judas225
10-07-2010, 06:20 PM
Don't forget that I'm trying to see all of this through the eyes of a newcomer, it doesn't surprise me that most people here are somewhat shocked when I start saying that Enhance should the focus point of Characters, people here have been trained to like that, what surprise me is that they refuse to consider the view of someone who is not playing the game when what the game need so badly right now IS new players.

Enhance are what are going to make someone like this game and go "woah" when you explain him how it is. Next, Character abilities are going to be the ones you are going to always see through your game, and that you probably have this expectation of being played often because thats what your character is, thats what he does. Implementing that with Response is complex and dangerous as you run the risk of making this ability never playable cos of lack of trigger at the right moment, or worst having to be played too much everytime cos of the frequency of the trigger, you pretty much end up reacting to triggers than playing the ability.



Ok let's set a few things straight here.
First, while we do need new players, we DON'T need players who are going to come in and say "WAH!!! if this game doesn't do what I want I'm not going to play it." If you're going to play a game, you're not going to sit there and whine about every little thing you don't like, or try and force the game to go in the direction you want it to.

Second. You have an opinion, we have an opinion. It's part of this spiffy new thing called "a discussion". Now stop acting like you're the only one entitled to an opinion, and stop acting like you're the only one whose opinion matters, because you're simply not. We've been doing this a few days now, and Tagrineth, myself, and others have posted opinions IN RESPONSE TO YOURS and all you've basically said is "you are all wrong, my way is the only way." The fact that we have an opinion that counters your opinion means we are, in fact, taking your opinion into consideration.

Third (and this is actually relevant to the discussion) Do you hate Magic or do you like Magic? Since you've gotten into these debates you seem to be using Magic as an example of a game you don't want to play. Yet when you find people still have counters to your infinite wisdom you and cite the game that you hate so much. So which is it? Should we be more like Magic (as a whole) or should we be less like Magic? It seems to me you're just looking for a scapegoat because you have no other way to make a point.

Now let's move on to the rest of your post.
Enhances are already the meat of the game. That's why there's so many of them available and so few responses and forms right now. Why should we force the design team to do more of the same? What would that do for the game? It would basically make the game into two solitaire players staring at each other if you had no responses to facilitate interaction. If I can do something and my opponent can't do anything about it but block, where's the challenge?

Are you going to say that Padma was a bad design? Or Ivy(debatable) or Nina, just because they don't have enhances?

There's more I'd like to say but unfortunately I have to leave now

Hatman
10-07-2010, 06:31 PM
Responses coming from everywhere at once is one of the most fun things about this game. You have to find the chink in the armor, and even then, there's still a hidden resource (the hand) that you can easily overlook. Same with the character.

With Responses/Forms out the window for characters, we'd soon have very bland, unoriginal characters.

Amaru
10-07-2010, 07:11 PM
Ok let's set a few things straight here.
First, while we do need new players, we DON'T need players who are going to come in and say "WAH!!! if this game doesn't do what I want I'm not going to play it." If you're going to play a game, you're not going to sit there and whine about every little thing you don't like, or try and force the game to go in the direction you want it to.

There is an important thing about design in that you have to meet expectations. If you don't people will walk away and buy something else. This player that is whining is right, if the game doesn't do what he or she wants he won't play it, it is the designer job to make sure that doesn't happens. So you actually want those players in the game.



Second. You have an opinion, we have an opinion. It's part of this spiffy new thing called "a discussion". Now stop acting like you're the only one entitled to an opinion, and stop acting like you're the only one whose opinion matters, because you're simply not. We've been doing this a few days now, and Tagrineth, myself, and others have posted opinions IN RESPONSE TO YOURS and all you've basically said is "you are all wrong, my way is the only way." The fact that we have an opinion that counters your opinion means we are, in fact, taking your opinion into consideration.

Just because you have an opinion do not entitle you to anything if you do not back it up, I saw your opinions and see points that are wrong and provide explanations to why I find them wrong. And as I see your points I still see nothing to convince me that my points are wrong.



Third (and this is actually relevant to the discussion) Do you hate Magic or do you like Magic? Since you've gotten into these debates you seem to be using Magic as an example of a game you don't want to play. Yet when you find people still have counters to your infinite wisdom you and cite the game that you hate so much. So which is it? Should we be more like Magic (as a whole) or should we be less like Magic? It seems to me you're just looking for a scapegoat because you have no other way to make a point.

Magic is a good game, I don't hate but I'm not going to play it for a while. The Design team of Magic is amazing and you can easily see how they do their best to make their game good. Where some problem arise on the development part that let some stupid and unfun formats be created and in the process create Chase Cards that are needed to win with an insane price tag. The best case would be to have UFS take the best aspects of Magic and leave the worst (like the stupid economy of Magic). Oh and by the way it seems like you are starting to take this on a personal level, you don't need to.



Now let's move on to the rest of your post.
Enhances are already the meat of the game. That's why there's so many of them available and so few responses and forms right now. Why should we force the design team to do more of the same? What would that do for the game? It would basically make the game into two solitaire players staring at each other if you had no responses to facilitate interaction. If I can do something and my opponent can't do anything about it but block, where's the challenge?


In case you have noticed we are focusing on Character card here, not the whole game. What would that do for the game, give the game more focus on Attacks, make Character more flavorful (it would represent their style) and give them more connections to the attacks you play them with. Again Responses do not further interaction, they are more like traps, traps are hardly interactive, especially in this game where the only way to not trigger them is to avoid the trigger, how do you avoid playing an attack, or drawing a card? Unless the Response is extremely punishing you don't, it is that simple. Now when the response affects you, they are more combo like than anything, or are pretty much like Enhances, Padma R ability look a lot like an Enhance to me, the fact that it is a Response add nothing to it.

Responses are complicated and in this sense do not belong on Characters as much as Enhances do, you want the abilities on your Character to be flavorful, defining, and to stand by themselves, what better way than also make them attached to attacks too. Magic attach a lot of their abilities to Creatures in the same logic.

It seems to me that you are underestimating what can be done with Enhances which is a shame since they are one of the central mechanic of this game. You also like this solitaire example, so you pretty much imply that the Enhance step is a boring and non-interactive step. You might be right, if it is, this is a problem and need to be changed. The enhance step should be either a fight around the attack played, or the occasion to disrupt the opponent play of enhance by either changing the attack or negating, hardly boring.



Are you going to say that Padma was a bad design? Or Ivy(debatable) or Nina, just because they don't have enhances?


Padma is indeed bad design, the R ability could have been made into an enhance without anything lost, the Response aspect add nothing. The second ability is nothing near spectacular, sure it is synergistic with the first ability, but lacking in the term of wow effect. Nina too, her ability come once in a while and then done until your next turn, A lot of things happen during the rest of your turn and your opponent turn and she just sit there and watch giving nothing more than her symbols. BTW which Ivy are talking about?

It seems like you are starting to get angry about something, all I can say is so far I have seen few things that correctly contradicts what I'm saying. Especially when you consider the fact that only ONE freaking point of my design ideas have been really discussed. Stop hating.

Amaru
10-07-2010, 07:16 PM
Responses coming from everywhere at once is one of the most fun things about this game. You have to find the chink in the armor, and even then, there's still a hidden resource (the hand) that you can easily overlook. Same with the character.

With Responses/Forms out the window for characters, we'd soon have very bland, unoriginal characters.

I'm not saying they should be out of the window, what I'm saying is Character shall all have at least one Enhance. The second ability can be anything as long as it moderately or heavenly costed, or has a specific trigger (which would be one bad point against Responses), and has a Big effect.

Tagrineth
10-07-2010, 08:22 PM
You realize thanks to character stacking Cody has potentially the ability to play Fire, Air, Evil and Death. Oh btw I see a lot of focus in the ability the different Cody have in terms of ability :P. I'm sure Foundation lockdown, Hand Control, and Negation totally fits a "Fire" Character :P.

I never said every symbol matches everything completely. You keep taking things to these ludicrous extremes.

His common symbol across all versions is Fire. All versions except Cody3 have Air and Fire, which goes along with the system you noted yourself of characters having 2 common symbols and a wildcard symbol based on their effects (Cody1/2/4 all support this completely). I even pointed out myself that Cody3 was designed first and may well have had Air instead of Evil or Death had the other three been designed alongside him.

Also, if you're stacking characters to GAIN resources in order to play cards, ur doin it wrong


It is good that you noticed the underlined "need" in my post :P. You can change the symbols from time to time, you just should NOT feel obliged to do it everytime. Focus on making the abilities change and stay on focus with what the character is, instead of always having to go in every freaking direction because you have to change the symbols everytime. There is only a finite number of variation you can end up with before having the same combination again or denaturing what the character is about.

Wait, you're saying the different versions of characters do different things BECAUSE they feel the need to give the different versions new resources?

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................wat


Don't forget that I'm trying to see all of this through the eyes of a newcomer, it doesn't surprise me that most people here are somewhat shocked when I start saying that Enhance should the focus point of Characters, people here have been trained to like that, what surprise me is that they refuse to consider the view of someone who is not playing the game when what the game need so badly right now IS new players.

You're saying ALL new players are just aggro beatface players who only like the attack-centric mechanic? I've got a dude sitting right behind me right now who started playing with Tekken (Hans) whose first deck was a Nina Williams deck. Form based. He LOVED her mechanic. Another guy to my right right now who isn't on this forum yet (he will be!) was also attracted more to responses and the interaction therein than just E: E: E: BLOCK STEP

There's no reason new players MUST be attracted by/to Enhances. No reason at all. HUGE stretch of logic there.


When it comes to form there is one thing you might have noticed is that most of the Forms of the characters you have cited are playable once a turn, granted they would be great high cost 2nd ability if they were costed and more "boom" like, but by themselves they just make the character card less influent on what happens in the game.

Lemme explain something to you here that you're missing really badly.

You're saying Forms don't make a character card influence their deckbuilding or gameplay?

Let's see now...

Mitsurugi: His Form requires that you either a. build your deck such that all of your attacks share the same zone, or b. build your deck to support changing your attacks to different zones. His Form also is what makes him able to deal significant damage. You build your deck to abuse the bonus his Form gives all of your attacks.

Nina Williams: Her Form is mostly useless on its own. You can stack your opponent's control checks on their blocks, maybe if you're lucky you can get rid of an important card. When you build Nina, you support her with foundations and attacks that are related to the cards on top of your opponent's deck and hand, which you know because of Nina's Form. Without her Form, her support is mediocre at best.

King: His Form means you run Throws. His Form is his win condition, more or less. It helps guarantee he's going to Throw you repeatedly as the game progresses, wearing his opponent down. You build the deck around being able to use his Form every turn, thus you run nothing but Throws.

Xianghua: Her Form is her assurance that she'll set up her combos, and with Playful Slice also her ability to spam attacks to outpace her opponent. Appropriately, combined with her Response, this is her entire strength. No Enhances here... and she's an absolute blast to play.

So your insistence that Forms on characters aren't interesting or influential enough... is total baloney.


There is an important thing about design in that you have to meet expectations. If you don't people will walk away and buy something else. This player that is whining is right, if the game doesn't do what he or she wants he won't play it, it is the designer job to make sure that doesn't happens. So you actually want those players in the game.

You can't please everyone all the time. Sure there are gonna be people who will whine about how they can't accomplish what they want in the game because they keep running into negation/control.

But then you get the opposite - players like 3 of the 4 players in this room right now, who get frustrated and bored when they can't do anything about the things their opponent is doing. When your opponent goes ATTACK E: E: E: BLOCK STEP and you can't do anything to disrupt them, slow them down, or otherwise handle the situation and all you have at that point is a +3 block that fails because one of the aforementioned Enhances buffed a ton of Speed... I dunno about you but I really hate that kind of situation. It's really not fun for me at all. Even if it's not a fatal attack and I can hit back next turn... there's no interaction there, it's just two decks playing solitaire and seeing who can deal fatal damage first. Might as well just toss a coin (incidentally, formats with this kind of minimal interaction often ARE determined in part by the coin flip).


Oh and again, I AM NOT taking this on the competitive or tournament-worthy point of view but on the DESIGN point of view.

You'd be a horrible designer for this game.

Arch Duke Obvious
10-07-2010, 08:26 PM
Because insults started flying, this thread is now closed.