|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:02 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Examples of your dilemma?
Well, it sprouts mainly from the fact that I want them to be fairly simple, and partly from the fact that all Gaia events are fairly similar. I was thinking of doing the 4 basic ones, being Easter, Halloween, Christmas, and Gaia's Birthday...
Easter employs the scavenger hunt, Halloween - Trick-or-Treating, Christmas and B-day are both very generic.
I feel as if I'm stating a lot, but getting very little actually done sweatdrop
That's how I feel when I try to come up with them; I don't want 4 different cards that all do the same thing. I was planning on skipping the skin-changing part of Hallowe'en anyway, since it changes every year. I like the fact that there are 4 cards and 4 stats, so I think I can come up something having to do with that: "When a user with 3 or more Int deals damage to a player, search your deck for an Item card. Shuffle your library and put that card on top of it." or something like that... :/
EDIT: Nevermind; I just remembered how card-drawing is going to work, so that effect can't happen... =Returns to drawing board=
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
EDIT: I think I may've struck something, though; I was thinking about Hallowe'en and how it's the only one that interacts with NPC's (I'll probably expand this to include all Gaia cards, just to be fair), and that other events have more to do with Post-ing and Browse-ing, and that Christmas has a lot to do with giving away Items. Now I just have to figure how they'll interact with those card types, exactly...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:03 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Examples of your dilemma?
Well, it sprouts mainly from the fact that I want them to be fairly simple, and partly from the fact that all Gaia events are fairly similar. I was thinking of doing the 4 basic ones, being Easter, Halloween, Christmas, and Gaia's Birthday...
Easter employs the scavenger hunt, Halloween - Trick-or-Treating, Christmas and B-day are both very generic.
I feel as if I'm stating a lot, but getting very little actually done sweatdrop
That's how I feel when I try to come up with them; I don't want 4 different cards that all do the same thing. I was planning on skipping the skin-changing part of Hallowe'en anyway, since it changes every year. I like the fact that there are 4 cards and 4 stats, so I think I can come up something having to do with that: "When a user with 3 or more Int deals damage to a player, search your deck for an Item card. Shuffle your library and put that card on top of it." or something like that... :/
EDIT: Nevermind; I just remembered how card-drawing is going to work, so that effect can't happen... =Returns to drawing board=
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:07 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Hmm.. 3 of the 4 are based around getting items. Halloween is also about items, but also about changing Skin. To fix that, you could make a G Corp card that deals with changing your skin, and then there would be 4/4 dealing with items.
Easter employs the scavenger hunt, Halloween - Trick-or-Treating, Christmas and B-day are both very generic.
I feel as if I'm stating a lot, but getting very little actually done sweatdrop
That's how I feel when I try to come up with them; I don't want 4 different cards that all do the same thing. I was planning on skipping the skin-changing part of Hallowe'en anyway, since it changes every year. I like the fact that there are 4 cards and 4 stats, so I think I can come up something having to do with that: "When a user with 3 or more Int deals damage to a player, search your deck for an Item card. Shuffle your library and put that card on top of it." or something like that... :/
EDIT: Nevermind; I just remembered how card-drawing is going to work, so that effect can't happen... =Returns to drawing board=
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:10 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Hmm.. 3 of the 4 are based around getting items. Halloween is also about items, but also about changing Skin. To fix that, you could make a G Corp card that deals with changing your skin, and then there would be 4/4 dealing with items.
Easter employs the scavenger hunt, Halloween - Trick-or-Treating, Christmas and B-day are both very generic.
I feel as if I'm stating a lot, but getting very little actually done sweatdrop
That's how I feel when I try to come up with them; I don't want 4 different cards that all do the same thing. I was planning on skipping the skin-changing part of Hallowe'en anyway, since it changes every year. I like the fact that there are 4 cards and 4 stats, so I think I can come up something having to do with that: "When a user with 3 or more Int deals damage to a player, search your deck for an Item card. Shuffle your library and put that card on top of it." or something like that... :/
EDIT: Nevermind; I just remembered how card-drawing is going to work, so that effect can't happen... =Returns to drawing board=
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:14 pm
Ugh. Since I want all of the Events to get you Items (since that's what makes sense), I'll probably have to switch out Items for Users in the card types. Also, since there are a lot more Users than Gaias (25:10), and you can only have up to 3 Gaia cards at once (normally), the effects would have a lot of numerical differences. Also, the User one would almost be more powerful by default, since every deck will make use of them, but not all of them will even have Gaias...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:16 pm
Red Kutai
Ugh. Since I want all of the Events to get you Items (since that's what makes sense), I'll probably have to switch out Items for Users in the card types. Also, since there are a lot more Users than Gaias (25:10), and you can only have up to 3 Gaia cards at once (normally), the effects would have a lot of numerical differences. Also, the User one would almost be more powerful by default, since every deck will make use of them, but not all of them will even have Gaias...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:20 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K All of the skin changing(and their stat altering effects) can fit into the Halloween expansion, so that is of no concern at the moment.
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
Yea, I'm fine with it too, it just seems a little messy. If there were actual cards involved, I wouldn't hesitate. But, since this is what we have, I go with it. I'm a little worried about the power level of cards that would let you get multiple items to begin with, but I think I could find a way for it to work. How's this sound: "At the beginning of your turn, you may discard a [card type] card. If you do, you may search your deck for an Item card and put that card into your hand, and you skip your draw step this turn." The draw-step skipping helps regulate it, so they can't just do it turn after turn. The fact that it's discard rather than sacrifice means it doesn't matter how many are in play, and since almost every deck will be based around Users, people will be less willing to discard them...
EDIT: I forgot that, since these will be Gaia cards, they should effect more players. That means that, since your opponent will also have more users, the user card has another drawback there. I think if that effect were spread out to both players, it would work great. We might even be able to get rid of the "skip your draw step" part...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:22 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K All of the skin changing(and their stat altering effects) can fit into the Halloween expansion, so that is of no concern at the moment.
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
True, but I'd much rather edit cards around the set than edit the set around a few cards. It seems a tad excessive, especially for cards that haven't even been made yet...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:24 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K All of the skin changing(and their stat altering effects) can fit into the Halloween expansion, so that is of no concern at the moment.
Why can't that effect work? It seems fine to me.
Card-drawing is done by a random number generator. Unless we can trick the generator into picking the number we want it to, we can't put specific cards on top of the deck; and I'm afraid it would be too powerful if it went straight to your hand... :/
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
Yea, I'm fine with it too, it just seems a little messy. If there were actual cards involved, I wouldn't hesitate. But, since this is what we have, I go with it. I'm a little worried about the power level of cards that would let you get multiple items to begin with, but I think I could find a way for it to work. How's this sound: "At the beginning of your turn, you may discard a [card type] card. If you do, you may search your deck for an Item card and put that card into your hand, and you skip your draw step this turn." The draw-step skipping helps regulate it, so they can't just do it turn after turn. The fact that it's discard rather than sacrifice means it doesn't matter how many are in play, and since almost every deck will be based around Users, people will be less willing to discard them...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:28 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Well if you designate a card to be drawn next, then there is no need to use the integer generator that turn, no?
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
Yea, I'm fine with it too, it just seems a little messy. If there were actual cards involved, I wouldn't hesitate. But, since this is what we have, I go with it. I'm a little worried about the power level of cards that would let you get multiple items to begin with, but I think I could find a way for it to work. How's this sound: "At the beginning of your turn, you may discard a [card type] card. If you do, you may search your deck for an Item card and put that card into your hand, and you skip your draw step this turn." The draw-step skipping helps regulate it, so they can't just do it turn after turn. The fact that it's discard rather than sacrifice means it doesn't matter how many are in play, and since almost every deck will be based around Users, people will be less willing to discard them...
Not all item types? I don't think we really have any item types other than Special and Collectible, but I guess we could exclude those. I suppose it would make more sense that way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:34 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Well if you designate a card to be drawn next, then there is no need to use the integer generator that turn, no?
I suppose not, but the fact that you abandon the card-drawing method for a turn seems a little strange. Especially if you manage to stack multiple cards on top of your deck, or if you started messing with taking things off the top of it. I think it'd be simpler to avoid that kind of effect in general. At least for now... sweatdrop
Yea, I'm fine with it too, it just seems a little messy. If there were actual cards involved, I wouldn't hesitate. But, since this is what we have, I go with it. I'm a little worried about the power level of cards that would let you get multiple items to begin with, but I think I could find a way for it to work. How's this sound: "At the beginning of your turn, you may discard a [card type] card. If you do, you may search your deck for an Item card and put that card into your hand, and you skip your draw step this turn." The draw-step skipping helps regulate it, so they can't just do it turn after turn. The fact that it's discard rather than sacrifice means it doesn't matter how many are in play, and since almost every deck will be based around Users, people will be less willing to discard them...
Not all item types? I don't think we really have any item types other than Special and Collectible, but I guess we could exclude those. I suppose it would make more sense that way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:37 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Well this method only exists because there is no other way. Personally, I'm fine with "top of the deck" effects. But I guess not everybody could cope with it as easily... (Josh..)
Yea, I'm fine with it too, it just seems a little messy. If there were actual cards involved, I wouldn't hesitate. But, since this is what we have, I go with it. I'm a little worried about the power level of cards that would let you get multiple items to begin with, but I think I could find a way for it to work. How's this sound: "At the beginning of your turn, you may discard a [card type] card. If you do, you may search your deck for an Item card and put that card into your hand, and you skip your draw step this turn." The draw-step skipping helps regulate it, so they can't just do it turn after turn. The fact that it's discard rather than sacrifice means it doesn't matter how many are in play, and since almost every deck will be based around Users, people will be less willing to discard them...
Not all item types? I don't think we really have any item types other than Special and Collectible, but I guess we could exclude those. I suppose it would make more sense that way...
Well, excluding future sets would also exclude items of the Jack'd subtype, which would be completely nonsensical. I don't know exactly which ones to exclude...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:40 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Well this method only exists because there is no other way. Personally, I'm fine with "top of the deck" effects. But I guess not everybody could cope with it as easily... (Josh..)
Yea, I'm fine with it too, it just seems a little messy. If there were actual cards involved, I wouldn't hesitate. But, since this is what we have, I go with it. I'm a little worried about the power level of cards that would let you get multiple items to begin with, but I think I could find a way for it to work. How's this sound: "At the beginning of your turn, you may discard a [card type] card. If you do, you may search your deck for an Item card and put that card into your hand, and you skip your draw step this turn." The draw-step skipping helps regulate it, so they can't just do it turn after turn. The fact that it's discard rather than sacrifice means it doesn't matter how many are in play, and since almost every deck will be based around Users, people will be less willing to discard them...
Not all item types? I don't think we really have any item types other than Special and Collectible, but I guess we could exclude those. I suppose it would make more sense that way...
Well, excluding future sets would also exclude items of the Jack'd subtype, which would be completely nonsensical. I don't know exactly which ones to exclude...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:47 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Sounds decent. The only problem I have with all that is the wording. You would have to make sure that not all item types could be searched for.
Not all item types? I don't think we really have any item types other than Special and Collectible, but I guess we could exclude those. I suppose it would make more sense that way...
Well, excluding future sets would also exclude items of the Jack'd subtype, which would be completely nonsensical. I don't know exactly which ones to exclude...
Hmm. It may not become entirely obsolete, but I guess since the Jack'd subtype will be an in-set sub-type, we shouldn't worry about it much right now. So, it should find an "Item with no Item types", y'think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:51 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Sounds decent. The only problem I have with all that is the wording. You would have to make sure that not all item types could be searched for.
Not all item types? I don't think we really have any item types other than Special and Collectible, but I guess we could exclude those. I suppose it would make more sense that way...
Well, excluding future sets would also exclude items of the Jack'd subtype, which would be completely nonsensical. I don't know exactly which ones to exclude...
Hmm. It may not become entirely obsolete, but I guess since the Jack'd subtype will be an in-set sub-type, we shouldn't worry about it much right now. So, it should find an "Item with no Item types", y'think?
"Item with no attributes"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
