If we always wanted interaction, then there wouldn't be things like Hexproof, Shroud, and Protection.
The design for Crescendo was intended to be lite and concentrated. It revolves around a single point. It does one thing, and does it well. When you begin to include things like attacking, you're over-complicating the concept. When you want to be able to shut it off, you're opening up to abuse potential that threatens the integrity of the concept here. By removing the ability to shut off Crescendo, you're taking away from aspects of challenge. I don't recall there ever being a way to shut off Cumulative Upkeep or Echo. Both of those struggled terribly because they were so costly. Only the most powerful designs saw potential. One might have had a theory (or simple formula) for it; such as 'it's essentially a two-in-one pay split'; but that didn't shine through for 99% of the content. Why? Because in lower rarity designs, you don't have that kind of space to work with. There's no room for that. You're already working on the edge of hundred-thousands of value space.
Let's learn from these mistakes if we can and not repeat them.
You could still create an ability that interacts with Crescendo. But this type of things wants to be limited in this way, and not open to the influence of phases (with an additional reason being this was needed to save desperate text space). Thus, it's not totally restricted. It's only limited. And therein provides some additional challenge by limiting interactivity, yet interactivity is still maintained abroad.
This wants to remain lite and compact. The entire counter-based functionality is so gaudy. It becomes unnecessarily wordy. You're breaking all the best qualities of the concept as it was developed and presented. What makes it dynamic and pop. Note that someone had attempted the same thing back when the keyword was originally pitched.
It's nice to be able to create new card types, and interactions within them. It's also apart of what makes the game dynamic and pop. However, this here is actually a more challenging means of pioneering. Not creating something entirely new, but improvising on what exists in a new and dynamic way.
Redefining the game with new base context isn't outside of reason. It's unreasonable to say it is. This is already a wordy ability, so even shifting up to "At the beginning of your turn", as well as, "At the start of your turn", demands more space than is necessary. I realized the questions that I would be raising when I decided to roll with an open "During your turn", but considering it as a new base context, I couldn't unsee the potential there to roll with it, and save the desperate space needed by optimizing.
If we always wanted interaction, then there wouldn't be things like Hexproof, Shroud, and Protection
In the standard set that just came out:
A) shroud appears on 0 cards
B) protection appears on 0 cards
C) hexproof appears on 0 cards
If you look, wizards really isn’t about stopping interaction any more. Not in any lasting way. Protection that naturally wears off, and protective effects that aggressors can ignore by paying a cost is the new standard for good design.
That was maybe because I got on them about it in the forums. And they are only being more sneaky about it really.
They are still abusing hexproof if you ask me. Indestructible too. And Ward was abused as well.
The thought they aren't doing this is lol-worthy.
Interactivity is what makes the game fun, but interactivity is an umbrella term. It's not only about interacting with other cards, but that it causes the player to interact with it, or that the card interacts with itself. Softening interaction creates aspect of challenge, which is another great primary aspect that makes the game fun. Here, it's not only about softening interaction, but was also to make the concept lighter and save needed text space (as explained). It wasn't just crucial to the functionality of the design, it was crucial to the form.
"I think the ability needs to be cleaned up a little." -BlazingRagnarok
"The way you have these cards worded needs tuned up quite a bit." -BOVINE
"rather than confusing new players by adding additional triggers, just have triggered abilities that count how many counters there are. There is a difference, I know, but it's not worth the added complexity." -Anachronity
"The best way to implement this idea would be too simply have the counters (which should be named as others have suggested) being placed every upkeep as the whole keyword and the effect be part of the regular rules text." -DJK3654
"When you argue for a change in convention, you should take care to think it through and ask yourself, why does the convention work the way it does? Is the change I'm proposing an improvement to that functionality or a detriment? I think you'll find that in this community, a change to convention that's strictly detrimental is not going to be well-accepted and you can avoid trainwrecks like this thread in the future by self-editing to a small extent." - Willows
"What crescendo tries to achieve is overly complicated. As is, referencing triggered abilities makes it impossible to print at common, and that's before you get to the wall of text involved in making the narrative concept of a "crescendo" work. Your idea is not a keyword ability. It really should just be a one of card, perhaps a single cycle at most at a higher rarity. The complexity here isn't worth it." -IcariiFA
"The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you." -ThoughtCriminal
"So, it should go without saying: If you're posting in a forum based on the criticism of custom cards, you should be able to take criticism." - Void_nothing
Every single poster agreed: the ability is totally unworkable. Also many of them offered solutions that work within the rules. It's not like working within the rules is super hard. You should try it some time.
-----
I offered you a challenge, and you failed it. You couldn't even produce one working Magic card. Not one. You didn't even try. I'm really disappointed in you. I actually thought you had it in you. I thought you could do this. But you won't even try. You won't even make a token effort.
Until you learn to accept the opinions of others, you will never be a game designer. Your designs will never be "artful" or "innovative" if they can't even work in the game they're designed for. A real game designer would see that first comment "I think the ability needs to be cleaned up a little", and clean up the ability. That's what real design is.
You still have a chance to redeem yourself. But you won't bother to try. You're too busy inventing the way Magic works in your head.
It's not that, it's just that they were mistaken for the same reasons, providing the same mistaken points of interest.
And all this has been explained once again, and you don't like it? But accept it.
We have to agree to disagree. You don't like having new base context, that describes "During your turn" as meaning [when a turn first begins, outside the influence of phases and steps]. That is the real issue here.
During your turn. When your turn first begins. When is your turn? It's right now.
For a selection of time, this base context adds "once during your turn"; or "any number of times during your turn"; or "at any time during your turn" (which I do believe I've used before). If that's not there, naturally, it means immediately.
I was as helpful, kind, and respectful as I could be. I really was. You refuse to learn the most basic lessons.
I'm sorry dude, but until you can learn to accept basic criticism AND work within the game rules as they actually exist, you will never be a designer. You will only look like a fool, as you always do in these threads.
It hurts me to see you fail over and over again. But I can't help you. You refuse to be helped.
The design for Crescendo was intended to be lite and concentrated. It revolves around a single point. It does one thing, and does it well. When you begin to include things like attacking, you're over-complicating the concept. When you want to be able to shut it off, you're opening up to abuse potential that threatens the integrity of the concept here. By removing the ability to shut off Crescendo, you're taking away from aspects of challenge. I don't recall there ever being a way to shut off Cumulative Upkeep or Echo. Both of those struggled terribly because they were so costly. Only the most powerful designs saw potential. One might have had a theory (or simple formula) for it; such as 'it's essentially a two-in-one pay split'; but that didn't shine through for 99% of the content. Why? Because in lower rarity designs, you don't have that kind of space to work with. There's no room for that. You're already working on the edge of hundred-thousands of value space.
Let's learn from these mistakes if we can and not repeat them.
You could still create an ability that interacts with Crescendo. But this type of things wants to be limited in this way, and not open to the influence of phases (with an additional reason being this was needed to save desperate text space). Thus, it's not totally restricted. It's only limited. And therein provides some additional challenge by limiting interactivity, yet interactivity is still maintained abroad.
This wants to remain lite and compact. The entire counter-based functionality is so gaudy. It becomes unnecessarily wordy. You're breaking all the best qualities of the concept as it was developed and presented. What makes it dynamic and pop. Note that someone had attempted the same thing back when the keyword was originally pitched.
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/788597-crescendo-an-innovative-keyword-concept
And there's proof of how dynamic it can be also.
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/788980-norrxraptera
It's nice to be able to create new card types, and interactions within them. It's also apart of what makes the game dynamic and pop. However, this here is actually a more challenging means of pioneering. Not creating something entirely new, but improvising on what exists in a new and dynamic way.
Redefining the game with new base context isn't outside of reason. It's unreasonable to say it is. This is already a wordy ability, so even shifting up to "At the beginning of your turn", as well as, "At the start of your turn", demands more space than is necessary. I realized the questions that I would be raising when I decided to roll with an open "During your turn", but considering it as a new base context, I couldn't unsee the potential there to roll with it, and save the desperate space needed by optimizing.
In the standard set that just came out:
A) shroud appears on 0 cards
B) protection appears on 0 cards
C) hexproof appears on 0 cards
If you look, wizards really isn’t about stopping interaction any more. Not in any lasting way. Protection that naturally wears off, and protective effects that aggressors can ignore by paying a cost is the new standard for good design.
They are still abusing hexproof if you ask me. Indestructible too. And Ward was abused as well.
The thought they aren't doing this is lol-worthy.
Interactivity is what makes the game fun, but interactivity is an umbrella term. It's not only about interacting with other cards, but that it causes the player to interact with it, or that the card interacts with itself. Softening interaction creates aspect of challenge, which is another great primary aspect that makes the game fun. Here, it's not only about softening interaction, but was also to make the concept lighter and save needed text space (as explained). It wasn't just crucial to the functionality of the design, it was crucial to the form.
"The way you have these cards worded needs tuned up quite a bit." -BOVINE
"rather than confusing new players by adding additional triggers, just have triggered abilities that count how many counters there are. There is a difference, I know, but it's not worth the added complexity." -Anachronity
"The best way to implement this idea would be too simply have the counters (which should be named as others have suggested) being placed every upkeep as the whole keyword and the effect be part of the regular rules text." -DJK3654
"When you argue for a change in convention, you should take care to think it through and ask yourself, why does the convention work the way it does? Is the change I'm proposing an improvement to that functionality or a detriment? I think you'll find that in this community, a change to convention that's strictly detrimental is not going to be well-accepted and you can avoid trainwrecks like this thread in the future by self-editing to a small extent." - Willows
"What crescendo tries to achieve is overly complicated. As is, referencing triggered abilities makes it impossible to print at common, and that's before you get to the wall of text involved in making the narrative concept of a "crescendo" work. Your idea is not a keyword ability. It really should just be a one of card, perhaps a single cycle at most at a higher rarity. The complexity here isn't worth it." -IcariiFA
"The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you." -ThoughtCriminal
"So, it should go without saying: If you're posting in a forum based on the criticism of custom cards, you should be able to take criticism." - Void_nothing
Every single poster agreed: the ability is totally unworkable. Also many of them offered solutions that work within the rules. It's not like working within the rules is super hard. You should try it some time.
-----
I offered you a challenge, and you failed it. You couldn't even produce one working Magic card. Not one. You didn't even try. I'm really disappointed in you. I actually thought you had it in you. I thought you could do this. But you won't even try. You won't even make a token effort.
Until you learn to accept the opinions of others, you will never be a game designer. Your designs will never be "artful" or "innovative" if they can't even work in the game they're designed for. A real game designer would see that first comment "I think the ability needs to be cleaned up a little", and clean up the ability. That's what real design is.
You still have a chance to redeem yourself. But you won't bother to try. You're too busy inventing the way Magic works in your head.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
And all this has been explained once again, and you don't like it? But accept it.
We have to agree to disagree. You don't like having new base context, that describes "During your turn" as meaning [when a turn first begins, outside the influence of phases and steps]. That is the real issue here.
During your turn. When your turn first begins. When is your turn? It's right now.
For a selection of time, this base context adds "once during your turn"; or "any number of times during your turn"; or "at any time during your turn" (which I do believe I've used before). If that's not there, naturally, it means immediately.
I'm sorry dude, but until you can learn to accept basic criticism AND work within the game rules as they actually exist, you will never be a designer. You will only look like a fool, as you always do in these threads.
It hurts me to see you fail over and over again. But I can't help you. You refuse to be helped.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.