was nt sure where to put this so its here..
just a thought at the moment the deck is 50 cards.
how about different kind of decks maybe u could theme them ?
The problem with that Help, is you share the deck with your opponent, and the cards keep teh game in check of the randomness needed. As some cards are too good to have more than 1 in it.
yep at the moment we share but perhaps 1 day we could have are own stack.
The point of sharing a deck is the stratedgy, so their isnt 3 of the 4 players in a FFA running around with disentigrate or something. The shared deck (since this is a "board" game), is a main point of the game and shouldnt be changed.
its not that i don t see what your saying but the thought was basically that with different decks u could have different spells.i m not saying duplicate the deck we are using now.
Well, the whole idea of this game was originally a board game (one that came with a deck for all players to share, not make your own.)
He will make new cards, no doubt about that, but customizing your deck makes luck less useful, and gets rid of the stratedgy knowing that if i have the dispell card in my hand, my opponent cannot have it, so im safe with by shield/imprisionment. Etc.
On the same token, though, if I get a lucky draw it's nearly impossible to lose (unless my strategy is REALLY horrible). I'd prefer something about the deck change to minimize the affect of randomness (there's already randomness with attacks, and that's bad enough). The only problem is that I can't think of a way to make it better outside of taking a few of the cards out (Revive, for instance).
Actually, I just thought of a way to make it slightly better. What if some cards required prerequisites? For instance, revive could require 20 valor.
Quote from: Demoyn on September 03, 2009, 09:41:51 PM MT
Actually, I just thought of a way to make it slightly better. What if some cards required prerequisites? For instance, revive could require 20 valor.
I like that idea! Powerful spells should have prerequisties, such as disintegrate. Distegrate is annoying when used early into the game, so in order to be able to use it, you need to get valors first.
Well my duel record more than speaks for itself your cards don't actually matter as much as you might think, how u play/use them do however. (and before anyone calls out my setup I made 30 of those wins before I beat Baker, so i didnt have all the chars with my first 30 wins)
However Prerequiste wouldnt be a bad idea. though 20 is obsurd. No way has any of my last 20+ opponents in a duel made it to 15 let alone 20.
I would think 5 would be fine (Most people dont earn three until during their third turn, and this is only if they actually attack things aka not playing hide defensively.
The only cards I could see with a prereq is though: Disentigrate, Demonic Lash, and Revive. All the other cards are not so bad.
I concur that requiring 20 valor is too much. I could see it at 5 or 10, depending.
I think requiring Valor for certain spells is a productive idea and potentially a really good way to eliminate card-sifting for teleport combos. If a minimum Valor is required, it forces you to engage the enemy on the battlefield before such abilities can be used, instilling a natural progression of power in the game. On the very extreme end, we might even consider requiring a very minute Valor before spell casting can take place at all, or perhaps make this a game option to give players more customization for their battles.
I fully support that idea Ross. That way, first turn Mage kills will be almost impossible. If all mages had to have at least 2/3 valor before they can even cast, it would be very difficult to eliminate an opposing mage before they have even had a chance to move. Also speed up games by reducing the amount of times that one gets trapped in their start location by a horde of summons. It would make for an interesting dynamic and force many of us to rethink our strategies. good idea!
yea, and it would prevent those quick hero/guardian kills before a person can move cuz of Fireball + seeker missile etc.
After 2nd consideration, it might be bad in the fact that if you dont choose a rogue/psi. It might take you 3 turns to get to opponent who has 1 or both shooting and running.
I am not sure it should be a blanket Valor based rule, as currently I think most early valor is generated by summons, fireballs etc. I think that kind of play is still fun, throwing your peeps straight into the battle like that.
However, I am not adverse to the idea of having a Valor Class Spell, where certain spells are valor restricted, or a particular school of spells (I'm looking at you manipulation...), which require 3 valor before you are able to cast them.
Manipulation isnt the problem class, Destruction is, with demonic lash, Strong Aoe attacks, and disentigrate. Esspecially with seeker missle able to go around walls and only cost 1. (mixed with fireballs, i seen heros die without getting his turn)
And since, teleport combos are problem matic with destruction spells early on... that would fix that too.
We just need to be careful not to hurt any particular school of magic so as to show favoritism to one Mage over another. Spells are somewhat less inclined to need for balance in general because the cards you draw are allowed to every player and are not guaranteed. Certainly, it is possible to draw that incredible winning hand- but how does this differ from an extremely lucky roll of the dice or the luck when your opponent passes you over to attack a different enemy player? Like in Poker, or any CCG (Magic especially) - sometimes you just draw an amazing hand- it's part of the luck.
I would really rather see this as an in game option, as opposed to a default thing.
It seems too much like creeping from WC3 for my tastes.
I agree with tors10, either it's an in game option (and not default) or just leave it as is. :)