MTG Salvation

Honestly, you're the one that seems to be arguing on principle here. Honestly, can you even imagine a mechanic at this point that you wouldn't want to make sure is also playable in free for all? How bad does a mechanic have to be for that format for it to not be worth it in your eyes?

I'm not saying "you're not allowed to play cards in a way I didn't intend" that's silly. I'm saying "Hey, you're arguing that we should change the mechanic to something that's worse for the set itself (you agreed here in a vacuum unless I misremember) so that it can play really poorly in another format. If the mechanic produced a great experience in the other format, that argument would carry a lot of weight. But it doesn't.

The thing is, this is a major discussion over a minor issue. Weighing the relative values of "it reads a bit better and is a bit more grokkable and a bit more in line with our themes" vs, "It lets players that buy this product but also want to play free for all with every card in the set get to play with cards that are poorly designed in that format" requires a magnifying glass. You don't think the templating matters and think the protection of the hypothetical customer's perceived value is significant. I think protecting the cards for play in environments they play terribly in is unimportant.

It has nothing to do with "it's not what the design is meant for" and everything to do with "the design plays badly in those formats". I think you can even make an argument that it's better to prevent those bad experiences from happening in the first place.

However, if we were going to apply your arguments equally to all things - I could bring up the massive negative consequences that making a whole set of sci-fi MTG cards would have on the game's brand identity and the reactions of the players involved. Not to mention pokemon MTG sets and so on. But it seems that the commercial fidelity of the game in a hypothetical real-world scenario only seems to be the death sentence of free-for-all mechanics, not the other stuff.

SI's wording definitely gets rid of the more confusing situations of the old wording at least.

In any case, I vote we just let Piar call it. It seems we've covered the discussion pretty extensively.

The thing is, I think negatives are insignificant. I don't think a large number of people that are buying a 2HG set will be very upset to see some cards in it that are specifically designed for team formats. Doesn't bother the commander people much and didn't bother the conspiracy people much,or the archenemey people or the... Etc.

Also, I don't think the sidekick cards are well designed at all for free-for-all for the reasons stated. So it seems like even less of a non-issue than it already was.

Again, I sadly don't have time to respond in detail, so just a few points.

@ThoughtCrim - While the added comprehension complexity is certainly an issue, the issue is more on the grokkability standpoint (it's clearer how it's intended to work, similar to the "target player draws 2 cards" vs. the "draw 2 cards" templating used today), reinforcing the design goals (all teamwork, all the time) and the rules confusion as to issues of who determines which player gets to sidekick the spell if your opponent also wants to (team-wording puts it only into formats where the team is supposed to be agreeing on stuff anyway - and there's only one option to kick it in a 2hg format in any case in the team wording).

@Moon-E - If you just want to argue based on a design basis - or on personal preference - both are perfectly legitimate approaches. However, trying to argue that there isn't sufficient precedent in wizards doesn't work for this. The draw cards templating change made stuff worse in free for all but more grokkable. Not everyone agrees with it, but it's absolutely a thing that happened - and it happened in *main* product lines not just a standalone supplemental product whose theme is directly reinforced by the templating in question. This is a direct comparison and there is absolutely precedent.

Multiple card types and mechanics have been printed in supplemental products too that aren't valid in all formats. When I first brought up archenemy and planechase, you moved to saying "well those cards aren't included in your deck so it's different". When I brought up the draft-matters cards, you've moved to, "well it's only one slot per booster pack so it's different". No matter what, you WILL be able to find a difference. But now we've gone from "magic doesn't do this" to, "okay, magic does it all the time but when it comes to cards that go in decks magic has only done it when it's one card per pack - which probably has a lot to do with drafting balance actually".

The fact that the cards can go in your deck in the first place is pretty darn irrelevant to whether the value the product provides is useful in other formats. The fact that conspiracies can't go in my deck in any constructed format ever should make them *more* of a value loss. Same with schemes in archenemy and planes in planechase.

Let's stop arguing the precedent. It manifestly exists in a whole range of mechanics, card types and templating. If you want to disagree with those precedents, go for it. But they do exist. This discussion will probably be more productive if we can focus on the priorities of the design, rather than whether wizards has done something similar before. There are precedents, so it's a possibility. The question is whether we want to.

My argument is simple. Because it doesn't break any MTG conventions to do it this way, and because MTG has demonstrated their willingness to make format-specific mechanics, I'd like the mechanic to use terminology that is clearly team-focused and directs you immediately to the mechanic's intent.

The fact that these cards will never be played in a constructed free for all environment in practice only tips the scales further for me. I understand you don't want to consider that as a factor, and you don't have to, but it seems to me to be at the very least a fair tiebreaker.

EDIT - Oh, there's actually something I'm not sure I've ever mentioned but has been in my head from the start. Sidekick kinda sucks as a free for all designer. That's why I've no interest in maintaining it there at all.

The whole point of sidekick is that it's color-oriented so you draft around it. However, in free for all that single-handedly determines who you have to beg favors from - if anyone is running that color of mana at all.

Additionally, forcing players into a position where they need to ask a specific player for help to make their spell count (which also messes with the surprise cards) isn't great. Join Forces at least provides a huge incentive for players to band together to create powerful effects. Collaborative Brainwashing, on the other hand, is you asking the guy who is playing blue mana to give you the creature you're targeting. Even with effects like Shoulder to Shoulder, someone is getting their +2/+2 bonus wasted. It's not like you can attack and block together in that format.

If someone brought this design to me AS a free for all designer, I'd throw it out for these reasons. So I have even less of a motivation to preserve the possibility of a selection of cards in a supplemental product based around team-work to be be played in a free for all format where they aren't even well designed.

In team formats, the question still exists, but in a different form -- the form where the teammate doesn't necessarily want to pay but both opponents may want to.

I think you're missing the point of the discussion. I'm advocating the use of the templating "teammate may pay..." vs. "another player may pay..."

Non-teammates might want to pay the cost, but the mechanic specifically doesn't allow that.

Can't respond to the full wall of text Moon-E, I'm on deadline, but it seems like you're contradicting yourself a bit. You declare that you want the cards to work within the larger context of Magic on the one hand, then take off into space on the other. That's an actual creative disconnect, not a slight inconvenience to free-for-all fans. I know you claim this is a middle-ground but it sounds a lot like a contradiction. You might choose to really care about free for all fans being able to equally enjoy all cards in a supplemental product not intended for them, but not care at all if the creative breaks all of MTG's explicit rules regarding settings, but this isn't a middleground - it's personal preference. Nothing wrong with personal preference.

Your use of Will of the Council and Parley is a huge stretch. You're attempting to suggest that wizards would have used mechanics that only work in free for all but didn't because of reach to other formats. You don't say what these mechanics would be, and I can't honestly imagine a better mechanic for doing voting than saying "each player" in the first place. Also, in the same exact product, they made the even-narrower draft-matters cards that can only be used in cubes outside of the initial draft experience. Those also are cards that can go in decks, like sidekick cards, and yet their mechanics don't have any purpose in commander free for all games and so on.

As for the comprehension complexity, it's real. Check the questions in this thread, the ones asking "what if multiple opponents in a free for all game want to pay the cost?" In team-formats, those questions don't pop up nearly as much, the team should be agreeing anyway.

The fact multiplayer games use older targeted-draw cards is a red herring. The overall templating change was made for this reason, despite the multiplayer cost. When products are made specifically for those formats, they use cards that work better for them. No surprise there.

Ultimately, I appreciate your points but I think they're ultimately not worth it. MTG has demonstrated a willingness to make mechanics that have limited or nonexistant use outside of particular formats before. Some of those even on cards that go in your decks. It's a thing that's been done. If I was doing this commercially, I'd still be arguing the exact same points. Better to make the product as focused on the experience people are buying it for as possible.

The fact that we're not doing this commercially, and that we won't be playing with these cards in casual fee for all games, only reinforces the reason to make the design as focused as possible on the experience it's actually intended for.

EDIT - I should point out though, that I don't have time to be an active member on the design team as much as I'd like. As such, my preferences shouldn't be weighted as heavily as those with more of an emotional stake in the set.

The fact that I don't think anyone will be playing with these cards outside of 2HG limited reinforces things for me.

Going back to our design goal, which templating makes you feel more team-oriented? The one that uses the word "teammate" or the one that doesn't, but allows for political gamesmanship in free-for-all formats?

I think that the fact that "another player" usually refers to opponents makes it even more confusing than it already is. And I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that people will be confused about what "Teammate" means in a team-based format where you have only one other team mate, and where you're both allowed to look at eachother's hands and confer on which cards to play.

If we want to just recap what we've said before:
Being in a supplemental product doesn't divorce you from the rest of magic. Creating a major set mechanic that does literally nothing outside of an incredibly specific format is not good Magic design.

You can keep saying that all you want, but archenemy cards do nothing outside of archenemy, planechase cards do nothing outside of planechase, the "you can use this planeswalker as your commander" mechanic does nothing outside of commander, the draft-only cards do nothing outside of Conspiracy's first draft (or cube) and so on and so forth. While there are no *direct* comparisons, that doesn't matter. Both more restrictive and less restrictive things have been done in the past.

One could also easily say "Making the supplemental product's design less focused to let the cards be played in multiplayer formats, though we'll need a rules entry to explain how it works in those formats, is bad design". After all, "Target player draws 2 cards" has more multiplayer possibilities than, "Draw 2 cards". Wizards ultimately decided to go with non-targeted draw, despite the loss of options in many more formats - even duels when you've got stuff that punishes the enemy for drawing.

Both sides have fine points, and it isn't an easy decision. However, it baffles me that you'd rather protect the cards' uses in formats they don't have a real place in than just make the design as focused as possible. If you can do both without any loss of design focus or without making things more complex or worse in one way or another, that's fine. But it doesn't seem to be the case.

Will of the Council and Parley are poor comparisons. You might as well just say, "What about haste? See, that's a mechanic that works fine for other formats. You should never make format-specific ones." There is no reason that Will of the Counil or Parley would work *better* if they were somehow made to not work in duels. The same goes for haste, trample and so on. Those examples aren't trade-offs, they're just a mechanic written out in the most convenient way. They also happen to work in other formats.

You're analysis is not wrong, I just find the benefits of using teammate are far outweighed by the positives: instead of creating cards that can only be used in one of the least played casual formats

.

Can't have it both ways. You can either declare that you want to treat this with all the business concerns wizards would normally have for such products, which is one reason you keep bringing up for making the cards as valuable in as many formats as possible, or you can insist that the format isn't popular enough to warrant format-specific cards commercially. If that's the case, then this product would never get made in the first place.

If our goal is to make the best possible 2HG set, awesome. If our goal is to make sets with the same commercial concerns as Wizards, that's fine too. Having a weird middle-ground doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from MOON-E »

Sidekick is a tricky one. As people have mentioned earlier in the thread, having sidekick spells work in FFA games (especially for players who like politics) is something that's cool and that we want to keep around. On the flip side, designing the cards gets a lot trickier.

Actually, "we" is a bit strong there. We just decided to table the discussion until it became an actual issue. It seems it might now be an actual issue.

I don't really see why the cards can't just be for team formats. It's a supplemental product, it lowers comprehension complexity, it increases the mechanic's identity and it avoids some of these design problems.

I got one of the lowest rating of the bunch. In the words of Blails: How embarrassing!

I will say from this experience that making a legendary phoenix is no easy task. It has so many requirements it has to fulfill yet at the same time it has much stricter design room than I'd initially anticipated, and even from the beginning I knew it's tough. Beyond that, many of the awkward design choices I made came about because I was concerning myself with developmental and rules issues. I was too caught up trying to get the card to work by-the-book that I didn't take the time to look back and see if the card actually read well. My biggest mistake was not starting off with a designer mindset. This exercise now made me realize that I need to draw a firm line with designing a card (making an interesting concept) and developing a card (refining the concept so it works within rules and within a set environment).

Wow, I love this. Please show us more. One day it will create entire draft environments.

Quote from Talcos »

In terms of raw reasoning power, it's on par with a jellyfish.

Does this mean jellyfish are actually smart enough to create Magic cards? :T

Quote from Talcos »

So, coming back to your point, it's going to be very difficult to "talk" to this network without it developing new pathological superstitions. For example, if it by chance creates a run of awful red cards, it might become afraid of the color red. I think it'll be too easily frightened by any attempt at constructive criticism.

Oh my god, that's actually pretty adorable.

Quote from TomCat26 »

Quote from Stairc »

I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at

It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."

Okay then.

This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?

You managed to show Tomcat is dumb. He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.

I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".

Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.

That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.

If I concede, all you win is a me opening another thread this time worded in a way that is more satisfying to you.
It just completely misses the point.

Ask yourself this: In your opinion, what is the most valuable subject matter or content exchanged between you and I in the last few responses?

In my opinion, there is almost no value, because like I said, even if you win, you might get me to use another term besides 'big picture'. You might get me to word something differently.

Now Take a look at my exchange with Iso. What value was exchanged there? Alot. We didn't necessarily agree, but he laid forth an outline for how nerds generally think, and I critiqued the consequences of that pattern of thinking. This is substantive content. This is an example of engaging the authors point and purpose. One doesn't have to agree, but at least there is substance exchanged.

It looks like you're missing the point behind what Staric is saying. You're not seeing the big picture.

It looks to me like he disagrees with your core observation that nerds tend not to see the big picture.
He also looks like he's saying that your entire thesis is unclear, since "nerds" and "big picture" can mean different things depending on the specific context.


I kinda agree with him. I haven't known nerds to fail to see the big picture any more than other people, and you really shown me anything that can convince me that your observation is the correct one