I think he means you need to spend way more ability points abilities like burn and pump than you need to spend to get comparable effects from conjuration and enchantment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll bet you wish you had a non-unglued/unhinged card that shared your first name.
I think he means you need to spend way more ability points abilities like burn and pump than you need to spend to get comparable effects from conjuration and enchantment.
Exactly. You need to be able to scale the effects at will to make Burn or Pump or Destruction keep up with the usefulness of creatures and enchantments under the current rules.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
So, the NPC I just made has 5 points in burn. With a 12 mana pool, I can lightning bolt like crazy every turn... I just ruined the battlefield. Does that really sound good to you?
So, the NPC I just made has 5 points in burn. With a 12 mana pool, I can lightning bolt like crazy every turn... I just ruined the battlefield. Does that really sound good to you?
Simply limit the amount of mana that a character can spend on any individual spell, like it is with creatures and enchantments. Maybe even limit the number of ability points a character can have in any one ability by their level.
That said: You can't really compare an NPC you created under one set of rules to another using a different set of rules.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
The system we have now has creatures relevant at low levels, but spells get good quickly. That makes sense to me. Having spells and creatures equal doesn't have that same RPG feel to it. It might be because I'm a huge D&D nerd...
The system we have now has creatures relevant at low levels, but spells get good quickly. That makes sense to me. Having spells and creatures equal doesn't have that same RPG feel to it. It might be because I'm a huge D&D nerd...
But that's one of the things D&D is criticized for. Edition 3.5 especially.
Fighters are so outclassed by casters it's not even fair. That's not a particularly good way for a game to work. Every strategy should be roughly equal in power. Obviously perfect balance is impossible, but making it a Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards situation is a bad place for a game to be.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
It might just be me, but I don't think I have met anyone who has had a vastly negative opinion about D&D version 3.5 myself, I have rather liked the system.
So far, I have understood the rules as they are just fine, and the changes you are proposing Caex actually are a bit more confusing to me, I don't see a reason to change it.
But I'm just one player in the game, so how much does my word carry, probably not much. *shrug*
It might just be me, but I don't think I have met anyone who has had a vastly negative opinion about D&D version 3.5 myself, I have rather liked the system.
Oh, I love 3.5. But spellcasters, Druid and Clerics particularly when built right, are so vastly overpowered it makes Fighters or Rogues look like ants.
So far, I have understood the rules as they are just fine, and the changes you are proposing Caex actually are a bit more confusing to me, I don't see a reason to change it.
Heh. I'm in the exact opposite boat. I find the current rules confusing and mine less so.
But I'm just one player in the game, so how much does my word carry, probably not much. *shrug*
Oh I'm in the same boat here. It's up to the WPLs to hammer out the final rules. Definitely not trying to impose my version of how I think the game should work. Just suggesting how I think they could be improved.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
That's the thing though, Caex. Your version can't be confusing to you... You made it. You're a bad judge for your own system... That's why I haven't brought that up in relation to the spells idea.
Is the current version or your version more confusing? Not a question I'm suited to answer...
Again, it's all malleable. If we need to fix it, we will. That's what the pre-beta is for. That's why I'm hesitant to change it just based on your word. If the rules need it, it'll be change to fit that need.
That's the thing though, Caex. Your version can't be confusing to you... You made it. You're a bad judge for your own system... That's why I haven't brought that up in relation to the spells idea.
Is the current version or your version more confusing? Not a question I'm suited to answer...
Again, it's all malleable. If we need to fix it, we will. That's what the pre-beta is for. That's why I'm hesitant to change it just based on your word. If the rules need it, it'll be change to fit that need.
Ah, but if I'm biased toward my rules, then that would mean you're also biased toward yours, no? It might be one of the reason you're hesitant to change the rules.
I think we need more people to weigh in on this. I'd like to hear from KoolKoal and some of the other current players of the project. I'm convinced my rules are a better system, but it's not my decision to implement them or not.
@Arcel: What confuses you about my rules, exactly?
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
@Arcel: What confuses you about my rules, exactly?
Well for 1, how imbalanced it gets in the higher levels of the Burn ability if we did it as you like.
You said 1 mana to deal damage equal to the number of points you have in the spell to a single target... how many spells do you know that could do 5 damage for a single mana?
I might have missed something, so far I am just liking the system that is in there(though it could use some improvements, but what couldn't).
... blarg, asking me for specifics is probably not the best idea... I've never been good with details of things...
Well that isn't true, but my mind has to be in the right state, and I never know when that will be, apologies for not being of more help.
Well for 1, how imbalanced it gets in the higher levels of the Burn ability if we did it as you like.
You said 1 mana to deal damage equal to the number of points you have in the spell to a single target... how many spells do you know that could do 5 damage for a single mana?
Well, we could easily tweak it for abilities that seem overpowered, like Burn. Maybe 1-mana-per-ability point against creatures, but a higher mana-to-point rate against planeswalkers and such. Maybe even a higher mana-to-point ratio against creature.
Maybe every 2 mana you spend lets you do X damage to creatures, where X is the number of ability points in Burn; 3 mana to do X damage to target player, where X is the number of points in Burn.
???
You said I was biased, which I acknowledge. You said nothing about your bias.
Though looking back I guess the "not a question I'm suited to answer" could be read that way. I read it more as you saying you couldn't unilaterally decide on which ruleset was better.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Ok. I'm gone for a night and half a day, and discussion kind of explodes. That's actually a good thing. It means that people are actually caring enough about the Project and getting it up and running. Ok, so:
DakmorQueen doesn't really have the same biased problem that you do, Caex, because I was the one that came up with most of the current rules set. I do agree that things may be a little confusing, i'll give you that. The rules the way they are currently all goes off of, pretty much is, the first draft I came up with. DQ helped alot in trying to balance out what i had. She added in very much needed insight into changing the wording to make it less confusing.
Yes, and it has already been said, points mean the Ability Points that you get at start off, and that you gain each level. With the amount of points that you gain each level, and with the formulae that i came up with for abilities that don't use specific cards, yes: the lower level you are, the more you will have to spend in order to affect things the way you want. But, the higher level you are, the less it will cost, eventually making even burning for 10 damage on anything will cost 1 mana. Same goes for pump, neg, and the rest.
Actually, your idea, the one you gave for new pump, seems to work just fine, moreso than what we have. The difference i think between me and DQ is that i can look at the whole thing objectivly, and i am not saying that to be mean or anything DQ, you know my condition. If we went with that kind of system, we will have to add in a cap that people cant go past with abilities that corresponds to their level, ie. like skill points in 3.5.(PS. I love 3.5 ed, and am building my own world that takes every possible book that it has and throws it all together in one giant place. its on myth-weavers.)
I agree wholeheartedly on the change to exile. I just wasn't sure, and therefore didnt put, exactly how it should work, and will change it soon enough. I like the idea of having it pretty much just phase something out, in that it will still count against the field. Also agree with the specialized destruction for all the colors. White: Wrath effects, Austere command, stuff like that; Blue: not much that i can think of; Black: alot; Red: Land and artifact; Green: Enchantments and artifacts.
On the special abilities thing, DQ hasnt said anything to me so far as of yet, but then again, i haven't been online lately as much as i was when we first got this back up and running. If she is working on it, than all i can do is wait until she brings me into it.
Wanting to add bounce for blue, probably going to go off of the other abilities concerning cmc. As in, X points in bounce means you can bounce things back with corresponding cmc.
Was having a thought: With destruction, and as a balancing effect, what if, when something dies, you cant cast it again until the turn following your next one? Yes, with the system the way it is currently, you have unlimited castiing, graveyards dont exist, etc., etc. But if we made it so that you can only have 4 of anything at one time, like it is, and added in the rule of things not being able to come back to the field the next turn, might that balance things out a bit?
For those of you that don't know, i have a few things wrond with me mentally. The condition i was speaking off in this post is that i have Asperger's, meaning i can seem pretty callous and cold hearted when speaking, without meaning to, and i dont even really notice it. That is just one of the many things wrong with me.
If anyone here is on yahoo, my messenger is [email]draknyva_darkens@yahoo.com[/email] if you would rather talk that way instead of through pm's here.
Putting a cap on the abilities always seemed like lazy design work to me...
Caps, restrictions, and limitations are just as much a part of game design as the creation of abilities and skills. It could be argued that they're more necessary than the creation of awesome powers. Without limitations, the power level will be unbalanceable and players will react negatively.
Besides that, it's just not flavorful. Low levels mean nothing if your character can have 8 points in burn at level 2 and be a walking engine of destruction. At low levels, you should have to actually work at your goals until you become stronger. There has to not just be character growth, but an overcoming of the limitations of lower levels.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Everyone gets the same amount of points. 8 points in Conjuration and 8 points in Burn balance themselves out. Plus, every ability wants those points otherwise your character will have a glaring weakness which is easily exploited.
I'm aware everyone gets the same amount of points. The issue isn't how many points a character gets. It's that he can pump all his points into one ability as quickly as he gains them and be ridiculously powerful too quickly. A level 2 character shouldn't be a master Conjurer or a master Pyromancer. It makes no sense from a flavor perspective or a mechanics perspective.
As another point: they really don't balance themselves out at all, because the abilities aren't balanced against each other. For example: a level 2 mage who's put 8 points into Drain is exactly half as strong as a mage who's put 8 points into Burn.
A level 2 mage who's put 8 points into Cojuration or Enchantment can choose from dozens and dozens of spells to cast, at minimum. No other mage could hope to match the kind of power that much versatility brings.
EDIT: On an unrelated note, this is a great article on game design by Mark Rosewater. I'm sure it can help the project in one way or another. That we happen to hold the same opinion about restrictions is just a bonus.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
First, don't tell me what MaRo says, I read every article he writes. I know restrictions breed creativity. It doesn't work for me.
Second, Conjuration and Enchantment are supposed to be limited to a select few cards. Usually within a block and only a few of them at most... That's the way it's supposed to be.
Third, if someone pumps a bunch of points into a single skill, they'll get wrecked each and every time against someone who's spread their points around. It's a learning experience.
First, don't tell me what MaRo says, I read every article he writes. I know restrictions breed creativity. It doesn't work for me.
So you're going to start getting snippy again when I offer a useful general tool for helping in game design, especially when the link wasn't specifically aimed at you? Super. Guess if you're not going to keep it civil, there's no reason for me to. But that attitude will definitely help you when you're WPLing. [/sarcasm]
Some food for thought: Just because you've read the article doesn't mean everyone else has.
Second, Conjuration and Enchantment are supposed to be limited to a select few cards. Usually within a block and only a few of them at most... That's the way it's supposed to be.
Then put that in the rules!
Third, if someone pumps a bunch of points into a single skill, they'll get wrecked each and every time against someone who's spread their points around. It's a learning experience.
Sigh. Apparently there's no getting through to you. You're missing the forest for the trees, and I suspect that no matter how much I try, you'll just keep doing it.
@silverthorn, who will hopefully be a bit more receptive:
If you want to see how the abilities interact, build a bunch of very very basic level 1 NPCs (Mostly just mechanics, leave the background and most of the flavor out) and have them fight each other. Mix up their ability points, advance them by a few levels, mix and match them around. It'll probably take a long time, but I guarantee it will help you balance out the game.
Either way, DQ has shown she's going to keep rejecting anything I say, so unfortunately I'm going to stop trying to help make the game better. I wish you luck, and genuinely hope the game is a success.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I'm not being snippy. You were quoting me when you linked it... I don't understand what you mean by my attitude... I really don't. You're really not helping me understand what you mean, but I guess it doesn't matter...
And I don't know what "missing the forest for the trees" means...
And I know I sound hostile, but that's how I debate... Blame my BF...
Exactly. You need to be able to scale the effects at will to make Burn or Pump or Destruction keep up with the usefulness of creatures and enchantments under the current rules.
{Magic: The RPG}
Simply limit the amount of mana that a character can spend on any individual spell, like it is with creatures and enchantments. Maybe even limit the number of ability points a character can have in any one ability by their level.
That said: You can't really compare an NPC you created under one set of rules to another using a different set of rules.
{Magic: The RPG}
Why is that?
{Magic: The RPG}
But that's one of the things D&D is criticized for. Edition 3.5 especially.
Fighters are so outclassed by casters it's not even fair. That's not a particularly good way for a game to work. Every strategy should be roughly equal in power. Obviously perfect balance is impossible, but making it a Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards situation is a bad place for a game to be.
{Magic: The RPG}
So far, I have understood the rules as they are just fine, and the changes you are proposing Caex actually are a bit more confusing to me, I don't see a reason to change it.
But I'm just one player in the game, so how much does my word carry, probably not much. *shrug*
Artist: //gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&artist=[%22Daniel%20Ljunggren%22">"]Daniel Ljunggren
Oh, I love 3.5. But spellcasters, Druid and Clerics particularly when built right, are so vastly overpowered it makes Fighters or Rogues look like ants.
Heh. I'm in the exact opposite boat. I find the current rules confusing and mine less so.
Oh I'm in the same boat here. It's up to the WPLs to hammer out the final rules. Definitely not trying to impose my version of how I think the game should work. Just suggesting how I think they could be improved.
{Magic: The RPG}
Is the current version or your version more confusing? Not a question I'm suited to answer...
Again, it's all malleable. If we need to fix it, we will. That's what the pre-beta is for. That's why I'm hesitant to change it just based on your word. If the rules need it, it'll be change to fit that need.
Ah, but if I'm biased toward my rules, then that would mean you're also biased toward yours, no? It might be one of the reason you're hesitant to change the rules.
I think we need more people to weigh in on this. I'd like to hear from KoolKoal and some of the other current players of the project. I'm convinced my rules are a better system, but it's not my decision to implement them or not.
@Arcel: What confuses you about my rules, exactly?
{Magic: The RPG}
Well for 1, how imbalanced it gets in the higher levels of the Burn ability if we did it as you like.
You said 1 mana to deal damage equal to the number of points you have in the spell to a single target... how many spells do you know that could do 5 damage for a single mana?
I might have missed something, so far I am just liking the system that is in there(though it could use some improvements, but what couldn't).
... blarg, asking me for specifics is probably not the best idea... I've never been good with details of things...
Well that isn't true, but my mind has to be in the right state, and I never know when that will be, apologies for not being of more help.
Artist: //gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&artist=[%22Daniel%20Ljunggren%22">"]Daniel Ljunggren
Well, we could easily tweak it for abilities that seem overpowered, like Burn. Maybe 1-mana-per-ability point against creatures, but a higher mana-to-point rate against planeswalkers and such. Maybe even a higher mana-to-point ratio against creature.
Maybe every 2 mana you spend lets you do X damage to creatures, where X is the number of ability points in Burn; 3 mana to do X damage to target player, where X is the number of points in Burn.
???
You said I was biased, which I acknowledge. You said nothing about your bias.
Though looking back I guess the "not a question I'm suited to answer" could be read that way. I read it more as you saying you couldn't unilaterally decide on which ruleset was better.
{Magic: The RPG}
Any more than I can control how you wrote it.
Now, shall we continue trading jabs or discuss the rules some more?
{Magic: The RPG}
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=5586155&postcount=2
Quinne, PW
I still don't like specialized destruction, but whatever...
No one's leveled yet, so I haven't gotten very much for it. Again, experiments, my dear.
Ugh... Yeah, just make blue the most powerful. That's a good idea.
The wait period might be nice... Maybe. Would make your character less broken.
I do have one major concern about the rules in general, and it's this:
Caps, restrictions, and limitations are just as much a part of game design as the creation of abilities and skills. It could be argued that they're more necessary than the creation of awesome powers. Without limitations, the power level will be unbalanceable and players will react negatively.
Besides that, it's just not flavorful. Low levels mean nothing if your character can have 8 points in burn at level 2 and be a walking engine of destruction. At low levels, you should have to actually work at your goals until you become stronger. There has to not just be character growth, but an overcoming of the limitations of lower levels.
{Magic: The RPG}
As another point: they really don't balance themselves out at all, because the abilities aren't balanced against each other. For example: a level 2 mage who's put 8 points into Drain is exactly half as strong as a mage who's put 8 points into Burn.
A level 2 mage who's put 8 points into Cojuration or Enchantment can choose from dozens and dozens of spells to cast, at minimum. No other mage could hope to match the kind of power that much versatility brings.
EDIT: On an unrelated note, this is a great article on game design by Mark Rosewater. I'm sure it can help the project in one way or another. That we happen to hold the same opinion about restrictions is just a bonus.
{Magic: The RPG}
Second, Conjuration and Enchantment are supposed to be limited to a select few cards. Usually within a block and only a few of them at most... That's the way it's supposed to be.
Third, if someone pumps a bunch of points into a single skill, they'll get wrecked each and every time against someone who's spread their points around. It's a learning experience.
Some food for thought: Just because you've read the article doesn't mean everyone else has.
Then put that in the rules!
Sigh. Apparently there's no getting through to you. You're missing the forest for the trees, and I suspect that no matter how much I try, you'll just keep doing it.
@silverthorn, who will hopefully be a bit more receptive:
If you want to see how the abilities interact, build a bunch of very very basic level 1 NPCs (Mostly just mechanics, leave the background and most of the flavor out) and have them fight each other. Mix up their ability points, advance them by a few levels, mix and match them around. It'll probably take a long time, but I guarantee it will help you balance out the game.
Either way, DQ has shown she's going to keep rejecting anything I say, so unfortunately I'm going to stop trying to help make the game better. I wish you luck, and genuinely hope the game is a success.
{Magic: The RPG}
And I don't know what "missing the forest for the trees" means...
And I know I sound hostile, but that's how I debate... Blame my BF...