I've never set out to develop a game before, but was struck by inspiration a few weeks ago and have been planning, building and expanding my overall concept since. I have read many articles on the principles of design, and am well aware of the difficulty in getting ones game noticed these days. However, I believe I have a strong concept and a game that would both be simple to learn, but offer a high skill cap that rewards practice and experience. The idea is also expandable to future expansions.
I will also be adding action cards (cards that can be played from hand for a gold/energy cost).
The numbers need lots of tweaks, as do abilities. This isn't the super important part at the moment.
Current things I like
-Tons of design room
-very expandable
-opportunity for lots of strategy
-simple to learn, hard to master
-Expandable to multiplayer(3-4 players possibly more)
Current things I worry about
-I would need to include 2 full sets in the starter box so two players can play. This raises costs for me and the consumer. It would be possible to have just 1 set of heroes and have a simple draft system so each player has 4 different ones.
-neutral monster deck: should it be a set # cards that are always played, # taken from a larger number, # chosen by the players, or 2 separate ones constructed/random for each player? Having separate ones opens up design space for stronger neutrals (as having just one centre row opens up strategy of how to get last hit with only 4 champs and the opponent able to hit them too.
-Timing issues with abilities. Im thinking having two types. one that can be used before combat on your turn, and one that can be used at any point.
-#of tokens. Players will need to keep track of damage on their heroes, neutrals, energy on heroes, energy in reserve and gold. Maybe with only 4 this isn't too much?
Any feedback, criticism, etc is appreciated. I have no problems if you think this is a bad idea and should be thrown out either. If you do like it, however, I am happy to have people assist in playtesting, card ideas and the like. I feel that MTG players have a pretty good understanding of card games and I think you all would be great for thoughts/ideas.
I have played magic for many years and am looking for a new game to spend some time and energy on with a competitive/tournament scene.
Currently I haven't enjoyed a limited magic format in a while and constructed has way to high a barrier of entry cost wise. I also played pokemon but the current format is even more luck based than usual.
So if any of you have ideas of a game I could get into somewhat competitively for 100 or less dollars, I'd be super pleased!
Playing in the tourny practice/dailies, I seem to play:
25%post
25%MGA
20%MUA
15%affinity
10% MRA
5%other
Is there anything that has a strong game against those top 2? I would think heavy removal MBC (to beat MGA, affinity and MRA) with a heavy LD/hand disruption SB could do it, but I'm stumped these days.
Polygamy is not psychologically a good relationship. The one on the multiple end (usually females) have a hard time feeling secure in their relationship due to not being "the one". However homosexual relationships have been found to be just as sound and psychologically healthy as heterosexual monogonus relationships.
As long as it's consensual, why should that matter? It's not the government's business, and if it is a "bad decision," then should people not be allowed to make "bad decisions?"
Nothing says you can't have polyamerous relationships but certain things that are actaully regulated via the government are restricted to marriage. Things like adopting children, tax breaks, divorse, ect. All those become exceedingly more difficult when you add in things like Polyigamy. And the big one is adopting children. They should not be able to adopt children if they are in a polygiamistic relationship. IT casues a lot of confusion with children. You can't stop people from being prego but you can stop them from adopting.
Things like that DO need to be regulated with the government. But if you dont' want government regulation then why legalize polygamy at all?
Why kind of confusion makes it worthwhile for the government to restrict it, though?
I'm just constantly left flabbergasted at the indignation atheist have for the crusades but turn a blind eye to their own world views sordid past. At least I do not have to go ten centuries in the past to see atheism bad deeds.
I guess I'm left wondering where the moral atheist was when Tiananmen square massacre happened. Why that does not make Random Nerd sick is also a question I'm left to wonder about?
Who, exactly, doesn't think Tiananmen Square was terrible?
Because obviously since the chinese regime forced atheism on the populace, that means it is part of the atheistic traditions and past.
Third: The data points seem selective. bLatch's comment made me look for some Middle Eastern nations, but for "Western Asia" there was only Turkey and Cyprus, the most heavily Europeanized. And for other non-European countries there was no India, no China, no Mexico, no Brazil, not even Canada - just Japan. To be clear, I'm not accusing this Piro fellow of cherry-picking intentionally; I suspect the data simply weren't available. But we're not getting the whole picture. We're seeing a trend line for Europe.
For those interested, Canada is pretty much right over where the Finland dot is. (if it were on the graph, that is)
That seems to be ignoring justification of actions. While an islamist or a crusader would justify they were doing 'God's' work, a communist would kill intellectuals, religious folk and such because they are threats to the communist state. Atheism was never a justification nor a motivating factor. It was just the only case where the communists could get the fervour they needed would be to have the state be the absolute higher power, with Gods/whatever being rivals for this power, just as they would remove/kill opposing political movements. The dictatorship/absolute tyrannical power is the justification/motivation, everything else is done to maintain that.
I don't know which side I'm supposed to be on in what you said. I am canadian and and am for hate speech legislation. I don't, however, support many of the parts that are held outside of criminal law and am glad that there is a trend towards removing that (the human rights commision).
I think the difference between the two is that both use totalitarianism as as an ends, but one uses religion as a justification. Religion, like excessive nationalism (think of the communist 'state'), gives the people something above themselves to defer their judgement to and commit these atrocities in its name (rather than take the blame/guilt onto themselves)
Politics and opinion exists all that you want. From what I recall from my time, I can't recall experiencing discrimination, I remember being motivated and it being character building.
I think all this negative nonsense isn't anything I was exposed to and I don't think the kids are now. Leave the adults to criticize and debate and let the kids stick to the basics of learning, survival, character building, learning to help others, being prepared and working with others.
I think first and foremost, you are from canada and the BSC are quite a different group than then BSA.
Really? So then I guess that we should all be Christian and against gay marriage, since those are consensus opinions.
Harkius
Well I'll be... the states where gay marriage isn't allowed/has laws AGAINST it are the ones where the majority of people have moral objections to it. This isn't going to change because a smaller group says it is unconstitutional, it will change as every major social change in the last few centuries has -- public opinion will change (especially with new generations) until a majority accepts those people and the laws change.
Apparently gay marriage is very much allowed on a consensus basis and nothing more.
Well, to me, saying something is subjective doesn't mean you can't say "I think this is the best system around." It just means to me that to each subject, what is right and wrong (moral) will be different.
I do believe that many freedoms of the western world would be better choices for all nations, but no matter how strongly I believe this, it doesn't change the fact that each person there may believe differently. This is the nature of democracy; find what the most people within a society feel is right/wrong and make a social/legal code based on this.
For something like slavery, with my upbringing and location, it is very unlikely that I would think it a moral good for others to be enslaved. Go back a few centuries and you would be lying to yourself to say it wouldn't be highly likely to feel the opposite. When the idea of inalienable rights came about, it seems people took them to be inalienable -- if you were a straight, white and male.
For one, I don't think any country legally allows people within it 'truly' free speech. But after that, if a substantial group rise up to get their country that rule, the government can decide to repeal it. I would disagree with these people rising up, but in this specific situation not enough to oppose them (if it came to violence).
If it were just a fringe group then why would the government cave? The general populace still generally supports it and you can't have a government that just caves to terrorists/violent fringe groups.
So what gives those so called Authorities the right to be the authority then?
I think that would be whatever -ocracy or -archy the country was ruled by. If the government doesn't grant rights that the population wants, they either show there voice through votes, violence or protest.
I've never set out to develop a game before, but was struck by inspiration a few weeks ago and have been planning, building and expanding my overall concept since. I have read many articles on the principles of design, and am well aware of the difficulty in getting ones game noticed these days. However, I believe I have a strong concept and a game that would both be simple to learn, but offer a high skill cap that rewards practice and experience. The idea is also expandable to future expansions.
The basic rules are quite simple and can be explained in just a few pages as seen here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-jMflcT6Rt6Y1F6SU9zclE2Sk0/...
I also have designed 8 heroes, 14 neutrals and 14 items which I will be updating in this document over the next days and adding more:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-jMflcT6Rt6UkFOalc5dUNyOFk/...
I will also be adding action cards (cards that can be played from hand for a gold/energy cost).
The numbers need lots of tweaks, as do abilities. This isn't the super important part at the moment.
Current things I like
-Tons of design room
-very expandable
-opportunity for lots of strategy
-simple to learn, hard to master
-Expandable to multiplayer(3-4 players possibly more)
Current things I worry about
-I would need to include 2 full sets in the starter box so two players can play. This raises costs for me and the consumer. It would be possible to have just 1 set of heroes and have a simple draft system so each player has 4 different ones.
-neutral monster deck: should it be a set # cards that are always played, # taken from a larger number, # chosen by the players, or 2 separate ones constructed/random for each player? Having separate ones opens up design space for stronger neutrals (as having just one centre row opens up strategy of how to get last hit with only 4 champs and the opponent able to hit them too.
-Timing issues with abilities. Im thinking having two types. one that can be used before combat on your turn, and one that can be used at any point.
-#of tokens. Players will need to keep track of damage on their heroes, neutrals, energy on heroes, energy in reserve and gold. Maybe with only 4 this isn't too much?
Any feedback, criticism, etc is appreciated. I have no problems if you think this is a bad idea and should be thrown out either. If you do like it, however, I am happy to have people assist in playtesting, card ideas and the like. I feel that MTG players have a pretty good understanding of card games and I think you all would be great for thoughts/ideas.
Thanks!
I have played magic for many years and am looking for a new game to spend some time and energy on with a competitive/tournament scene.
Currently I haven't enjoyed a limited magic format in a while and constructed has way to high a barrier of entry cost wise. I also played pokemon but the current format is even more luck based than usual.
So if any of you have ideas of a game I could get into somewhat competitively for 100 or less dollars, I'd be super pleased!
25%post
25%MGA
20%MUA
15%affinity
10% MRA
5%other
Is there anything that has a strong game against those top 2? I would think heavy removal MBC (to beat MGA, affinity and MRA) with a heavy LD/hand disruption SB could do it, but I'm stumped these days.
Why kind of confusion makes it worthwhile for the government to restrict it, though?
Because obviously since the chinese regime forced atheism on the populace, that means it is part of the atheistic traditions and past.
For those interested, Canada is pretty much right over where the Finland dot is. (if it were on the graph, that is)
And what about vivid lands?
I think first and foremost, you are from canada and the BSC are quite a different group than then BSA.
Well I'll be... the states where gay marriage isn't allowed/has laws AGAINST it are the ones where the majority of people have moral objections to it. This isn't going to change because a smaller group says it is unconstitutional, it will change as every major social change in the last few centuries has -- public opinion will change (especially with new generations) until a majority accepts those people and the laws change.
Apparently gay marriage is very much allowed on a consensus basis and nothing more.
I do believe that many freedoms of the western world would be better choices for all nations, but no matter how strongly I believe this, it doesn't change the fact that each person there may believe differently. This is the nature of democracy; find what the most people within a society feel is right/wrong and make a social/legal code based on this.
For something like slavery, with my upbringing and location, it is very unlikely that I would think it a moral good for others to be enslaved. Go back a few centuries and you would be lying to yourself to say it wouldn't be highly likely to feel the opposite. When the idea of inalienable rights came about, it seems people took them to be inalienable -- if you were a straight, white and male.
If it were just a fringe group then why would the government cave? The general populace still generally supports it and you can't have a government that just caves to terrorists/violent fringe groups.
I think that would be whatever -ocracy or -archy the country was ruled by. If the government doesn't grant rights that the population wants, they either show there voice through votes, violence or protest.