PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Phone Call...



VikTheSlick
08-23-2010, 08:30 PM
So congrats to all Gencon competitors and victors, especially Mr. Dirty Drew and the Olexanator. I wish I could have been there, but sadly my life affords me exactly zero free time, even on weekends.

Now apparently Jasco Games has reached out to my old teammate J (Awakenz) about possibly helping to design some new cards. He in turn reached out to me, today. Given our negative history I am seriously considering this before saying anything for definite, but I thought I would get all your perspectives. Especially y'all who know me.

I was once going to be the Lead Developer when the game was owned by STG, before it was sold to FFG and went to hell, but I didn't want to do it because I enjoyed competing too much AND I seriously doubted my abilities as a designer. I still have little faith in my own abilities but I think I could be a good judge of power level at least.

So if this happens, in any way shape or form, and I will talk to Jason directly - I want to know, what kinds of things do you want to see? What matters to you? New keywords, tweaks of old mechanics, fixing some of the timing issues if possible - what do you want on cardboard? Any ideas and suggestions are appreciated and I'm sure it helps jasco indirectly either way to make it a public thread.

So, peeps, let me know what you think about this whole idea and my possible involvement in it - and I will say that if enough of you think it is a bad idea for whatever reason, I definitely want to hear it because it would influence my decision. Honesty is the best policy after all, so feel free to tell me I suck. I'm sure Drew will do this anyway...

Nubian God
08-23-2010, 09:09 PM
From what I've read in your articles and posts, you have a pretty solid grasp of design concepts, deck builds, past and current metas, while keeping your opinion as neutral as humanly possible. I don't really see how that would hurt your chances in coming up with new cards/mechanics, so go for it!

dutpotd
08-23-2010, 09:57 PM
I wish I could have been there, but sadly my life affords me exactly zero free time, even on weekends.

Now apparently Jasco Games has reached out to my old teammate J (Awakenz) about possibly helping to design some new cards. He in turn reached out to me, today. Given our negative history I am seriously considering this before saying anything for definite, but I thought I would get all your perspectives. Especially y'all who know me.

So if this happens, in any way shape or form, and I will talk to Jason directly - I want to know, what kinds of things do you want to see? What matters to you? New keywords, tweaks of old mechanics, fixing some of the timing issues if possible - what do you want on cardboard? Any ideas and suggestions are appreciated and I'm sure it helps jasco indirectly either way to make it a public thread.



Couple questions first (sorry, don't want to assume anything from your post).

1. If you have exactly zero time how would you have enough time to dedicate to design to the extent that it is (or may be) required? I know I'd be hard pressed to commit to design if I already had troubles commiting time to playing the game.

2. What is 'the negative history' you speak of? As far as I can see you've been a pretty positive UFS guy, and although I've witnessed (on the FFG UFS forums) Awakenz post in ways that could be viewed as negative, his purpose was always constructive relative to what's best for his audience and feelow playerbase, and I wouldn't see how that has any impact on this decision.

3. What are the timing issues that need to be fixed? I've never really had a problem with timing before, and I like to think I've played in some pretty heavy control/response-heavy games in my (relatively) shorter time playing the game than you.

Questions aside, I know you know what you are talking about card-wise but I'm not qualified to comment on whether that means you would also be a strong designer. I'm sure there is some correlation, but on the other hand what held you back (wanting to be the player) before could indicate an aversion to design? (I don't know, maybe you've designed or currently design other games, so please bear with my ignorance in this regard).

All I can tell you for certain is that the community is better to have you and J involved in 'a' capacity, whatever that capacity will be (player/designer/tester/etc.) is truly up to Jason, but more importantly up to each of you. At the very least I hope to play a game with you one day, whether it is as a player vs. designer for fun or player vs. player with some meaning attached doesn't really matter - I simply look forward to it.

- dut (Garett)

Nyobari
08-23-2010, 10:10 PM
Templating, templating, templating... please.

We still need to clean up the wording on the cards so things are consistent. Things like taking damage vs. vitality loss, destroy/remove from staging area, etc. It'll help out trying to streamline the rules a bit so that people get less confused.

I think, even if you don't do design, trying to do a study on cost of abilities vs. actual effects would be useful. Things like... damage reset cards which are commit only are very powerful, as they reset each turn. Abilities like that should have additional costs or destroy itself. Something to try to give a more consistent power level to the game without making all the symbols the same. Along the same vein, abilities on 1 diff foundations, and should we really be seeing more 1/4 foundations? Make the cost of running more spam foundations a lower CC?

In terms of cardboard, we need a really big character promo set. I'm not sure it needs to be Set 3 Promo size, but we're in dire need of characters to spice things up for builders. It's one of the few times that I'd rather see a bunch of characters in prize support than some promo foundations/actions.

VikTheSlick
08-23-2010, 10:20 PM
Couple questions first (sorry, don't want to assume anything from your post).

1. If you have exactly zero time how would you have enough time to dedicate to design to the extent that it is (or may be) required? I know I'd be hard pressed to commit to design if I already had troubles commiting time to playing the game.

2. What is 'the negative history' you speak of? As far as I can see you've been a pretty positive UFS guy, and although I've witnessed (on the FFG UFS forums) Awakenz post in ways that could be viewed as negative, his purpose was always constructive relative to what's best for his audience and feelow playerbase, and I wouldn't see how that has any impact on this decision.

3. What are the timing issues that need to be fixed? I've never really had a problem with timing before, and I like to think I've played in some pretty heavy control/response-heavy games in my (relatively) shorter time playing the game than you.

Questions aside, I know you know what you are talking about card-wise but I'm not qualified to comment on whether that means you would also be a strong designer. I'm sure there is some correlation, but on the other hand what held you back (wanting to be the player) before could indicate an aversion to design? (I don't know, maybe you've designed or currently design other games, so please bear with my ignorance in this regard.

All I can tell you for certain is that the community is better to have you and J involved in 'a' capacity, whatever that capacity will be (player/designer/tester/etc.) is truly up to Jason, but more importantly up to each of you. At the very least I hope to play a game with you one day, whether it is as a player vs. designer for fun or player vs. player with some meaning attached doesn't really matter - I simply look forward to it.

- dut (Garett)

1. If this happened, it would not be immediate, it would be in a couple of months when my schedule frees up big time, both for playing (which I have been doing locally here and there) and for any potential designing.

2. This has no bearing on anything other than previous history between me and J, which was not good for a while, so I was honestly a bit surprised at this phone call. As I said, it is irrelevant except for my own personal feelings and I am not speaking ill of J or anything on this forum at all, please don't misunderstand.

3. Sometimes things get quite complicated in terms of timing because UFS has no true targeting system, or just plain silly. I was merely making an allusion to that, not saying that anything needed to be fixed per se, moreso echoing comments from people like Fred and James and so on through the years. This is totally up for discussion as anything else.

I appreciate the kind words and feel the same way. I got a new job just before Worlds started and with two jobs with one being on the weekend I was unable to attend. It blows, but what can I do? I would like to continue to be a player as well but if I committed to this it would be 100% regardless of what it would entail.

I am not sure if I would be a good designer either but I do think I would be able to examine a card, set, and "block" very carefully, and have assisted both Dave Freeman and James Hata at different points in my UFS life. I have to say it definitely is an interesting proposition and again - this is merely assistance of Jasco at this point, nothing more. Thanks for your opinion as always Garett! :-)

HypeMan!
08-24-2010, 01:05 AM
Keep the focus of the game towards attacking and defending not about walling up in a gray war. This has been said multiple times, but I think it always is good to remember where we want to be going. I personally, love the Combo mechanic, that said, I don't want to see Keywords being thrown around willy-nilly, it's one of the many things I absolutely despised about Magic, I thought I needed a damn glossary at times. Now, I love the Combo keyword and want to see it grow and expand. It seems a great way to manifest some control abilities, and just great in general in having a good card and then making it great at certain times. But, don't forget the attack requiring attacks like Timmy's back in the day, or having to burn momentum as an additional cost to play.

I want to see First E or First F being used more to keep a handle on abilities.

Control attacks: There have been a few to come out like Pommel Smash, but attacks with lower damage, but it's the abilities you play them for and pay a higher difficulty for. Attacks that have a control ability after being added to momentum face up after dealing damage.

Don't let foundations become simply control check fodder as a way to combat a return of gray wars. They still need to have abilities that make you pause to think if you want them open later on. Control on foundations is fine if they are: A) Very specific/limited use control like Spiritual Center, B) Very tame or low power control, C)Extreme cost like destroying themselves. A high difficulty does not a balanced control foundation make.

Do not let control completely woop aggro via a coin toss. In my mind, aggro should have a good early game and rush, and control a later game.


Vik, I've read, enjoyed, and have been enlightened by your articles for years now. You obviously have a pragmatic and thorough mind, and I have complete faith in your abilities to add to the game and help Jasco in the card board shenanigans to come.

Tagrineth
08-24-2010, 03:46 AM
Putting this behind me. Ignore this post

Nekuro
08-24-2010, 04:52 AM
Now apparently Jasco Games has reached out to my old teammate J (Awakenz)

Does that answer? ;D
Vik >> I'd say do as you yourself feel is best, but just to tell you : after reading your UFS articles, you'd do good in the development team IMO

ATLDrew
08-24-2010, 06:19 AM
I'd say go nuts... IF YOU WEREN'T SO FREAKING TERRIBLE!

Call me you tool. I gots lots to talk to you about.

ScottGaines
08-24-2010, 07:56 AM
I was expecting this to be about calling people when you are alone, I am disappoint.

failed2k
08-24-2010, 09:16 AM
I have mixed feelings about the idea, and here is the Entirety of my reasoning.

Hata proved to me what I had felt and been saying all along, someone who understood the highest level of play should be the one designing the cards. High level play often means you have a better grasp of what a card is capable of at first glance. You in the past have shown that you are a very good player, not the biggest traveler, but you did great where/when you played and on the few trips you made, that is not my concern.

We've both been with this game a while, and I will tell you right now, this meta is unlike any other time of the game, and in many ways, it's one of the best meta the game has had. While there is a few unplayable symbols, that is easily corrected, and currently a ton of characters are playable, but if you havent spent much time in the competitive scene of the meta, and you havent spent a whole lot of time playing standard period, I worry about your level of understanding of the current meta, because again, it's much unlike the metas when you were most active.
Quick examples and I mean, I know you probably know this stuff, but if you havent spent much time playing with it the impact a significant change to these fundamentals could possibly really hurt the meta.

Fast momentum as you remember it is basically totally gone, fast momentum now the ways to get it are limited and much higher in cost(manaical destroys/treacherous removes itself from game, wonderworld and ascending both use cards from hand) meaning a fast momentum will only come at the cost of a discarded card, a destroyed foundation, or a attack enhance. This is actually really nice, it forces multiple decks(not named zi mei) to run other attacks to fuel the big guy.

Blanket negation is Gone and regular negation is pretty limited.
There is no more Armored Defense/Mortal Strike/Tag Along type of full turn negation. This is huge because now 1 card doesnt shut off a persons deck. Now negation comes in a more 1 for 1, or indirect package. You play a damage pump? I play a damage reduction, no negation needed. you play a commit effect, I punish with torn hero. People can play their decks, but the solutions available hinder them..not cripple them. There is exceptions to this rule(The martial Arts champ reprint) which I absolutely hate and wish it would be Un-watermarked for the format, because it cripples decks like Omar and Algol, but I don't think people would much get behind it.
Char abilties are sacred.
There is seriously nothing less fun then not getting to play your char. There is currently no direct char negation, and only limited char commital available(It's all currently conditional - Tornhero/Hopeforonespeople/perfect sense, crazy high costed(sacrifices for the cause), on attacks(few of these) or on char's themselves(rashotep and paul). I cannot stress how much this helps the game, you want to commit a defense char? You need to run a 3 check to do it, or force them to make a mistake. You want to stop a offensive char? You adress what their ability does, not the ability itself(strange fashion against king, speed reduction against cassie things like that) This current meta condition is the most important to me, because it allows people to actually have fun and play their chars...unless your Omar(ban martial arts champ!)
Those are a few of the not-so-obvious but important examples, even more obivously now is the blocks on foundations are bad, and in general foundations are typically worse then they were before. Attacks are generally better on average, but have a lower ceiling. There is no Chain Throws, but nearly every attack in every set is playable, and the symbols with enough support have a huge variety of attack lineups to choose from(fire and death both have a incredible amount of excellent potential setupis).

The best way to see this stuff in action, is to just play, or ask people who do play, lots and lots and lots of questions.

I really don't know how active you have been with the game lately, but you would know best if you are playing enough to really understand the meta. IF you understand the meta, I'm all for you designing some cards. Just like you in the past(particularly for tekken) I did more then just help James, I gave inspiration in some cases, and flat out exact cards that everyone uses in others while playtesting for this block. I personally feel like I have a lot invested in the quality of play in this block, since James built it with a ton of direct input from me, Andrew and many others in the competitive scene(Omar and UFS house off the top of my head)

Basically, I know you have the brain for it, but I worry if you have the first hand experience in this block for it.

RockStar
08-24-2010, 09:53 AM
To a certain degree, i have to agree with Jeremy: The current Meta in Standard is the best, and healthiest it's been. Ever.

For all the game-play elements Jeremy listed above, this game is fast and exciting, and one play-style doesn't completely trump another. Control, for example, has shifted from being Universal Negation to very Specific Negation, and with very specific costs. Most of the complaints i've heard from Control players equates to "Why can't i completely shut down and pwn other players' decks anymore? I don't know what to do now..." For years, UFS has been in a Meta State where Control literally could, to borrow a word, "cripple" decks with even only one copy of certain cards in their Staging Area. It got to the point where a competitive player's deck was fully half-built (or even more-so than half) because they were either running the Auto-Includes, or they were running cards to combat those Auto-Includes...which means they themselves were running defensive Auto-Includes.

To sum it up, creativity was stifled, especially if you were wanting to actually win at the tournament level. And still, Control was so OP that tournament winning decks ran 4 or less attacks and could blanket behind a wall that veritably turned off their opponent's deck.

Hilde ran only 3 attacks and won this years Worlds tournament. However, she did not turn-off Jeremy's deck, which is a major difference between the Meta from this year and the last Block, prior to early rotation.

Jeremy's Jin could still play and attack how it was supposed to function, thus making for a competitive Finals.

My hope is that creativity will continue to be rewarded in this game. That certain design elements that Hata implemented continue to be viewed as Sacred Cows, if you will; 6-checks being printed only on character cards, for example. I hope that stronger negation/Control will be printed on attacks, rather than foundation. I hope that the better block-mods continue to exist on orange and blue cards, rather than grey and green. I hope that more foundations are created that start with the static text "If this card is destroyed...(cool :):):):)e happens)...". I hope that "weenie-rush" aggro is continued to be developed as a viable form of play on a competitive level; Ivy is a great start, but she still falls short on a competitive level.

Some things i do NOT want to see: Life-Gain as ridiculous as Battle Prowess. Auto-blocks for next-to-nothing costs a la Criminal Past and Mysterious Stance. Committal cards that have the text "...this card does not ready on your opponent's next Ready Phase"; way too powerful of an ability in a game that is most often decided by half-turns.

This and more, Vik.

I, too, have enjoyed reading your articles on this game. I welcome your input on where this game will go. And, i do it with some mix of caution, too, just as i did when Hata took the reins. He surpassed my expectations of a first-time card designer. My hope is that you will surpass mine as well!

dutpotd
08-24-2010, 09:54 AM
There is exceptions to this rule(The martial Arts champ reprint) which I absolutely hate and wish it would be Un-watermarked for the format, because it cripples decks like Omar and Algol, but I don't think people would much get behind it.

You adress what their ability does, not the ability itself(strange fashion against king, speed reduction against cassie things like that) This current meta condition is the most important to me, because it allows people to actually have fun and play their chars...unless your Omar(ban martial arts champ!)


Ban MAC (from Standard duh)! Seconded and Thirded (yes I just voted twice).

Also @ Vik. Thanks for answering my questions as quickly as you did, I wish the best for you regardless of the path you choose.

- dut

Bloodrunstrue
08-24-2010, 12:44 PM
I'd like the following to be more present in standard:

More great combo abilities
Control abilities printed on attacks
More 1 diff foundations
Mild control which revolves around attacking.
No 6 checks outside of characters
Poke attacks to mean more in the metagame
Face up momentum or 'attach' to character abilities.

Good luck, I know you've got the experience and ability to contribute to effective card design.
Thanks
Bloodrunstrue

VikTheSlick
08-24-2010, 01:46 PM
I have mixed feelings about the idea, and here is the Entirety of my reasoning.

Hata proved to me what I had felt and been saying all along, someone who understood the highest level of play should be the one designing the cards. High level play often means you have a better grasp of what a card is capable of at first glance. You in the past have shown that you are a very good player, not the biggest traveler, but you did great where/when you played and on the few trips you made, that is not my concern.

We've both been with this game a while, and I will tell you right now, this meta is unlike any other time of the game, and in many ways, it's one of the best meta the game has had. While there is a few unplayable symbols, that is easily corrected, and currently a ton of characters are playable, but if you havent spent much time in the competitive scene of the meta, and you havent spent a whole lot of time playing standard period, I worry about your level of understanding of the current meta, because again, it's much unlike the metas when you were most active.
Quick examples and I mean, I know you probably know this stuff, but if you havent spent much time playing with it the impact a significant change to these fundamentals could possibly really hurt the meta.

Fast momentum as you remember it is basically totally gone, fast momentum now the ways to get it are limited and much higher in cost(manaical destroys/treacherous removes itself from game, wonderworld and ascending both use cards from hand) meaning a fast momentum will only come at the cost of a discarded card, a destroyed foundation, or a attack enhance. This is actually really nice, it forces multiple decks(not named zi mei) to run other attacks to fuel the big guy.

Blanket negation is Gone and regular negation is pretty limited.
There is no more Armored Defense/Mortal Strike/Tag Along type of full turn negation. This is huge because now 1 card doesnt shut off a persons deck. Now negation comes in a more 1 for 1, or indirect package. You play a damage pump? I play a damage reduction, no negation needed. you play a commit effect, I punish with torn hero. People can play their decks, but the solutions available hinder them..not cripple them. There is exceptions to this rule(The martial Arts champ reprint) which I absolutely hate and wish it would be Un-watermarked for the format, because it cripples decks like Omar and Algol, but I don't think people would much get behind it.
Char abilties are sacred.
There is seriously nothing less fun then not getting to play your char. There is currently no direct char negation, and only limited char commital available(It's all currently conditional - Tornhero/Hopeforonespeople/perfect sense, crazy high costed(sacrifices for the cause), on attacks(few of these) or on char's themselves(rashotep and paul). I cannot stress how much this helps the game, you want to commit a defense char? You need to run a 3 check to do it, or force them to make a mistake. You want to stop a offensive char? You adress what their ability does, not the ability itself(strange fashion against king, speed reduction against cassie things like that) This current meta condition is the most important to me, because it allows people to actually have fun and play their chars...unless your Omar(ban martial arts champ!)
Those are a few of the not-so-obvious but important examples, even more obivously now is the blocks on foundations are bad, and in general foundations are typically worse then they were before. Attacks are generally better on average, but have a lower ceiling. There is no Chain Throws, but nearly every attack in every set is playable, and the symbols with enough support have a huge variety of attack lineups to choose from(fire and death both have a incredible amount of excellent potential setupis).

The best way to see this stuff in action, is to just play, or ask people who do play, lots and lots and lots of questions.

I really don't know how active you have been with the game lately, but you would know best if you are playing enough to really understand the meta. IF you understand the meta, I'm all for you designing some cards. Just like you in the past(particularly for tekken) I did more then just help James, I gave inspiration in some cases, and flat out exact cards that everyone uses in others while playtesting for this block. I personally feel like I have a lot invested in the quality of play in this block, since James built it with a ton of direct input from me, Andrew and many others in the competitive scene(Omar and UFS house off the top of my head)

Basically, I know you have the brain for it, but I worry if you have the first hand experience in this block for it.Thanks for your detailed post, Jeremy, I appreciate it, and I definitely understand what you are saying. I have still been playing, testing, and discussing Standard and though I don't have as much a complete grasp on the meta as I would like, I do think I have a pretty good picture overall. Prior to Set 14 coming out of course I had a much better understanding of the meta, but then again that was a different time and I was allowed to cheat with Hata :-)

I think that, with your concern in mind and after speaking to Drew a bit today (and hopefully Jason soon), I would definitely do my homework so to speak before I get fully involved. Even so, though I have not been able to go to Worlds recently I have kept up with the game enough to where I think I could possibly be effective in this capacity.

I will call you later, I think I still have your number, and we can talk about this more in detail since I know you have a great grasp of the meta. Thanks again for your response!

failed2k
08-24-2010, 04:24 PM
I wrote a big long response and the system ate it, I'll summarize with "sounds good"

KodiakZero
08-24-2010, 04:44 PM
The most fun out of this game comes in when people play Attacks, and check Attacks. Simply put, more Attacks should be played, like a minimum of 12-16. Also, hows this for a keyword?

Block X; (Response) If a card with the Block keyword is successfully played as a block, when attempting to block the next attack of this turn, that blocks difficulty gets -X.

I think its pretty cool :p

DaiAndOh
08-24-2010, 05:17 PM
Yo Vik, just do it if you can, You seem to be very busy ATM obviously, though freeing up in a few months which is when you would start I'm gathering? If you got the time and the heart, go for it.

Tagrineth
08-24-2010, 05:42 PM
Vik doing card design sounds :):):):)in' sweet.

Hatman
08-24-2010, 05:45 PM
Templating - oh god templating. Common design rules that simply should not be broken, abilities that have similar effects having the exact same text, etc.

Keywording - If an ability is often on an attack, it would be wise to think about keywording it (like, say, goes into momentum face-up if it goes into momentum from the card pool).

Those two are my current requests to anyone who's reading.

I'm going to be entirely honest here, no matter who is going to help out with card design, I'm likely going to :):):):):) once something hits the fan, but I'll keep playing anyway. I'll leave the hows and the whys and the "whatever shall you do"s to those who, y'know, can afford to travel a lot and are much better players than I.

Da_ghetto_gamer
08-24-2010, 05:58 PM
James was great for the game and I feel like you have just as much experience and enough knowledge to do a great job as well....

It's really up to you if you have the time and energy to devote to the game and how you truly feel about it.

As for what I'd like to see I just want the game to continue the way it's going and it to stay fresh and exciting.....other then that I'm content to sit back and let the designers do thier work!

I will say I want great artwork though! Although I think it's already starting to happen

Ninja's rule
08-24-2010, 06:00 PM
I want to see little or no life gain whatsoever in any upcomming sets. I found the most frustrating thing about playing in previous blocks was when you attacked your opponent and inflicted 10 points of damage, all he would have to do would be to commit a couple of cards and gain all that vitality back. It was so bad that I considered quiting the game before early rotation. If that type of life gain were to return, I would probably stop playing all together.

Shinguyi
08-24-2010, 09:45 PM
The only good vitality gain I saw was cards like "Shiranui-Ryu Ninjutsu" which were very well balanced. Vitality gain would be nice but kept at very low amounts and on attacks/actions, lesser in characters and none in foundations/assets. Maybe something like:

E: If your attack with higher speed than damage deals damage, remove the top card of your deck from the game and gain 1 Vitality. If the card removed was an attack, you may add it to your hand by discarding a non-attack card.
(This is more for a character card than an action though)

What others mention regarding templating; wording on cards are very hard to understand and get too confusing at times. I really liked how they changed the response on "Torn Hero" and make it more balanced.

I really want to see more keyword-based attacks/foundations/assets/characters, like Steve Fox or Astrid's support.

Other than that, I'd say go all out. I am sure every time anyone gives ideas to the game good things can come out of it.

DaiAndOh
08-25-2010, 12:10 AM
I'm going to be entirely honest here, no matter who is going to help out with card design, I'm likely going to :):):):):) once something hits the fan, but I'll keep playing anyway. I'll leave the hows and the whys and the "whatever shall you do"s to those who, y'know, can afford to travel a lot and are much better players than I.

It's good people do that though.

Even if the designs were incredible, if no one complains about it, then it's more likely go over the top. Little (or a lot) of humbling goes a long way.

ReploidX
08-25-2010, 01:54 PM
I concur with Tagrineth in the idea that Vik doing card design would be amazing, and I know that whatever he ends up designing will be awesome.

guitalex2010
08-26-2010, 01:33 PM
Even though I've heard it's being done, I want each symbol to be separate from one another.

Like thinking about three things that the symbol does best, like:

Fire: Speed Pump, Damage Pump, Stun
Air: Foundation readying, card pool clearing, speed pump
Life: Progressive difficulty, life gain, speed pump

Then a card with those three symbols should have abilities that do more or less what the symbols do. If an ability is not desired for one of the symbols of the card, make it symbol-specific.

In the example I listed, a speed pump ability would fit the card perfectly, but if a foundation-readying or life gain ability is not desired for Fire, for example, make it symbol specific.

TripsEX
08-27-2010, 11:28 AM
You have my vote.

Habeck
08-27-2010, 02:29 PM
... and you have my bow ...

Loon
08-27-2010, 04:14 PM
... and my axe. Er, keyboard.

Cetonis
08-27-2010, 06:46 PM
I want to know, what kinds of things do you want to see? What matters to you? New keywords, tweaks of old mechanics, fixing some of the timing issues if possible - what do you want on cardboard? Okay, a few random design theory thoughts from a lurker. Feel free to ignore, I just feel like putting them out there :P

- Blocks on foundations: I feel they should generally scale to the foundation's power level; i.e. weak foundations get the +2 blocks, okay ones get +3s and really good ones get no block. Seems like it would make for interesting deckbuilding decisions, and help hamper the effectiveness of any future potential high-foundation count decks that just try to play all the best foundations in the deepest symbol at the time. Not that they're a big problem right now, but I can see down the road (when standard has more than 525 cards or so) it maybe becoming possible to make a foundation-heavy deck that has no issues blocking, just on the basis of so many cards being around that one could find enough strong foundations with solid blocks on them to do it.

- Response Actions: This has only happened on a handful of cards anyway, but I don't think any response action should be triggered by an event that isn't naturally paused at. For the most part, the fact that response abilities in this game can trigger off of anything at any time (as opposed to something like MTG's strict priority windows) hasn't been too much of a problem because 98% of responses are on cards that are visible to both players - they each know (or should know if they read the cards) when they're doing something that can be responded to by some card in play. Actions, however, are the exception to this as they come as a surprise out of the hand, and it can be awkard to "rewind" the game when your opponent blows right past your response window. (i.e. you need a second to decide on using something like Super Freak Lunge and they've already checked their six) So I think action-based and other surprise responses really need to be limited to windows that happen more or less naturally (before/after an attack deals damage, after a check is made, etc.) to avoid these situations.

- Throws: Perhaps throws should just never have blocks on them, as some small sort of balancing factor. Not entirely sure on this one, but there don't seem to be too many other ways to create a tradeoff for playing them save for making their damage decidedly below average. (such that nobody wants to use them) Plus it'd make some degree of flavor sense - typically in fighting games attempting to throw leaves you vulnerable; not that that's a hugely compelling reason, but just saying.

ARMed_PIrate
09-01-2010, 08:18 PM
I think Vik would do well as a designer.

I also like the idea of Throws never having blocks (in addition to either low damage or low control) to counteract their near-guaranteed damage. Throws dominated UFS at several stages of its life, and that should never happen again. As with video games, they should be something you throw in when given an opportunity, or to keep the opponent off balance. They shouldn't define the game unless you're playing as a wrestler.

As someone else mentioned, I'd also like to see a (published) templating guide (so others can help make it better), and a lot more keywording.

I once suggested a whole slew of keywords/abilities when I tried to rewrite the official rules to make sense (back before the current versions), and I think some of them still have merit. Specifically, a bold 1/T for "Once per turn" and 1/G for "Once per game" could precede any ability and make that ability playable only once per turn or once per game. It would save a lot of space, wouldn't it?

I think the prepositions on minimum's and maximum's should always be specific, but abbreviations are fine. "(minimum 1)" is never acceptable. It should be, "(to a min. of 1)" or "(by a min. of 1)". Even "(to 1, min.)" or "(by 1, min.)" would be acceptable, as long as the preposition is specified, and as long as designers pick one format (template) and stick with it. Releasing a database like Oracle that has all cards errata'd to fit current templating would be pretty sweet, too.

TripsEX
09-03-2010, 10:18 AM
Multiplayer formats.

ARMed_PIrate
09-03-2010, 04:33 PM
Multiplayer formats.

Good call. I'm including my Brawl rules from ages past here, but the whole point of them was to get around UFS's explicitly 2-player templating. If UFS cards were templated (and designed) to accommodate mulitplayer formats, it would be cool. (Not necessarily easy to do, I know.)


-----------------------
ARMed_PIrate's Brawl Rules:

SETUP
P1 starts with committed character.
P2 starts with ready character.
P3 and P4 start with ready character and 1 ready foundation (Reveal cards off the top of the deck 'til a foundation is revealed. Put it into the staging area. Shuffle the deck.)
P5 and P6 start with ready character and 2 ready foundations.
Etc.

OBJECT
Last fighter standing.

GAME RULES
1. As a player plays an attack (before any costs have been paid or any control check has been made), that player must choose and declare a target for that attack.

2. Only the player of the attack and the target of the attack may play E abilities on that attack.

3. Only the target of the attack may play cards as blocks to block that attack.

4. If you play an E ability, or if you play an R ability in response to an attack (being played, reaching a particular step, being blocked, dealing damage, resolving, etc.) and that ability refers to "your opponent", then:
--4a. if you played the attack, "your opponent" refers to the target of the attack.
--4b. if an opponent played the attack, "your opponent" refers to the opponent who played the attack.

5. If an F ability is played, or if an R ability is played NOT in response to an attack (being played, etc., as in rule 4), and that ability refers to "your opponent", then the player of the ability must, when declaring the ability, choose which opponent (target) the ability refers to.

6. If an ability refers to "your opponent" multiple times, it always refers to the same opponent.

7. If you play an E ability, or if you play an R ability in response to an attack (being played, etc., as in rule 4), and that ability refers to "both players" or "you and your opponent", then:
--7a. if you played the attack, the ability affects only you and the target of the attack.
--7b. if an opponent played the attack, the ability affects only you and the player who played the attack.

8. If an F ability is played, or if an R ability is played NOT in response to an attack (being played, etc., as in rule 4), and that ability refers to "both players" or "you and your opponent", then that ability affects ALL players.
--8a. Responses of this kind that respond to a "Form" being played (notably Order & Law) affect all players, even if the form being played is an attack.

9. During your attack (or in response to your attack, as in rule 4), when you generate or play another attack (the kick played from Koshu To's E, copies generated by Multiple, any attack Chicanery'd in, etc.), that new attack MUST be directed at the same target as the original attack.
(It's all stemming off one attack, so it's going in the same direction.)

10. During your attack (or in response to your attack, as in rule 4), when your opponent generates or plays another attack (card named "Reversal," cards played as reversals, etc.), that attack MUST be directed at you.
(They're responding to your attack, and that means they're responding AT YOU.)

11. When a trigger comes up, all players take turns playing Responses to that trigger, starting with the player whose turn it is, and moving in a clockwise direction. When all players have passed in succession on playing a response, no more responses to that trigger may be played.

12. In all other ways, rules are the same as standard UFS rules.

Cetonis
09-03-2010, 06:09 PM
The biggest hurdle to multiplayer UFS is that a player being ganged up on is pretty much helpless. They could hold back three good blocks and a decent number of foundations, but once they've used up most or all of that defense against the first (or first and second) player to target them, they're basically just sitting there with their pants down until the next turn while every player in between takes free shots.

So, any multiplayer format needs some sort of mechanism to mitigate this. Presumably this would have to involve drawing some number of cards and some degree of foundation readying or a check boost each time they an opponent after the first starts to attack them in between turns. This means either arbitrary numbers being tested until some are found that work, or possibly something more creative. An idea that just came to me know, and is thus probably ill-though-out:

-- Proposed gang-up balancing mechanism:

:: At the end of each turn, any players other than <the one whose turn it was, and the one whose turn is next> may choose to set aside any or all of the blocks they played that turn. Cards set aside in this way may be used as blocks until that player's next turn, at which point they are discarded.

:: If a player wishes, rather than setting aside a block they may discard it instead, and draw a card into their hand to replace it. (i.e. if they would prefer to risk drawing a non-block over allowing the opposition to have information on what blocks they have available)

:: Also, these players may draw a card for each card discarded as a result of an opponent's ability that turn.

:: In terms of foundations, these players may ready any foundations that were committed during an attack directed at them - for any reason - but turn those foundations face-down until the start of the next turn. (their abilities cannot be played)

I think all in all this would be a good way to make it so that players aren't completely helpless after the first opponent's attack string, but at the same time gang-ups aren't a futile prospect as there is information gained on the blocks as well as a loss of available foundation abilities as the onslaught builds. Would require testing though, obviously.

Tagrineth
09-04-2010, 03:35 AM
Or if it's a brawl-style multiplayer, you could just do it like multiplayer EDH - you can only attack players immediately to your left or right.

HypeMan!
09-04-2010, 02:44 PM
Readying would still be a problem, but what if at the beginning of a player's turn, all players, except the one who just had a turn, have a draw step. I guess you could have readying work the same way, but I'm not sure if that would fly.

Cetonis
09-05-2010, 08:27 AM
Drawing up to your hand size every turn would be a bit much; (nobody has a full hand after ending a turn, after all) half would probably be a good number but would have to include the option of a review step so that the odds of actually drawing into blocks are a bit better. Though as you said, foundations would still be an issue, and doing something like <ready-x-per-turn> would mean people get harder to attack as their turn approaches, which seems like an undesirable factor. Getting to ready a foundation face down each time you are attacked might be an option but could be either not good enough to keep up or too discouraging to prospective first attackers. (or a mix of both in varying scenarios)

Limiting scope to immediate-left-or-right would still allow gang-ups (the player after you, followed by the player before you) and thus create constant situations where decision-making is based more on that possibility than anything related to a normal game of UFS. If the player going after you did not get attacked by their other opponent, it's usually going to be far more effective for you to go after the person before you - since they'll then be vulnerable to free shots from their other enemy before they get a chance to ready/draw. If the person after you has been attacked, well, it's easy beatings. The only reason you wouldn't torch them is if they're a total non-threat, and the game shouldn't be about who can look the least scary so as to maybe not get pummeled whenever they inevitably get stuck with their pants down.

Tagrineth
09-05-2010, 08:32 AM
...have you ever played multiplayer MTG? What you described as "shouldn't" happen is EXACTLY how CCGs work once you go past 3 players. The trick is that people can help/hinder you at their own discretion too, even while not involved in the current attacking/blocking - usually in exchange for assistance later in the game, or as repayment for prior assistance.

Removing the gang-up aspect of 3+ player brawls kinda ruins the entire point. Immediate left/immediate right is more than enough of a limitation... after all, once jerkface B finishes off a player that jerkface A softened up, they're now jerkface A's new target.

ARMed_PIrate
09-08-2010, 03:00 PM
Tag's got it exactly right. The point of brawl-style multiplayer (as opposed to tag-team or two-headed giant) is that it doesn't just add layers of strategy--it adds politics as well. You can definitely get ganged up on.

If that happens, well... perhaps you shouldn't have made yourself out to be the major threat early on; perhaps you shouldn't have been so annoying; or perhaps you should have crafted a stronger argument for why another guy is a scarier threat, and made an alliance.

The great thing about multiplayer, though, is that after you've been beaten up to the point where you don't look like much of a threat, you may be underestimated. The ones who ganged up on you might turn their attention to each other, allowing you to come back.