Wording for Bloodstained Marauder

[Anafulchtrudel]

XD

[Unruler]

WELL THEN, let's just turn this into a math game while we're at it, I understand equations great too


Original Card: Flynn Tinkerwix

X= amount of times this card has been posted in the forums.

[Berdugo]

Nah, tcg uses X and such all the time.

+1 using 'X' as a variable has been around for so many years since MtG afaik, and I think this is the first time it has been put in question.

[Preybird]

+1 using 'X' as a variable has been around for so many years since MtG afaik, and I think this is the first time it has been put in question.

Fireball (From MtG Alpha, 1993):



Basically X has been there since TCG's existed

[Flynn]

X= amount of times this card has been posted in the forums.

Haha that's pretty funny. I'm tempted to edit the card to say that but it would take away from the point I was making I think.

Fireball (From MtG Alpha, 1993):



Basically X has been there since TCG's existed

But I have no idea what that card means; it makes no sense at all.

Command-based operating systems have been around since pre-1990s too but people left them a long time ago as they fell to modern user-friendly interface standards. But if we can make something better (and easier to understand) we'll have a larger target market for Shadow Era which will exceed Programmers, Engineers, and Math Majors, and gamer junkies. Since Shadow Era is one of the first TCGs to start online (with the marketing advantage of The Apple App Store), MANY new types of target markets (like myself) will start to play them and will demand a more modern, user-friendly environment which allows people to play this game casually. Including math equations and having poor wording will discourage many people from playing this game (myself included).

Shadow Era has a beautiful marketing opportunity here to create a new brand of TCG based off smart devices. If SE doesn't put user-friendliness first a new more modern TCG with better UX will take it's place or one of the established TCGs will realize this new market. If SE does make everything simple with virtually no learning curve they will become a strong TCG brand and can steal people away from MtG, WoW TCG, and whatever others there are.

[Ekoz]

But I have no idea what that card means; it makes no sense at all.

I didn't want to be harsh, but if one can't wrap their head around variable substitution, especially when such substitution is explained (Y=X, where X is Z), then either one's 4 years old, or has a severe issue with basic comprehension.

Take fireball. Barring all optional wording on the card, what does it say? "target takes X damage". Now, what does it cost? X+1. It's not that difficult to comprehend how the card works, even without substitutional explaination (which recent iterations I BELIEVE actually have. Not sure on that though). Without X, the cost becomes 1 and the wording becomes a jumbled mess to explain thatyou may pay as many neutral mana as you choose, and direct an equal amount of damage to a target.

Then you have to tack on the additional target(s) clause.

On to marauder. While in this case, the wording can be explained in such a way that disincludes X without making the text too verbose, you have a) the simplification factor. Some people comprehend things better as symbols, rather than explained through word. +X is a simplification - it takes "gains an attack value equivalent of/equal to", and shortens it to two symbols.
b) you have a standard. When cards gain attack or health in this game, the standard is to explain the style of modification, and then set the modification. For example: "Spark gains +1 attack and +1 health for every other spark.". Changing the text here is breaking the standard-he is gaining values like any other card, it's just that the value is variable.
C) they're setting a precedent. From now on, X is a thing in this game. The precedent is set, so now they're open to a whole host of possibilities. Cards with a cost/partial cost of X, with an attack/health/durability/defense of X, etc. Without setting the precedent, or even worse-nullifying it; they're closing off a whole new range of potential cards and interactions.

[Flynn]

I didn't want to be harsh, but if one can't wrap their head around variable substitution, especially when such substitution is explained (Y=X, where X is Z), then either one's 4 years old, or has a severe issue with basic comprehension.

Take fireball. Barring all optional wording on the card, what does it say? "target takes X damage". Now, what does it cost? X+1. It's not that difficult to comprehend how the card works, even without substitutional explaination (which recent iterations I BELIEVE actually have. Not sure on that though).

OR one doesn't understand how that card works by looking at it when they've never seen MtG before. I didn't know that 'X' thing at the top was the cost.

C) they're setting a precedent. From now on, X is a thing in this game. The precedent is set, so now they're open to a whole host of possibilities. Cards with a cost/partial cost of X, with an attack/health/durability/defense of X, etc. Without setting the precedent, or even worse-nullifying it; they're closing off a whole new range of potential cards and interactions.

And I'm saying that simpler = better. Sure there are new cards which could be made that are more 'complex' - look at my example card above - but, in my opinion, that takes away from the game and makes it a hassle to play (like why create the need to bring a calculator to physical card tournaments?). MtG already exists for people who want complicated cards. Why not keep Shadow Era open to more target markets by making it reasonably simple, easy to pick up, and user-friendly? I wouldn't have started playing SE if I needed an instruction manual.

[Ekoz]

OR one doesn't understand how that card works by looking at it when they've never seen MtG before. I didn't know that 'X' thing at the top was the cost.

Alright, quick aside; retrospectvely, I was EXTREMELY rude back there. Also, not sure why I didn't, but assuming you had never played MtG is something I probably would have done when you said you couldn't understand the card. Sorry...

And I'm saying that simpler = better. Sure there are new cards which could be made that are more 'complex' - look at my example card above - but, in my opinion, that takes away from the game and makes it a hassle to play (like why create the need to bring a calculator to physical card tournaments?). MtG already exists for people who want complicated cards. Why not keep Shadow Era open to more target markets by making it reasonably simple, easy to pick up, and user-friendly? I wouldn't have started playing SE if I needed an instruction manual.

What you have to understand is that X clauses never need always be complex. Marauder's is actually an example of one of the more complex clauses you create using X. Now that I'm aware you have never played MtG, let me shoot you some examples of much simpler clauses:

Fireball: pay 1+X; deal X damage to target.
Mana Drain: pay 1+X; counter target spell unless it's controller pays an additional X.

As compared to a more complex clause, such as:
Muscle Burst: (I forget the cost); target creature gains +X/+X (attack/defense), where X is 2 plus the number of cards called Muscle Burst in your graveyard.

See? X values don't always have to be the equated sum or difference of two shifting values. It could be something as easy as "put X in, get X out".

[Flynn]

See? X values don't always have to be the equated sum or difference of two shifting values. It could be something as easy as "put X in, get X out".

I guess it's not so bad with the Fireball and Mana Drain now that I get how they work. I just feel this card uses it unnecessarily. In the end we've all made our cases and it's now up to the game developers to decide. Best of luck Kyle and Team

[Gondorian]

The use of X was mainly so we could keep the standard "has +1 attack", "has +2 attack", etc. format that is on other cards and therefore more intuitive to understand the first time you see it.

Since the value varies, we needed to use a variable. We really didn't want to and tried talking about the amount of damage on the card but there is never any countable thing called damage on the card really. (Damage is something that happens and results in health changes.)

So an ally has a health value and a maximum health value only; when they match, the ally is deemed undamaged, and, when health is lower than max, it is deemed damaged. And, on this card, the difference between the two is X and you know the rest.

The wording may still change though! This is our chance to get wider feedback than before and respond to it.