Kaoz Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Sorry that this took so long, I was pretty busy last week. But, here you go, I hope it's to your liking: [spoiler=Sample Battles]Characters used: Marthurs Characters (110704) Weapons used: Shadow Dragon, Iron Effective Modifier: +2 Turn Procedure: A attacks, B attacks, check for DA, repeat Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 2HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 6HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: -5HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: -1HP left Marthur's Fighter: 5HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 1HP left Marthur's Mage: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Myrmidon --------- Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 1HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 6HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: -7HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 2HP left Marthur's Archer: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Myrmidon --------- Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 2HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Myrmidon --------- Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 1HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 8HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: -7HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 6HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 2HP left Marthur's Fighter: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 4HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 5HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 5HP left Marthur's Archer: 3HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 5HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 4HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 7HP left Marthur's Mercenary: -3HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Fighter: 4HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Fighter: 3HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Fighter: 3HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Mage: 1HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mage --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Mage: 0HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 3HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Mercenary --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Mage: -3HP left Marthur's Fighter: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Mage: -1HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Mage: 0HP left Marthur's Archer: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Mage: 0HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 3HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Pegasus Knight --------- Marthur's Mage: 8HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Mage: -1HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 6HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 5HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 2HP left Marthur's Fighter: 3HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 5HP left Marthur's Archer: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 4HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 6HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Archer: 4HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Archer: 3HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 5HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Archer: 0HP left Marthur's Fighter: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Archer: 2HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 5HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Archer: 2HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 7HP left Marthur's Archer: -6HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 2HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Pegasus Knight --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 1HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 5HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Pegasus Knight --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: -2HP left Marthur's Fighter: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Fighter --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Pegasus Knight --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 0HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 5HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Cavalier --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: -1HP left Marthur's Archer: 3HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Archer --------- Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 0HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 7HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 9HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 8HP left Marthur's Myrmidon: 1HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 11HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 7HP left Marthur's Mercenary: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Fighter: 12HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 4HP left Marthur's Fighter: 3HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Mage: 8HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 11HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 6HP left Marthur's Cavalier: 4HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Archer: 10HP left Marthur's Dragon Knight: 7HP left Marthur's Archer: 2HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- Marthur's Dragon Knight: 12HP left Marthur's Pegasus Knight: 9HP left The battle has ended, the winner is: Marthur's Dragon Knight --------- I didn't use a Weapon Triangle yet and also used weapons with varying strength based on SD, I can redo it with equal weapons though if you want. Also, if you'd like any other information displayed, feel free to say so. I will adress your other points tomorow or the day after (for real this time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marthur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Sorry that this took so long, I was pretty busy last week. Don't worry about it. But, here you go, I hope it's to your liking: [spoiler=Sample Battles] Aside from showing the dragon knight and cavalier's superiority in battle, I'm not sure what to think about this actually. First this is because, a unit's usefulness won't necessarily depends on its stats. Mobility will also play an important part for instance. The second reason is because the battles won't actually happen in an arena fashion, but rather on a map. As such, this list doesn't really take into account some of the unit's strong points, such as a magic user's range. For instance, an actual one-on-one battle should go like this: Mage attacks out of range of a Cavalier. Cavalier attacks. Mage retaliates. Repeat. Besides, the fact that there will be several units on a map will also affect a unit's utility. Take this scenario for instance: ____________________________ | | | | | ^ | ^ | ^ | |_______\|____|___|/_______| | | | | | <-|P.Knight|-> | |________|________|________| | /| |\ | | v | Knight | v | |________|________|________| | | | | | | Archer | | |________|________|________| Pegasus knight is in front of an enemy knight and archer. In this case, it can't reach the archer this turn so it's basically dead meat if it doesn't retreat diagonally. Of course, the balance could easily be switched if the player had a mage on his side. In any case, I think that right now, the dragon knight is indeed a bit too overpowered. The mages are probably the most useful since I gave them an advantage against dragons. Rather, it would probably be best to give an advantage to archers over P.Knight and D.Knight. The cavalier actually looks fine to me right now. Edited July 5, 2011 by Marthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 What I like about this affinity system (and the pokemon TCG for that matter) is that a good deck won't necessarily revolve around having strong units, but rather having units with the same affinity. In a way, you could say it's a form of support. I agree that it's desirable to give those kind of decks some form of bonus for sticking to one theme. On the other hand, decks that don't focus on a specific affinity should be possible as well. I would handle it in a way that gives some form of bonus to units with the same affinity and maybe allow them to stack to a certain extent. Balance between different classes likely won't be a problem since we can apply the same rules used in the video games. Would you say the classes are well balanced in the games? As for balancing different characters of the same class, well first, characters won't necessarily have to be balanced, some will be stronger than others (based on plot) and it will be just fine (Camus should be better than Jeigan for instance.) Some characters will also have the same stats. (I guess that can't be avoided.) Also, promotion will play some role in the balancing, since different promoted units will have different stats boosts. Then it will just be a matter of distributing HP/Power/Defense/Resistance stats indeed. But if some characters will be stronger without any drawbacks, what's the point in using the weaker ones? For example, in MtG, stronger cards cost more mana, and while it doesn't make every card equally viable, it does allow for a variety of strategies based on that alone. I honestly don't see why you are so opposed to using a resource like gold, it's not even complicated or anything (I will get back to this at the end of this post). Also, I'm not entirely against including a speed stat, but I think you should be careful as it can easily become a game breaker. Most likely, fast units will have an overwhelming advantage if they can consistantly double. You're basically giving them twice as much power. While that's true, characters that are known for great Speed (Myrmidon, Peg Knight etc.), usually have low strength and/or defense. Furthermore, if you are worried about getting doubled, you could always use a Speedwings or something like that. So, the following is just assumptions: Assuming we're using affinity cards as previously described, maybe the cost for faster units to double should be two of them. As a result, you would need 4 of them for one attack + one critical and six for two criticals. To summarize: -1 Affinity Card (AC): 1 attack. -2 AC and unit is significantly faster than enemy: 2 attacks -3 AC: A critical hit -4 AC and unit is significantly faster than enemy: 1 attack + 1 critical hit. -6 AC and unit is significantly faster than enemy: 2 critical hits. I'm pretty sure fast units are still advantaged though. Will that make Swordmasters overpowered since their cost for criticals is lowered? We can possibly balance it if we don't give them too much power. Will that make Armored units useless? Possibly. We'll have to see how counter attacks work as well. (I'm thinking that a counter attack will need an AC to be launched, and Armored units could be exempt, but that could also make them too overpowered. [i can't be sure without any testing]) I think trying to find a universal system for this that applies to all units (even when there are slight changes for certain units) wouldn't really work. Again, I will adress this again at the end. Don't worry about it. Aside from showing the dragon knight and cavalier's superiority in battle, I'm not sure what to think about this actually. First this is because, a unit's usefulness won't necessarily depends on its stats. Mobility will also play an important part for instance. The second reason is because the battles won't actually happen in an arena fashion, but rather on a map. As such, this list doesn't really take into account some of the unit's strong points, such as a magic user's range. For instance, an actual one-on-one battle should go like this: Mage attacks out of range of a Cavalier. Cavalier attacks. Mage retaliates. Repeat. Besides, the fact that there will be several units on a map will also affect a unit's utility. Take this scenario for instance: ____________________________ | | | | | ^ | ^ | ^ | |_______\|____|___|/_______| | | | | | <-|P.Knight|-> | |________|________|________| | /| |\ | | v | Knight | v | |________|________|________| | | | | | | Archer | | |________|________|________| Pegasus knight is in front of an enemy knight and archer. In this case, it can't reach the archer this turn so it's basically dead meat if it doesn't retreat diagonally. Of course, the balance could easily be switched if the player had a mage on his side. In any case, I think that right now, the dragon knight is indeed a bit too overpowered. The mages are probably the most useful since I gave them an advantage against dragons. Rather, it would probably be best to give an advantage to archers over P.Knight and D.Knight. The cavalier actually looks fine to me right now. Well, Mages did have an advantage against dragons in the Tellius games. I'll redo it within the next couple of days... Now, regarding gold and affinityy cards as costs, how about this: -units cost gold to play (again, please tell me why this is a bad idea because I'm not seeing it) -every unit has additional parameters, like the one you described for ACs, Move and Attack would be standard for all units, then they could have special abilities (e.g. Great Shield for Generals) -each parameter costs a certain number of cards to use, though unlike what you suggested, it would be individual for each unit/class (so Flying units would have a lower cost for Move for example, Criticals could be triggered by paying 2 or 3 times the normal Attack cost) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marthur Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) I agree that it's desirable to give those kind of decks some form of bonus for sticking to one theme. On the other hand, decks that don't focus on a specific affinity should be possible as well. I would handle it in a way that gives some form of bonus to units with the same affinity and maybe allow them to stack to a certain extent. Of course. It's possible in the Pokemon TCG and in MtG I believe, so I don't see why we could not do it. Would you say the classes are well balanced in the games? I can't say they're all equal, but they all have their own strenghts and weaknesses, which I think is good enough. But if some characters will be stronger without any drawbacks, what's the point in using the weaker ones? It's a trading card game. In other words, a game where you collect cards. As such, isn't it natural to reward a player who would have collected stronger cards? Besides, the original TCG has special cards that act as lovers/siblings supports. So let's imagine that Minerva is stronger than Sheeda, but the player has special cards that allow the latter to support and strenghten other characters. Then wouldn't Sheeda strategically be a better choice than the stronger Minerva? I honestly don't see why you are so opposed to using a resource like gold, it's not even complicated or anything (I will get back to this at the end of this post). It's an annoyance that doesn't add much depth to the game in my opinion. If summoning a unit on the field requires a cost, then use the AC cards for that purpose. I don't see the point in adding another parameter that will turn a card game into a money management game. Of course, if someone else can provide sound arguments that money is a necessity, then I'll just shut up and comply. While that's true, characters that are known for great Speed (Myrmidon, Peg Knight etc. usually have low strength and/or defense) That is correct and if you check the list I provided you, said units do reflect that. :) Furthermore, if you are worried about getting doubled, you could always use a Speedwings or something like that. If stat boosters can be so easily used, then I don't see why the other player wouldn't take advantage of them and boost his Myrmidon's speed as well. Well in any case, I figure that the probability of having a stat booster in your hands should be quite low (unless you stuffed your deck with them). A better solution would be to use a unit with good speed or defense yourself anyway. But that wasn't the problem. My main concern was that you have to be careful with it, but as you said, if we can keep their strenght low enough, it shouldn't be a problem. I think trying to find a universal system for this that applies to all units (even when there are slight changes for certain units) wouldn't really work. May I ask why? Well, Mages did have an advantage against dragons in the Tellius games. I'll redo it within the next couple of days... I'm talking about Dragon Knights though. And I personally think it was stupid from IS to remove their weakness to bows in RD. It made Pegasus knights useless compared to Dragon Knights. Now, regarding gold and affinityy cards as costs, how about this: -units cost gold to play (again, please tell me why this is a bad idea because I'm not seeing it) -every unit has additional parameters, like the one you described for ACs, Move and Attack would be standard for all units, then they could have special abilities (e.g. Great Shield for Generals) -each parameter costs a certain number of cards to use, though unlike what you suggested, it would be individual for each unit/class (so Flying units would have a lower cost for Move for example, Criticals could be triggered by paying 2 or 3 times the normal Attack cost) -As said earlier, I'll comply if someone else deems it a necessity. Right now, that seems pretty trivial to me and I think other alternatives could be found. -As for parameters, I'd suggest taking the original TCG as a base. I think we're somewhat in agreement concerning the stats (POW/SPD/DEF/RES) and the Movement (Infantry type/Cavalry type/ Flying Type). I believe a unit should also have a single weapon type as well. The affinity is still up for debate. As for skills, the original TCG has them as special cards too, so I'm not sure what to think about them at the moment. -Having different rules applying for different classes is more complicated than having a universal system, right? In any case, I don't think moving should cost anything. Only an attack should. Edited July 6, 2011 by Marthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Of course. It's possible in the Pokemon TCG and in MtG I believe, so I don't see why we could not do it. I just wanted to re-emphasize it. I can't say they're all equal, but they all have their own strenghts and weaknesses, which I think is good enough. Fair enough. It's a trading card game. In other words, a game where you collect cards. As such, isn't it natural to reward a player who would have collected stronger cards? Besides, the original TCG has special cards that act as lovers/siblings supports. So let's imagine that Minerva is stronger than Sheeda, but the player has special cards that allow the latter to support and strenghten other characters. Then wouldn't Sheeda strategically be a better choice than the stronger Minerva? As it's an online game, I figured you'd have a large amount of cards available. I guess if you wanted to include booster packs etc. you could make that point. In that scenario, Sheeda isn't directly weaker than Minerva though, rather her strengths are distributed differently. Who of the two would be used would depend on the specific deck which would imply good design. I guess what I'm talking about is more comparable to Ike vs Brom/a generic Soldier/etc. It's an annoyance that doesn't add much depth to the game in my opinion. If summoning a unit on the field requires a cost, then use the AC cards for that purpose. I don't see the point in adding another parameter that will turn a card game into a money management game. Of course, if someone else can provide sound arguments that money is a necessity, then I'll just shut up and comply. Funny, I think it's exactly the other way around, a rather minor thing that adds more strategy. For example, some more universal strategies in various games include protecting and improving one specific unit or using a lot of weaker units to overwhelm the opponent with numbers. The stronger a unit is, the harder it should be to get to the point of being able to play it, otherwise you could just play that card on your first turn and be done with it. The same argument could be made for almost all other card types. Furthermore, pretty much all card games require that you manage your resources well, whether those resources are gold, lands or whatever else. As for using the AC cards for that as well, wouldn't that mean you need a very high amount of them in a deck? It seems easy to get too many or too few of them. (Note that I mainly want some resource to be used, not necessarily gold. However, I feel a bit iffy about using ACs to cover that part as well) If stat boosters can be so easily used, then I don't see why the other player wouldn't take advantage of them and boost his Myrmidon's speed as well. Well in any case, I figure that the probability of having a stat booster in your hands should be quite low (unless you stuffed your deck with them). A better solution would be to use a unit with good speed or defense yourself anyway. But that wasn't the problem. My main concern was that you have to be careful with it, but as you said, if we can keep their strenght low enough, it shouldn't be a problem. I'd start with resources and costs again, but I guess we should clear that for units first before getting to this... May I ask why? Imagine two units, A and B. A has 5 Atk and B has 4 Atk. Both have the same cost for an attack, but A will do more damage. This could obviously be circumvented (for example through a proper resource system), but should be kept in mind. I'm talking about Dragon Knights though. And I personally think it was stupid from IS to remove their weakness to bows in RD. It made Pegasus knights useless compared to Dragon Knights. I dunno, they were better vs magical enemies, which was the point I think. Unfortunately, Peg Knights got gimped by bad availability etc. I don't think it was a bad idea (and made sense for the continent), just that other factors made it unbalanced. -As said earlier, I'll comply if someone else deems it a necessity. Right now, that seems pretty trivial to me and I think other alternatives could be found. -As for parameters, I'd suggest taking the original TCG as a base. I think we're somewhat in agreement concerning the stats (POW/SPD/DEF/RES) and the Movement (Infantry type/Cavalry type/ Flying Type). I believe a unit should also have a single weapon type as well. The affinity is still up for debate. As for skills, the original TCG has them as special cards too, so I'm not sure what to think about them at the moment. -Having different rules applying for different classes is more complicated than having a universal system, right? In any case, I don't think moving should cost anything. Only an attack should. -Someone else, say something -Agreeing with (HP/POW/SPD/DEF/RES) as stats, as for Movement, not entirely sure yet, I would be in favour of being able to move more than one space per turn if we used larger maps like Lord Glenn suggested, agreeing with using some sort of Affinity, agreeing with Skill cards (I think I even mentioned something like that in an earlier post), why only one weapon type? -If the system is too simple, it gets boring pretty fast though, wouldn't you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tables Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I agree with Marthur here, in that Gold is probably not a great system. The main reason being, Affinity cards can essentially be the 'cost' card in your deck, and simpler rules is generally better. What I'd think would be a good system is, like with Magic and with Pokemon, each affinity having it's own overarching characteristic(s). So for example, Fire affinity units could play aggressively - relatively higher attack and lower defence for their classes with special bonuses generally relating to that, while Wind could have units with graceful, fluid abilities, allowing you to build combos of units and inhibit your opponent. I'm not exactly sure where or when these costs should be played, though, but I'm sure we could work that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) As I said, as long as we have some form of resource, I'm fine. If you guys think affinities work for that, I concede my point. I would support using affinities as defining characteristics. Maybe we could use something like Fuurinkazan as basis, represented by 4 affinities and use combined versions for others. How many affinities are there anyway, ten? Wind Water Fire Earth Light Dark Heaven Ice Thunder Anima Any others that I forgot? I will elaborate a bit when I get home... EDIT: Ok, so basically what I meant is that with 4 stats (besides HP), we could for example distribute affinities based on the unit's highest stat(s). So for example, Wind - Spd Fire - Atk Earth - Def Water - Res Units with more than one dominant stat would get a seperate affinity and whatever we use ACs for could be payed with either one of the base affinities (e.g. a combination of Wind and Fire could be Thunder and units with Thunder affinity could use both Wind and Fire ACs). Edited July 13, 2011 by Chaoskitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marthur Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) As I said, as long as we have some form of resource, I'm fine. If you guys think affinities work for that, I concede my point. I would support using affinities as defining characteristics. Maybe we could use something like Fuurinkazan as basis, represented by 4 affinities and use combined versions for others. How many affinities are there anyway, ten? Wind Water Fire Earth Light Dark Heaven Ice Thunder Anima Any others that I forgot? I will elaborate a bit when I get home... Concerning the number of affinities, I think we should have six of them: Fire Thunder Wind Earth (or Ice. It doesn't really matter. You can use whichever you like the most) Light Dark If we agree on this, I'll let you guys decide each type's characterics Additionnaly, we could have Anima and Heaven affinities. Units with the Anima affinity may use Fire, Thunder and Wind AC, while units with the Heaven affinity may use Earth, Light and Dark AC. Incidentally, these units should be slightly weaker stat-wise since they're easier to use. Hopefully, this should make the creation of decks with multiple affinities easier, at least within one's group (in other words, a fire/thunder deck will be easier to make than a fire/light. for instance) Edited July 13, 2011 by Marthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Concerning the number of affinities, I think we should have six of them: Fire Thunder Wind Earth (or Ice. It doesn't really matter. You can use whichever you like the most) Light Dark Why Thunder over Water or Ice? I know it doesn't really matter, I'm just curious Also, as you picked 6 affinities, but we have 5 stats at best, I assume that you're opposed to using them as defining characteristics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marthur Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why Thunder over Water or Ice? I know it doesn't really matter, I'm just curious Also, as you picked 6 affinities, but we have 5 stats at best, I assume that you're opposed to using them as defining characteristics? I'm mostly using the magic spells as a reference. I know that there's Ice magic in FE7/8 but it's really poorly represented in the series. I don't think there's a water affinity nor does water magic exist. No. I agree that stats should be used as defining characteristics but not necessarily for all types. Increased Power for Fire sounds good to me. Wind could increase Speed. And I think thunder would work better for the aggressive type of play Tables described (combos)... Dark could be about having your opponent discarding cards from his deck for exemple, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm mostly using the magic spells as a reference. I know that there's Ice magic in FE7/8 but it's really poorly represented in the series. I don't think there's a water affinity nor does water magic exist. No. I agree that stats should be used as defining characteristics but not necessarily for all types. Increased Power for Fire sounds good to me. Wind could increase Speed. And I think thunder would work better for the aggressive type of play Tables described (combos)... Dark could be about having your opponent discarding cards from his deck for exemple, etc... I see. Water is an affinity in the Tellius games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tables Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Additionnaly, we could have Anima and Heaven affinities.Units with the Anima affinity may use Fire, Thunder and Wind AC, while units with the Heaven affinity may use Earth, Light and Dark AC. Incidentally, these units should be slightly weaker stat-wise since they're easier to use. Hopefully, this should make the creation of decks with multiple affinities easier, at least within one's group (in other words, a fire/thunder deck will be easier to make than a fire/light. for instance) I like this idea. You could also have other unique characters using hybrid affinities that might fit into a particular deck, and also characters with no strong affinity that require multiple different affinities to become effective (bespoke strategies, yes, but it should always be an option). 6 affinities seems like a good number - and I don't think affinity should be that strictly tied to a stat, more to a set of strategic ideas in general. Think Magic, where you have... uh, I actually don't know magic that well but just think Magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I like this idea. You could also have other unique characters using hybrid affinities that might fit into a particular deck, and also characters with no strong affinity that require multiple different affinities to become effective (bespoke strategies, yes, but it should always be an option). 6 affinities seems like a good number - and I don't think affinity should be that strictly tied to a stat, more to a set of strategic ideas in general. Think Magic, where you have... uh, I actually don't know magic that well but just think Magic. Yes to Hybrid characters. Characters without a strong affinity... do you mean that they have no affinity at all or rather that there should be some sort of levels of how strong an affinity is (kinda like minor and major blood in FE4 I guess)? That's perfectly acceptable, we still need to decide on what should define a given affinity, hence why I suggested the Fuurinkazan thing. (I = Tables, Ich = myself) Ich: quick question, do you have a vague idea of what Fuurinkazan is? Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:04 Uhr I: Hmm... no, I don't think so Ich: let me give you a short summary then... Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:12 Uhr Ich: basically, it's related to the art of war and describes various battle standards Fuu = Swift like the Wind, basically you shall strike so fast that your opponent doesn't see it coming and can't react to it Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:15 Uhr Ich: Rin = Silent like th forest, it implies a very methodical approach and builds up slowly, but can take down even great defenses in the end Ka = Invade like Fire, basically burn down everything with full force Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:17 Uhr Ich: Zan = Immovable like a mountain, it's described as an insurmountable defense Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:19 Uhr Ich: there are also two more parts to it, which are somewhat seperated from the original four, In and Rai (so the full thing is actually Fuurinkazaninrai) Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:20 Uhr Ich: In = darkness and it uses the same character as the Yang in Yin and Yang... basically, it means that you hide your intentions and make people fear you (because they don't know what you're about to do) Rai = Move like lightning, in that your strike encompasses not only force, but also speed and randomness that's basically what I can summarize, and as it's related to the art of war, I figured we could put it some use for the affinity stuff Gesendet am Mittwoch um 19:23 Uhr I: Hm, right, sorry for not replying. It certainly sounds interesting, and I agree it's pretty much what we're going for. I'm sure some of the ideas there could be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marthur Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) I see. Water is an affinity in the Tellius games. To be honest, it's been over a year since I last touched a Fire Emblem game. Honestly didn't remember it. I like this idea. You could also have other unique characters using hybrid affinities that might fit into a particular deck, and also characters with no strong affinity that require multiple different affinities to become effective (bespoke strategies, yes, but it should always be an option). By hybrid characters, do you mean characters having two different attributes? 6 affinities seems like a good number - and I don't think affinity should be that strictly tied to a stat, more to a set of strategic ideas in general. Think Magic, where you have... uh, I actually don't know magic that well but just think Magic. I don't know anything about Magic either, but I think I see what you mean. Basically having magic cards that will only affect units of one affinity. For exemple, there could be a card that would only boost the power of Fire-affinity units. (I = Tables, Ich = myself) No objection here. Here are some ideas based on what you've described: Fire: (based on Ka = "Invade like Fire") Power boost. It would be about making your units stronger (and possibly weaken the opponent's units?) Wind: (based on Fuu "Swift like the Wind") I think this should be about speed. But the general strategy should also be to draw cards from your deck as fast as possible. Thunder: (based on Rai "Move like lightning") This one is kind of tricky. I understand the concept but I'm not sure if it's applicable to a TCG. What I think would be nice is a deck that confuses the opponent... For exemple, you're playing with sword-based units, so your opponents tries to counter with lances, but then you play a card that reverses the weapon triangle. So tricking your opponent would be the basic idea and I think that should cover the randomness bit. Additionally, it could also boosts criticals if we put them in the game. Light: (based on Rin "Silent like the forest") Resistance boost. I thought this could be a deck for support units, giving an advantage to healers/dancers. It could also allow a player to slowly store AF cards, so it would be a defensive strategy in the beginning, but turn into an offensive one by the end. Earth: (based on Zan "Immovable like a mountain") Defense boost. Purely defensive strategy, but it could also focus on damaging the opponent's units with spells rather direct attacks. Dark: (based on In) Destroying your opponent's deck rather than attacking him. Also, maybe this strategy could actually hurt the player using it. For instance, decreasing one of his unit's life in order to make the opponent discard some cards. Edited July 13, 2011 by Marthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Well, I used to play MtG quite a bit back in school and am still playing every now and then, so if you want to know anything, feel free to ask. I will talk a bit more about FuuRinKaZan later or tomorow, but for now, what do we actually want to have an affinity? Characters (or rather, in which way), Weapons, Skills (e.g. a Skill could have a universal effect, but it's more powerful when a unit with a certain affinity uses it)? By hybrid characters, do you mean characters having two different attributes? I would assume that's what it means, or at least that's the only definition in this context that I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marthur Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Well, I used to play MtG quite a bit back in school and am still playing every now and then, so if you want to know anything, feel free to ask. The only TCG I've really played is Yu-Gi-Oh. I played the Pokemon TCG video game as well, but that was long ago and I can't remember any of it. Strangely, I do have Magic cards (5 different core sets along with a lot of booster packs) given to me by someone I actually never met, along with some Duel Masters cards I don't really care about one bit. I think I should just download the instructions on the Net, but the problem is, I don't know of anybody who plays the game. I will talk a bit more about FuuRinKaZan later or tomorow, but for now, what do we actually want to have an affinity? Characters (or rather, in which way), Weapons, Skills (e.g. a Skill could have a universal effect, but it's more powerful when a unit with a certain affinity uses it)? Only characters have an affinity, but we can make up some equip cards that only one group can wield. Same goes for the skills and other cards, I suppose. Edited July 13, 2011 by Marthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tables Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I was talking about anima and heaven affinities mostly, but hybrid affinities could work. I recall there being Magic cards which require 2+ types of lands to cast, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaoz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 The only TCG I've really played is Yu-Gi-Oh. I played the Pokemon TCG video game as well, but that was long ago and I can't remember any of it. Strangely, I do have Magic cards (5 different core sets along with a lot of booster packs) given to me by someone I actually never met, along with some Duel Masters cards I don't really care about one bit. I think I should just download the instructions on the Net, but the problem is, I don't know of anybody who plays the game. You could try MagicWorkStation, which can be downloaded for free (a watered down version, but it has everything necessary), and play online. I was talking about anima and heaven affinities mostly, but hybrid affinities could work. I recall there being Magic cards which require 2+ types of lands to cast, after all. Example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.