The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => Valinor => Topic started by: Hobbiton Lad on November 28, 2012, 11:43:40 AM
-
Now that templating is complete, I'd like to start brainstorming some ideas on what the community would like to see in Second Edition. There should probably be a child board dedicated to this, but moderator activity seems to be minimal as of late so this is probably the best place to talk about the project.
You can view the 2E Promotional Index here (http://postimage.org/gallery/84rxriqo/) if you're not familiar with the look and feel of the templates.
These are the thoughts/ideas I have. Please feel free to submit your own. This is very much a community project.
I feel strongly about the following concepts:
- No Ring-bearers other than Frodo and Sam.
- Linear site path from Eriador to Mordor (no bouncing all over the map).
- Movie Block Cultures only.
Ideas I'd like to throw out there:
Rotation: Rather than a block structure, I'd like to see a release format that includes a single core set that is always legal for competitive play. Added to that core set would be various "cycles" that comprise small-ish expansions that represent a particular theme. The cycles would rotate in and out of legality, but cards from the core set (which would be the largest card pool) would always be eligible for play.
Development by Committee: While 2E is my brain-child, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that developing balanced, competitive cards and deck themes must be done by committee. There are smart, experienced people out there who have a deep understanding of this game system and it's my hope that I can get them on board with this project.
Errrata Is OK: Because 2E is a print-to-play and online project, I feel that errata is acceptable when it's clear a card isn't functioning as intended. In a traditional game, I'd much prefer an outright ban over errata because it can often be difficult for new players to learn all the changes to the printed cards. When players are printing their own cards and/or depending on online resources, however, making changes to cards can be done quickly and immediately distributed to the player base.
Anyone with thoughts, questions, or suggestions is welcome to chime in.
-
First thing: the link is broken - it redirects me to postimage's main page. My thought on the project below - in no particular order.
----------------------
General idea
I think there should be one format we primarily think about: the format allowing all cards in the game. Rotating a subset always decreases possibilities (and if it somehow increases them, then the subses should be rotated out of the game completely). A game of 1000-1200 cards, with 25-30 viable decktypes for each side, with subtypes, cards for finetuning and so on should have enough replayability value to not need additional twists for quite a while (Movie Block format is very popular all the time despite only 10 or so top level possibilities for each side and a few a bit below the top level).
Achieving this is of course a lot of work. So, having no people paid to do this work, we should aim at saving ourselves as much of this work as possible. You wrote that Goblin Scimitar is one of the few cards you'd like to see reprinted. I think we can safely reprint a lot of cards. We have them, they are perfectly OK and playtested really thoroughly by hundreds of players. We just need to look through list of all cards and choose the ones we need - filtering out those that are over- or underpowered. This should give us a base of a few hundred cards. And then we can add to this - some completely new cards, but mostly versions of rejected cards - fixed so that they're on the correct power level.
This allows us to save really a lot of playtesting. And I don't think we have manpower to completely playtest a brand new game. Testing a fixed version of a game that was mostly OK is way less work and way easier to do (as when a lot of cards can be copied from 1E, setting up a playtesting environment at Gemp does not require tons of new code).
Of course creating new cards is fun. But there will be enough of this fun anyway. I see no need to reject what is good in 1E :)
Allies
Allies are interesting. But with a site path stretching all the way the fellowship travelled, I think they should no longer have a home site. Instead, each ally should have unloaded keyword saying where he's from - available keywords being Shire, Bree, Rivendell, Lorien and Edoras (I think each ally in the game is connected to one of those places). Maybe also Minas Tirith allies could be introduced if needed.
Cultures
Movie Block cultures are fine. Though I never understood why all FP cards which had no place to go ended up with Gandalf. So I completely wouldn't complain if Fangorn culture was introduced. I don't think symmetry is really important - some of the shadow cards have the same culture icon but nothing in common, for example [Isengard] Orcs and Uruk-hai are practically different cultures, the only common card that comes to my mind is Servant of the Eye. So those could be divided as well, but could also stay together. No difference. So I wouldn't hold to symmetry so much, it's nice if it exists, but if there's any reason to let it go, it can go without problems. I'm definitely against adding post-Shadows cultures. Though some of their cards definitely can be added to the old cultures. There are good ideas in those sets, just in lower density, more needs to be rejected.
Alternate ring-bearers
If we get rid of them, we need to cope with consequences. Without Isildur knights are dead. Gimli is important for [Dwarven] decks and useful in rainbow wounding. Noble Leaders need Boromir, [Elven] archery needs Galadriel. If we remove this all, we need extra work to somehow replace this, as removing viable deck types is the worst thing that can be done.
-
I like it, but you might want a Fangorn ally keyword as well (unless you want to only print ents as companions).
-
Here are my suggestions:
1. As stated in my previous posts, I'd like to see some changes to the rules, particularly around timing of responses. They do not translate well to online game play, for example:
- if Nazgul is taking wound and the game pauses, you can be sure your opponent is holding All Blades Perish,
- if you exert a minion and the game pauses, you can be sure your opponent is holding Unheeded.
2. Avoid making quirky cards that introduce a mess in the rules. As an example - The Witch-king's Beast, Fell Creature or A Dark Shape Sprang (still noone knows how to play out this card, if it is played during an existing skirmish).
3. Do your best to have clear and simple rules that do not require clarifications.
4. Avoid having similar words and phrases or keywords for two different things/actions. Took me a lot of time to understand that "discard" is the same as "discard from play" but different from "discard from hand".
-
MarcinS - could you explain what's your idea about good timing of responses? I know it's similar to how M:tG works, but as I never played Magic I have no idea what the rules are.
Fangorn allies - probably yes, I forgot there were some, but if there are some which make it into the final game, they'd definitely need this keyword. Maybe some of those allies are what's needed to make an Everyone Knows deck playable.
One more issue I forgot about:
Move limit
I don't know why, but LotR move limit rules are really bad. I think that when a card providing constant move limit modification (like Radagast, The Brown) somehow leaves play, or when a condition that provides move limit modification no longer is met (7th companion dead with The Number Must be Few in play, or mounts discarded when Riding Like the Wind is used), the move limit should revert back to original state.
-
I think we can safely reprint a lot of cards.
I realize that there's an upside to doing this, and there's a big temptation not to screw with what works, but my vision for 2E goes far beyond just making a "fixed 1E" version of the game. I don't see any reason why we can't develop sets from the ground up, with reprints being the exception rather than the rule. I'm willing to put a lot of time to this project. If we just get a few people who are willing to put in just a little bit of time, then I think developing new cards won't be a problem.
Allies
Allies are interesting. But with a site path stretching all the way the fellowship travelled, I think they should no longer have a home site. Instead, each ally should have unloaded keyword saying where he's from - available keywords being Shire, Bree, Rivendell, Lorien and Edoras (I think each ally in the game is connected to one of those places). Maybe also Minas Tirith allies could be introduced if needed.
I like this idea, actually. I definitely prefer it over Followers. Although instead of an unloaded keyword, I would recommend the origin of the ally be included in the Type field. For Example, Albert Dreary would contain "Ally - Bree - Man" instead of "Ally - Home 2 - Man" in his gametext.
Alternate ring-bearers
If we get rid of them, we need to cope with consequences. Without Isildur knights are dead. Gimli is important for [Dwarven] decks and useful in rainbow wounding. Noble Leaders need Boromir, [Elven] archery needs Galadriel. If we remove this all, we need extra work to somehow replace this, as removing viable deck types is the worst thing that can be done.
Developing sets from the ground up with consideration that we have only Frodo and Sam as potential Ring-bearers should be sufficient to address this issue. I'm not looking to modify current Knight decks that work with Isildur. I'm looking to develop a Knight strategy from scratch that works in 2E with Frodo as the Ring-bearer.
-
MarcinS - could you explain what's your idea about good timing of responses? I know it's similar to how M:tG works, but as I never played Magic I have no idea what the rules are.
Basically, playing a card or an effect in Magic follows these steps (in a simple version):
1. Choose targets, pay costs.
2. Put the card/effect on the stack.
3. Here is where opportunity for responses being played is, also all triggers from paying costs are put on the stack. Proceed playing cards/effects until both players pass consecutively.
4. Resolve the effect of the card/effect.
The main change needed to the cards in LotR we have now, is about cards that have "is about to" Responses. Most of them can be easily translated to create "replacement effects". So for example, if a card was preventing wound, the wording now would be "Next time target character would take a wound this turn (or until end of Regroup), prevent it". This of course would allow anyone to play these cards freely, as there is no requirement for the character to be actually taking wounds, as the effect prevents future wounds.
To give an example:
Hate after change would have a following text: "Exert a [sauron] Orc to wound target non-Ring-bearer companion."
Intimidate now has a following text: "You have to spot Gandalf to play Intimidate. Next time target companion would take a wound, prevent it."
Here is how they would interact:
1. Shadow player plays Hate - pays costs (exerts a [sauron] orc, removes twilight, etc), chooses target - a non-Ring-bearer companion.
2. Hate goes on the stack.
3. In step 3 (above) for playing Hate, FP player plays Intimidate - pays costs (adds twilight, spots Gandalf), chooses target - the same companion.
4. Both players pass in step 3 of playing Intimidate.
5. Intimidate effect resolves - it creates a wound shield on the companion.
6. Both players pass in step 3 for playing Hate.
7. Hate resolves - wounds the companion, but the wound is prevented by the shield.
It's much simpler and doesn't reveal any information to the opponent, as there is only one point at which you may play any kind of responses to either the costs or the incoming (you already know all targets the card will affect) effects.
-
I don't see any reason why we can't develop sets from the ground up, with reprints being the exception rather than the rule. I'm willing to put a lot of time to this project. If we just get a few people who are willing to put in just a little bit of time, then I think developing new cards won't be a problem.
A few people would have to put really a lot of time into it. I'm afraid something close to a full time job. When the game was done and tested properly, Decipher had a true design team. We aim at a better game, if we want to create it from scratch, we'd need really lots of work and testing. I don't think we'll have it. And doing this the other way round (lots of people putting a little bit of time each) will be even worse, with noone really knowing what's going on.
instead of an unloaded keyword, I would recommend the origin of the ally be included in the Type field. For Example, Albert Dreary would contain "Ally - Bree - Man" instead of "Ally - Home 2 - Man" in his gametext
This works exactly the same, but needs introducing a rule (while an unloaded keyword needs no rules). I think that whenever possible, rules should be simplified.
-
This works exactly the same, but needs introducing a rule (while an unloaded keyword needs no rules). I think that whenever possible, rules should be simplified.
It's not introducing a new rule as much as it's modifying the existing home site rule. For example, if you include "Bree" in the type field, then perhaps Bree allies could participate in archery fire and skirmishes at sites that contain the "Bree" keyword.
I'm all for simplifying rules. I'm also for streamlining and expanding game play options.
-
It's also good to remove an existing rule if it's no longer needed. I don't think having allies participating in skirmishes at home site will be important - home site of all except Edoras ones will be too early on the sitepath to make it matter.
-
It's also good to remove an existing rule if it's no longer needed. I don't think having allies participating in skirmishes at home site will be important - home site of all except Edoras ones will be too early on the sitepath to make it matter.
The participation part was just a suggestion. I'd just prefer to implement the rule in the type bar rather than use a keyword, because the text boxes are already pressed for space as it is.
-
Well. It seems clear that there aren't many people interested in contributing to this project. I'm not giving up on it though. I'll just design the Core Set myself and then people can fix my design mistakes if they want.
-
Well. It seems clear that there aren't many people interested in contributing to this project. I'm not giving up on it though. I'll just design the Core Set myself and then people can fix my design mistakes if they want.
I'm afraid it might be just a matter of stating, what kind of help you need, and what you want people to post in this forum.
-
Id like to see all new cards (with a few reprints). There was always something special about trying to figure out a new block that had just been released
-
When it comes to creating new sets, new rules, new erratas, new format, I prefer to adopt a "free market" approach rather than a unique "committee" approach.
I think that if the tools (e.g. templates) would be available to everyone, different people or group of people could create their format or dreamcards. The bad formats would die, the best ones would live.
For example, if a "Movie Block (without LR)" format would exist on Gemp, I would play it and I'm pretty sure many people would do it.
If you just have one unique committee, you will have a lot of trouble to reach consensus, and might not end up with the best results.
-
But splintering the communitee doesnt help either, driving people apart over own rules/formats.
-
I can say with 99% certainty I won't be releasing these templates for community use, because I don't want a bunch of dream cards floating around the forums that aren't "official" for Second Edition. I know what you're going for with the "free market" approach, but the only way to create an equal opportunity for everyone in competitive environments is to have everyone play by the same set of rules.
-
I agree with Hobbiton Lad and Ringbearer.
"Free market" will just prevent the "second edition" from being consistent.
Maybe the form of the committee has to involve a part of the community but I think if you don't have a unique voice that say yes or no, it's going to be a mess.
Of course, consensus is not easy to reach (when it is reachable at all), but you can set up something that does not require unanimity.
Something like one vote for the committee, one for the community and in case of a draw, the community wins... And within each group (committee or community), a 2 thirds majority required (or just relative majority) to decide.
I don't know if this can work this way but you should avoid as much as possible:
- decisions made unilaterally: without the approval of a large part of the community, second edition will not have enough players to make the project viable
- absence of decision: as you have seen in this thread, sometimes the community is not very responsive, especially for very open questions. For the design of the templates, when the questions were easy (I like it, I don't) you had much more answers than here where you just ask what to do. And when I say "much more answers", it is very relative: how many people answered in total to the templates thread? 10 tops?
Another example is the current discussion about sanctioning "rage quitting". While the answer seemed quite obvious, people don't manage to agree on that point. If you really manage to launch this project, you will face plenty of those cases where the community can't find consensus. This is were you need the committee to decide.
-
I think for the time being I'm going to take a stern hand in making decisions about 2E until other people step up and show interest. I've posted a topic in the "PC or no PC" forum about Reprints. I'm thinking that forum might be a better place to talk about a new game edition than this one.
-
I think for the time being I'm going to take a stern hand in making decisions about 2E until other people step up and show interest.
This is a good approach. It's good that you ask the community to give their ideas, but don't rely too much on them to make decisions or it will become an endless voting process.
A lot of community projects fail to materialize because they rely too much on the community. BTW, has any of TLHH community project been successful until now? This community project, for example, was much less ambitious than your second edition project and died a long time ago:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/board,52.0.html
That's why I thought the 'free market' approach was better, because too many community projects end up failing. If you don't make your templates public, which is perfectly understandable, build your own group of trusted qualified people (or do it alone) and take most decisions.
-
I am interested in helping with this project and willing to commit large amounts of time every week to it. I think that those interested in producing a 2E should begin on this immediately so that it can be released while the Hobbit is popular. I also believe that cards should be created from the Hobbit movies.
There will be no better time to start doing this. I also believe that it would be wise to get a trial set on Gemp as soon as possible so that everyone who uses that site could be a play tester.
-
I'm kinda lost here. Have you explained the whole project somewhere I can read? I'd like to help in whatever ways I can, but I'm not sure what's this about.
Or is it just a new set of cards and rules to be applied on Gemp? Will it work exactly as Gemp? What I don't like in Gemp is that the main thing is playing casual games with all existing cards, instead of building a collection (and it being useful). I totally agree that playing with all cards should be an option, but it should be separated from those who wanna build a collection and play only with those cards.
Anyway, I could express my opinion and brainstorm on many topics, but I'd have to understand this project first.
-
I agree that reprinting cards should be kept to a minimum, at least in the initial set. Below are a list of cards that I feel should be reprinted and my reasons.
Dwarf
Nobody Tosses a Dwarf
At their conception, dwarves were designed to cycle through their deck and discard their opponents. Nobody Tosses a Dwarf is integral to a discard deck and adds more strategy to the shadow player since sometimes it would be better not to play any minions and avoid the potential loss of three cards.
Elf
Elven Bow
Elven bow is a classic elf card. It is simple, appropriately powered and costly, and an important part of a wounding deck.
Gandalf
A Wizard is Never Late
Servant of the Secret Fire
Classic Cards, Support the feel of a Gandalf deck
Gondor
Boromir, Son of Denethor
Faramir, Son of Denethor
I always liked how Boromir, SoD was useful and had a feel so close to how he was in the story. Faramir is a great card to prevent events and special abilities from being overpowered. Since he is not culturally enforced, any deck can play him. He is a useless character if the meta doesn't have powerful skirmish special events or special abilities, while also being a powerful check to those strategies if they become too powerful.
Rohan
Eomer, Third Marshal of Riddermark
Elite Rider
Rider's Mount
I thought that Decipher got the feel of Rohan exactly right with Eomer, TMoR and their original mounts. Having any character mounted adds a small benefit of exerting minions, but in the hands of a skilled rider, they are much more deadly. I choose rider's mount instead of Horse of Rohan because I felt mounts should be unique to rohan with few unique exceptions.
Shire
Hobbit Sword
Hobbit Intuition
Hobbit Stealth
A Promise
Again, I felt like the hobbit stealth cards were useful in the game and emulated the feel of hobbits in the story. I believe that these should be reprinted to recover that feel. I liked these instead of the TTT stealths because I felt like they were more true to the hobbits character arcs, being forced to fight after they reached the point in the story where hiding was no longer possible. A promise is just a good, appropriately costed card that is true to the feel of Frodo and Sam's relationship in the story. Hobbit Sword is Hobbit Sword.
Gollum
Shelob, Her Ladyship
Shelob, HL also is an example of an extremely useful card that emulates her feel in the story. I loved how removing characters from skirmishes felt like trapping them in webs for that turn. Removing characters from skirmish are a good way to keep overpowered companions in check.
Dunland
Hides
War club
Classic Dunland cards. Dunland wouldn't have the same feel without them.
Isengard
Saruman's Power
Grima, Wormtongue
Grima is important for keeping companions power in check. While most people hated Grima when he was first released, Fellowship block and TTT open was ridiculous. Having companions that are able to bear several support cards will make fellowships overpowered and limit the ability to design new and exciting possessions. Saruman's Power is a classic Isengard card that exemplifies Saruman as a shadow version of Gandalf. Saruman's Power also helps prevent condition based decks from being overpowered.
Moria
Goblin Runner
Goblin Scimitar
Classic swarm cards
Sauron
Grond, Hammer of the Underworld
Powerful Sauron card that could keep possessions, conditions, and artifacts from becoming overpowered.
Nazgul
Ulaire Enquea, Lieutenant of Morgul
Black Breath
Blade Tip
Enquea is a great way to keep large fellowships from running rampant. Black Breath and Blade Tip are good cards that also stay close to their feel in the story
-
Some of the reprints are excellent ideas (Goblin Runner, Goblin Scimitar, and Grond, Hammer of the Underworld immediately come to mind) as they are truly beneficial cards that add much-needed viability to their respective cultures.
Then we come to some of the other problem cards (Nobody Tosses a Dwarf, Ulaire Enquea, LoM and Eomer, TMoR) in the list.
Honestly, I'm not in favor of developing heavy discard strategies. There's a reason that almost every CCG in existence ends up banning cards that are too abusive (ex: Mirror of Galadriel in LotR, Hymn to Tourach in Magic) with discard mechanics. Cards are meant to be played. When you take away the ability to play the cards, regardless of their relative usefulness in a given game situation, you create the very definition of a negative play experience. As a side note, this is also why I would be against heavy development of choke strategies.
Then we come to Enquea. A great card, to be sure, but the problem is that it has absolutely no cultural enforcement. Should there be cards that punish large fellowships? Absolutely. But those cards need to be unique and enforced within each particular Shadow culture. Otherwise nearly every deck will run Enquea, and that's really not what a good game designer wants.
And finally Eomer. I'm torn on this one. He's very, very good. Almost too good. A lot of people would immediately say he's broken, but the problem with Eomer-based decks was never Eomer by himself. Both Firefoot (defender +1) and Eomer's Spear (damage +2) contributed to the utter silliness he brought to the game when skirmishing any minion with more than 1 vitality. I'd probably be inclined to reprint Eomer with the caveat that his items not be as overpowered as their 1E counterparts.
-
I have to disagree with Grond, Hammer of the Underworld
I think this card is as broken as Galadriel, LR.
The capability, at a very reduced cost, to discard ANY free people card is way overpowered. If it was limited to possessions or conditions, it could have been fine. But any card, this is really too much.
Another possibility would have been to activate it during shadow phase, where discarding a minion is much more difficult to do than at regroup...
-
I also agree that shotgun enquea should have cultural enforcement. Desert Lord and Radagast as well. There are a few cards like that.
Regarding Eomer, I agree he is very strong, especially when fully equiped. But I don't think he is broken: there are very few working strategies with Rohan and they are very dependent on possessions, that can easily be discarded.
-
Just an update. I'd say within a week there will be two Shadow cultures (Dunland and Isengard) that will be totally complete. Fenix has graciously offered to volunteer his time and we have already had a great working dialogue on how the new culture designs will work.
It's a very exciting time! I'm not really sure when these release candidates will be available for public view. My gut reaction is to put a culture out for display once our initial design is complete, but sometimes I think it's hard to gauge cards when you don't have a complete view of the set.
What do you guys think? Would you rather see the whole set once it's finished? Or would you rather see cultures as they are completed?
-
I'm kinda lost here. Have you explained the whole project somewhere I can read? I'd like to help in whatever ways I can, but I'm not sure what's this about.
Or is it just a new set of cards and rules to be applied on Gemp? Will it work exactly as Gemp? What I don't like in Gemp is that the main thing is playing casual games with all existing cards, instead of building a collection (and it being useful). I totally agree that playing with all cards should be an option, but it should be separated from those who wanna build a collection and play only with those cards.
Anyway, I could express my opinion and brainstorm on many topics, but I'd have to understand this project first.
Second Edition will be a completely new set of cards developed from the existing LotR TCG rule set. In order to avoid copyright issues with Decipher, I have designed (with much input from the community) a set of new custom templates to use for this project.
You can view the promotional index here (http://postimage.org/gallery/84rxriqo/), but keep in mind that the game text on these cards will almost certainly change.
EDIT: Gallery link fixed.
-
"Simple" as that, huh?
(The link's broken, you shouldn't "my images" link, but I tracked back to the first topic) Nice cards! Visually, I mean, I know the content will be different. I don't know if you design them because I'm not used to the newer sets, only FotR and TTT, but they look great.
I'd like to know how we are going to play it. Do you mean for people to print the cards and play? Play on Gemp? On GCCG (lol, who uses it besides me?)? Build a new platform? A new platform would be GREAT. That would really motivate me to help. And that's a lot more important than thinking about the cards used! (Unless you already decided that)
To select the best parts out of what we have...
From Gemp:
- autorules would be of utmost importance!
- tournaments and leagues, sealed and constructed (only more often)
- possibility to play with any card you want (but this must be SECONDARY! Like a sandbox mode that doesn't give you any rewards or win/lose status)
From GCCG:
- platform should be based on COLLECTION - this should a TRADING/COLLECTIBLE card game above all
- you should get money for each match you finish (but not in "sandbox"), but a loooot less than what you get at GCCG.
- more comprehensive deck statistics (but not bugged, like GCCG's /deckstats lol)
From my stormed brain:
- (we maaaay consider levels for players to increase the sense of progress)
- I agree with some ppl from Gemp who says draft tournaments should be at least the price you'd pay for the draft boosters. Like booster prices + entry fee. But you should keep the cards when it's over. Great prizes for top players, of course, and some candy for losers.
- don't EVER EVER EVER charge real money! this should be from fans to fans! (just to be sure ;))
- unwanted cards should be sold to "merchant" for really low prices. between players, negotiable and ultimately a bit more expensive
And that's just for starters...
-
Of course this will not be for real money. I don't own this intellectual property. This is an "unofficial" project and is solely for community enjoyment and educational purposes.
With that being said, the intent is twofold:
1) Cards can be printed for real-life play
2) Virtual cards can be used for online play
At this point, I'm leaning toward Gemp as the online engine because it's a very easy platform to use (no special installs or anything like that needed) and MarcinS is very active in performing updates and fixes. Maybe with a little help on my end we can up the visual appeal of the interface, but I think the back-end coding is very solid.
Currently I am working with Fenix on design. I'm open to new volunteers, but this will be a very time-intensive project once we get rolling. I don't want people who say they are going to help and then flake out. I'm not saying this is you, but anytime you start a community project you have to deal with the fact that it's really hard to organize people -- especially online.
-
Also, FYI, I think I've come up with a nicer looking design for foil cards than Gemp's current implementation:
Here you see the regular version of The One Ring: http://postimage.org/image/mpi71s9n3/
And here is the foil version of The One Ring: http://postimage.org/image/jvr7xr6bz/
It's subtle, and not animated, but I think it's a nice effect and clearly has the "foil" look. That's not to downplay what MarcinS has done thus far. I think his current implementation is actually quite good, but with 2E I'm really looking to go the extra mile to give the game the highest level of visual appeal possible.
Critiques?
-
I like it better, it's a lot closer to the original foil, really nice job there!
While I'd have a lot of time to spend on the project, I have zero skills when it comes to design. Since I'm also not familiar with programming, I guess all I could do is help with the thinking part and doing long stupid repetitive tasks so you good ones can concentrate on more important things.
-
I like it better, it's a lot closer to the original foil, really nice job there!
While I'd have a lot of time to spend on the project, I have zero skills when it comes to design. Since I'm also not familiar with programming, I guess all I could do is help with the thinking part and doing long stupid repetitive tasks so you good ones can concentrate on more important things.
There's always room for help if you're serious about it. MarcinS is going to handle the programming since we'll likely be using the Gemp engine. I've got the graphic design in hand. What I really need is help designing the cards for the cultures at this point.
-
I wish I could help you with the visual part, but I can't. The best image I could come up with (took me a couple of hours, I guess lol) was this goomba...
But I can help with card texts, yeah, that I can do.
-
That's what I mean. Game text. We actually need to conceptualize how the cultures will work.
-
Hey guys, I'm kinda new to these forums but an old time fan of LotR. This seems to be an amazing project I'd really like to help out with. I'm a web developer, and have looked at the source to Gemp prior, (though not extensively) and would be able to help on the technical side. I also have a bit of game design experience and would love to discuss this further. Is there an IRC channel or some place everyone hangs out to chat about this stuff in real time?
-
Not currently, but I'm sure one could be arranged.
-
That's what I mean. Game text. We actually need to conceptualize how the cultures will work.
Ok, but how? When are we going to "sit down together" and discuss all this? This should be real-time conversation, not people dropping opinions here and there, right? Maybe that IRC channel...?
-
I would definitely be willing to get involved into such discussion and can find time for it. But I think IRC channel is not the way to go and it should not be real-time conversation. Real time maybe could work if we could meet face to face. On the internet some kind of message board is always better - it allows to think more before posting, browsing archive content is easy, text formatting is available to make your thoughts better readable. And it doesn't require being online at the same time, which is always a problem when people involved live in different time zones.
@Hobbiton Lad - how do you communicate with fenix now?
-
Also, FYI, I think I've come up with a nicer looking design for foil cards than Gemp's current implementation:
Here you see the regular version of The One Ring: http://postimage.org/image/mpi71s9n3/
And here is the foil version of The One Ring: http://postimage.org/image/jvr7xr6bz/
It's subtle, and not animated, but I think it's a nice effect and clearly has the "foil" look. That's not to downplay what MarcinS has done thus far. I think his current implementation is actually quite good, but with 2E I'm really looking to go the extra mile to give the game the highest level of visual appeal possible.
Critiques?
It's looking really good, however it would mean, we will have to have two images for each card, one for normal version and one for foil.
That is because browsers are unable to make any kind of image manipulations (I believe your foils are actually a hue-shift?) The only thing you can do in browsers is overlaying images on top of each other, including semi-transparent ones, which is what I'm doing with foils in Gemp-LotR. Normal card image is overlaid with a foil animated GIF with opaque set to 20%:
http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/images/foil.gif
-
@Hobbiton Lad - how do you communicate with fenix now?
We've been collaborating on Google Documents with the Dunland and Isengard cultures, creating cards and then critiquing them, discussing how they might be overpowered, and making necessary changes.
-
Apparently, my user got locked (estel), so posting as a new user.
I think message boards and persistent communication is important for logging semi-formal ideas for feedback. Real time chatting is for the fleshing out of ideas. I don't want to brainstorm in a place where people read it 2 months from now and accept it as truth. I would prefer to be able to collaborate on vague ideas quickly and with high context.
I went ahead and created a IRC room on freenode #lotr2e. If people use it, great. If not, no loss.
-
HobbitonLad: Can I get you to share these docs with me: nolwestel@gmail.com
-
I don't know if I want to share docs with a bunch of people, simply for the confusion that can come about. What would you guys suggest as a better collaboration method for design? I can post cards that we've come up with in a different thread if you guys like. Maybe one for each culture?
-
I don't know if I want to share docs with a bunch of people, simply for the confusion that can come about. What would you guys suggest as a better collaboration method for design? I can post cards that we've come up with in a different thread if you guys like. Maybe one for each culture?
I think there should be a team ahead of the project. Those would be the people who'd have a lot of time to spend on the project. Also, those people should have access to all cards. If you wanna show one card from each culture for the community to discuss, those cards should be only those which the team's having trouble with. At the same time, how are supposed to have ideas for cards if we can't see the whole thing? This idea seems doomed right off the bat. At least, you could share the docs, just don't allow us to make changes.
-
If not a chat room, we can try using a wiki like wikidot.com or some other free wiki. Beyond that, forums are probably our best bet, but both are better at sharing information than collaborating on it.
-
It's not that I don't want to collaborate. It's just that I want to make sure I have dedicated people who will really work on this. Fenix has proven himself is all.
I'll open up the Isengard and the Dunland docs to whoever wants be on the team.
EDIT: I'd probably like to limit the team to 5 people for the sake of efficiency and communication.
-
What about changing the rules, especially around timing to avoid the problem that Gemp-LotR has at the moment, where if game pauses at specific moments, you can be sure your opponent has a card of some type?
-
I don't know how people here feel about Magic, but I feel the lead designer is a very smart guy. He wrote a couple of articles during the GDS 1 & 2 that may have some application here. I know they don't translate 1 to 1, but still might be useful.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/132
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/78
Also, spreadsheets would be more useful if we wanted to design a skeleton first
-
What about changing the rules, especially around timing to avoid the problem that Gemp-LotR has at the moment, where if game pauses at specific moments, you can be sure your opponent has a card of some type?
I have given a great deal of thought to this. You're probably right about the program having some inherent issues with the game's "pass or play" mechanic as far as giving away information, but I'm just not ready to depart from that. I know we're going to be doing a lot of playtesting online, but I also want the cards in this game to be printed for live play as well. That's what LotR TCG was originally designed for, and I want to remain true to that vision.
As far as the timing issues with Gemp, people are just going to have to live with that. Personally, I think it adds another wrinkle of strategy to the game, but that's just me. For the most part, however, pass or play is definitely preferred for this environment.
I feel like the MtG timing system would greatly benefit the FPP above the Shadow player. As of right now, if the FPP passes and the Shadow player takes an action, the FPP can respond but both actions get to resolve immediately instead of a "last in, first out" scenario. Under MtG rules, the FPP would always be able to "pass" and then get the jump on the Shadow player with some sort of "instant" response, and then the Shadow player would have to use another trick. I know it doesn't sound much different than things are now, but trust me, it will be.
So, as of right now, it's pass or play, just like LotR 1E.
-
I agree, we shouldn't change the rules too much. My opinion on the matter of developing sets is that we should have a small number of people designing cards. Then, we should post those cards on the forums and have a larger group of people comment on these cards and suggest changes. Then, have an even larger group of people play test these cards.
I think this will improve the quality of 2E as well as the haste of its release. In the future, when we release new sets, new people can start developing cards and older people can move to other roles.
-
I agree, we shouldn't change the rules too much. My opinion on the matter of developing sets is that we should have a small number of people designing cards. Then, we should post those cards on the forums and have a larger group of people comment on these cards and suggest changes. Then, have an even larger group of people play test these cards.
Sounds like a great plan to me!
I think this will improve the quality of 2E as well as the haste of its release. In the future, when we release new sets, new people can start developing cards and older people can move to other roles.
Alternating or rotating groups of developers is great to increase the variability between sets. Another great suggestion!
-
I don't know how good you guys are at designing cards, but if you want to get good people to help on that, I would suggest asking the help of menace64 or Thranduil who have both been very active in the Chamber of Mazarbul forum.
EDIT: Actually, why don't you just take this DC set from Thranduil. http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,4075.0.html In my opinion, he is one of the best designer of TLHH. You will save A LOT of extra work by doing that.
-
They look like they would make excellent additions. Do they still play?
-
I don't know if I want to share docs with a bunch of people, simply for the confusion that can come about. What would you guys suggest as a better collaboration method for design? I can post cards that we've come up with in a different thread if you guys like. Maybe one for each culture?
I think the best way to go would be asking Kralik to create a subforum here where you have moderator rights and that is visible only to you and people you invited. Most forum software allow doing such things. Then noone needs to register anywhere as we all use this forum daily anyway.
-
I found all the articles in "Nuts & Bolts" series by Mark Rosewater on card set design very interesting and enlightening, here are the links in the order they should be read:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/21
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/78
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/132
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/184
These were linked before, but only two of the articles, instead of all 4.
-
These are great! I already use skeletons for many things in my life (even for deciding my menu for the next two weeks lol), but these articles bring skeletons to a whole new level. OCD ALERT!
-
We are currently looking for another member to join the committee. This member would be primarily responsible for designing Smeagol/Gollum cards. These would be approximately 40 cards that would be playable right away (remember that there are no other sets in 2E yet).
We want each culture to have a unique theme that mimics the feel of that culture in the movies. At the moment, we are thinking about Smeagol being a guide that helps the fellowship avoid danger and Gollum being a minion that helps the fellowship find danger. For example, being able to play a large minion for fewer twilight tokens. However, other themes that match gollums feel in the story are possible.
If you are interested in helping with the Gollum culture please post 5 smeagol and 5 gollum DCs and we will pick the player with the best cards for the committee.
-
I don't have enough time to join the committee, but I support this 2E project that I find very interesting.
For people like me, who want to follow the progress of the project but cannot be part of the committee, it is a bit frustrating to see that the reflection is sort of private between the committee members. I don't want to know everything you do and say, but I would appreciate if there was a way to follow the project along the way and not have the results only once everything is done.
Another thought about cultures design. In 1E, there are a certain number of strategies that are very strong and were there isn't much that can be done against. I'm thinking about heavy archery or heavy easterling corruption. I think developing new strategies for 2E (or reusing existing one from 1E) is a good thing, but there should be more counter strategies as well, available in most of the cultures.
Against corruption, hobbits are the best (with Sam or A light in his mind for instance). Against archery, Dunland have very good cards, but they are so vulnerable to archery that it is often not enough. So I think there should be more balance and counterweights in 2E to prevent the emergence of too strong strategies.
-
I don't have enough time to join the committee, but I support this 2E project that I find very interesting.
For people like me, who want to follow the progress of the project but cannot be part of the committee, it is a bit frustrating to see that the reflection is sort of private between the committee members. I don't want to know everything you do and say, but I would appreciate if there was a way to follow the project along the way and not have the results only once everything is done.
The community will have plenty of opportunity to see things before they are "completed" in 2E. In fact, I plan to have the first draft of the Isengard culture available later today for everyone to take a look at. It's likely what we'll playtest, but I can say with almost 100% certainty that there will be many changes once playtesting starts.
So don't worry. You'll get to see cards long before they are "finished" and ready for release.
-
I don't think I'm qualified enough to develep those cards, but I have enough time to playtest them and give feedback.
-
Does anyone want to help us create card names and flavor text?