PDA

View Full Version : Why Is "QuickAction" a thing? Why not "Quick" Actions or Creatures?



lamaros
06-12-2013, 11:12 PM
I was wondering if anyone could explain to me why "Quick" isn't a modifier of card types, but "Quick Action" is a type itself? Isn't it more intuitive for any card to have the possibility of being "Quick", rather than having a "Quick Action", a "Basic Action", and a Troop that "may be played any time you might play a Quick Action"?

It would seem that having "Quick" as a modifier would be an easier concept to grasp, especially when it comes to Troops that act in such a manner.

I'm sure there is a reason of some sort, but I'm not sure what it is and would be interested in someone explaining it to me.

Oaka23
06-12-2013, 11:17 PM
It's not really a big deal either way.

If Quick was a modifier like that, though, how would they handle (potential) charge powers that can be used whenever? They'd still need to have the phrasing "This power can be used any time you can play a Quick card" or something similar.

lamaros
06-12-2013, 11:23 PM
It's not really a big deal either way.

If Quick was a modifier like that, though, how would they handle (potential) charge powers that can be used whenever? They'd still need to have the phrasing "This power can be used any time you can play a Quick card" or something similar.

They'd just have to say that it is a "Ability/Skill". Players would know what that means without having to have it spelt out, because they would have a clear understanding that Abilities are done at "Quick" speed. You'd only have to spell it out when it differs from this.

Sure, it's not a big thing, but it would open up a more intuitive space when it comes to quick troops - or any other card types they add in the future.

And cut down on card text. Which makes the game read more simply and clearly.

funktion
06-12-2013, 11:52 PM
Not gonna lie, you bring up a very good point lamaros. If I understand what you're saying correctly, I actually think what you're suggesting is pretty elegant.

Monarch
06-12-2013, 11:57 PM
I was wondering if anyone could explain to me why "Quick" isn't a modifier of card types, but "Quick Action" is a type itself? Isn't it more intuitive for any card to have the possibility of being "Quick", rather than having a "Quick Action", a "Basic Action", and a Troop that "may be played any time you might play a Quick Action"?

It would seem that having "Quick" as a modifier would be an easier concept to grasp, especially when it comes to Troops that act in such a manner.

I'm sure there is a reason of some sort, but I'm not sure what it is and would be interested in someone explaining it to me.

Assuming I understand you correctly, and 'Quick' would just be an effect like 'Flight' or whatever, I think this is absolutely brilliant. It cuts down on an entire category of cards. In a world of bloat, streamlining is at a premium. +1 indeed.

lamaros
06-12-2013, 11:59 PM
Someone has pointed out to me that this has actually been discussed before in regard to Magic.

http://www.mtgsalvation.com/1302-the-underworld-cookbook-reinventing-magic.html


I believe that if Magic were recreated right now, instants would not exist. We'd have either flash sorceries (flash being a supertype) or just sorceries with flash. In terms of symmetry, rules cleanliness, and grokkability it would be fantastic. Spells all would have the same timing restrictions. The rules would support a fast creature or enchantment in the exact same way as a fast sorcery. Plus I think flash sorcery really rolls off the tongue.

The rules baggage is minimal. Flash means "(You may cast this spell any time you could activate an ability)" while slow abilities like those on Dimir Guildmage would just say "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a spell". Mystical Teachings would search your library for a card with flash. In fact, because the game can distinguish between a sorcery with flash and one without, I'm pretty sure only one card would even be functionally changed by this... and who plays that card anyway?

MaRo has expounded on the similarity of instants and sorceries and discussed the subtleties between them on several occasions. One key point he makes is that, if a card works as a sorcery, it should be a sorcery. Being an instant is an added ability, which is why we ought to use an ability word to describe it.

Monarch
06-13-2013, 12:15 AM
*Evidence*

And he keeps dropping the logic! It's like a rampage of sound reasoning!
I really hope CZE sees this post and thinks carefully about it.

funktion
06-13-2013, 12:22 AM
How would it best be implemented? I would say (and as I think lamaros already alluded to) that it should be a supertype. Such that it doesn't take up real estate in the text box.

What would you call it? Quick seems to work relatively fine, quick troop, quick action, quick constant, quick get back to work you're spending too much time on the hex forums...

Icepick
06-13-2013, 04:49 AM
This makes a lot of sense, especially since there is a gem you can socket that basically does this exact thing. I can't help but wonder if CZE just did this because it's the way MtG did it, or if they had their own reasons for going this way. I want to assume the latter, just due to the amount of experience they have with these sorts of things, but Quick as a modifier makes a lot of sense to me.

Murmaider
06-13-2013, 05:00 AM
Not a bad idea. I'd support that decision. One downside I can see though, even if it is a minor one, is that effects that target only quick actions or only regular actions would need an additional line. Something along the lines of 'copy target action/quick action' would need to change to 'copy target action that has not the quick modifier/that has the quick modifier'.

This will probably not come up too often, but still worth looking into when considering a change like this.

Not saying that I'm not all for it though.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 09:47 AM
+1 to the OP

Aradon
06-13-2013, 11:14 AM
I definitely agree that it'd work best as a supertype. It's so incredibly clean that way, and avoids things like, "basic action or a quick action" which shows up all the time in MtG: "instant or sorcery."

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 11:31 AM
I was wondering if anyone could explain to me why "Quick" isn't a modifier of card types, but "Quick Action" is a type itself? Isn't it more intuitive for any card to have the possibility of being "Quick", rather than having a "Quick Action", a "Basic Action", and a Troop that "may be played any time you might play a Quick Action"?

It would seem that having "Quick" as a modifier would be an easier concept to grasp, especially when it comes to Troops that act in such a manner.

I'm sure there is a reason of some sort, but I'm not sure what it is and would be interested in someone explaining it to me.

It is because there has to be a complex structure of rules to ensure proper timing and handling of different cards. Suffice it to say that the system DOES have to be in place. It's just that you don't have a sufficient foundation to build your understanding of it. Go read up on the rules of M:tG, which uses a similar system.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 11:37 AM
@karmacappa:
Please be more specific. I'm intimately familiar with the MTG rules and yet I have no idea what you're referring to. What timing would be broken and what specific cards?

EDIT:
You can feel free to cite specific paragraph numbers in the MTG complete rules. I'm familiar with them.

Gwaer
06-13-2013, 11:42 AM
It is because there has to be a complex structure of rules to ensure proper timing and handling of different cards. Suffice it to say that the system DOES have to be in place. It's just that you don't have a sufficient foundation to build your understanding of it. Go read up on the rules of M:tG, which uses a similar system.

If this is the best rebuttal you're going to get I think it's safe to say that your argument is soundly won. This seems to me like an excellent way to handle this.

JoB3nder
06-13-2013, 11:44 AM
I"m pretty sure karmacappa didn't read the responses in this thread. Particularly, the OP's additional evidence per quoted Magic commentary.

Or perhaps I didn't understand karmacappa's point.

Hollywood
06-13-2013, 11:44 AM
Because then you can't make a card that says something like, "opposing cards in all zones lose and can't have powers".

I mean, do you really think these guys haven't thought about stuff like this?

Punk
06-13-2013, 11:45 AM
If they did this, then "Quick" and "Speed" would both be Keywords on cards. Two words that essentially mean the same thing, but they would be two completely different abilities. This would be confusing to every player new to TCG's.

Gwaer
06-13-2013, 11:45 AM
Because then you can't make a card that says something like, "opposing cards in all zones lose and can't have powers".

I mean, do you really think these guys haven't thought about stuff like this?
It is a limited amount of people with a finite amount of time. They will not have thought of everything. Certainly they can have reasons for not doing it like this. But it is definitely possible no one considered it, yes.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 11:46 AM
Because then you can't make a card that says something like, "opposing cards in all zones lose and can't have powers".You can still make that card. Now all cards have to be played at slow speed. Not seeing the problem here.

Draugr
06-13-2013, 11:48 AM
+1 to the OP

Ditto.
Also, Is this the kind of thing that they want from us in the Alpha/Beta or are we primarily going to be looking for glitches and bugs in the software?

Gwaer
06-13-2013, 11:51 AM
Many changes like this, including this one, are likely not going to be implemented since it would take a bit of work to rework their card engine to work within the constraints of this entirely 'new' mechanic. It's probably good to suggest it, perhaps sometime down the road they can change their backend to function like this, and errata cards. But they have to weigh resources required to change it vs benefit. I doubt it will be there.

Any suggestion is good, just don't feel bad if they don't take it.

Hollywood
06-13-2013, 11:52 AM
You can still make that card. Now all cards have to be played at slow speed. Not seeing the problem here.

And I'm very glad you aren't a designer.

Tathel
06-13-2013, 11:54 AM
I think that it would be best implemented

pic
Quick - Action
rule text

Quick - Troop
Quick - Constant

That way you could also add somethign later there like
Slow - Action (can only be played in second main phase)

Edit: you could even have an effect that slows all cards by 1 type

Yoss
06-13-2013, 11:59 AM
And I'm very glad you aren't a designer.Insults in place of argument, well done. I am still waiting for a polite and thoughtful rebuttal. I am prepared to concede to your view if you provide convincing argument. I've already done so with other ideas in other threads. (Example, I switched from promoting keys for booster chests to declaiming them.)

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 01:45 PM
If this is the best rebuttal you're going to get I think it's safe to say that your argument is soundly won.

Nope, it isn't. I still strongly feel that people don't understand the meta. I can't explain the meta of M:tG to you guys, it's just something you get or you don't get. You'll have to do your own research on figuring out why it can't work like you would like it to work.

Tathel
06-13-2013, 01:49 PM
Nope, it isn't. I still strongly feel that people don't understand the meta. I can't explain the meta of M:tG to you guys, it's just something you get or you don't get. You'll have to do your own research on figuring out why it can't work like you would like it to work.

FIXED:
My reasoning is both mystical and beyond your comprehension therefore I am right

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 01:52 PM
FIXED:
My reasoning is both mystical and beyond your comprehension therefore I am right

I just think it is amusing that people who know so much can't even think of the counters to their own arguments. The meta is really mystical and beyond their comprehension. If they thought about it for a while, they could come up with the answers to their own questions. This is one of those cases where such effort would be well spent. I encourage them to do so.

benczi
06-13-2013, 01:57 PM
+1 to the op.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 02:10 PM
EDITED OUT.

Just hoping for a useful response to post 14.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 02:16 PM
@kc:
So you're just too brilliant, and your time is too precious for you to bother with a coherent response to people making a good faith attempt to understand what you're trying to convey? If so, why'd you even bother posting in this thread to begin with? Indeed, why are you even a member of these forums? Go do something else if your time is so precious.

If you're prepared to have an intelligent and polite discussion, I'm here.

You might want to apply your advice to yourself. Such sarcasm and ill wishes towards other people, going so far as to ask them to exclude themselves. You also play up your own traits. I think maybe you need to stop preaching what you can't practice yourself. You will never be able to participate in something positive if you're so negative yourself, so don't fool yourself on that point.

Prism
06-13-2013, 02:23 PM
Probably said in this thread, not going to read everything.

MTG's MaRo said the biggest thing he regrets is NOT doing this exact thing. Having instants and creatures with flash

VS

Having the better way of just having flash (or 'quick') on everything.

IE in MTG, a Sorcery could have the Flash affix and be what is currently an instant.

A creature could have flash. An enchantment could have flash.

Much more elegant, and very easily changed. I would think to implement this system it would take an hour at most.

Roneci
06-13-2013, 02:25 PM
It certainly would NOT take an hour at most.

It would take a long time of onerous coding -- however, I think it would be in CZE's best interests to do so.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 02:26 PM
Fine, I'll just repost what's been posted that you never bothered to answer.

It is because there has to be a complex structure of rules to ensure proper timing and handling of different cards. Suffice it to say that the system DOES have to be in place. It's just that you don't have a sufficient foundation to build your understanding of it. Go read up on the rules of M:tG, which uses a similar system.


@karmacappa:
Please be more specific. I'm intimately familiar with the MTG rules and yet I have no idea what you're referring to. What timing would be broken and what specific cards?
I'm honestly trying to understand your point, not trying to tell you you're wrong.


MTG's MaRo said the biggest thing he regrets is NOT doing this exact thing. Having instants and creatures with flash

VS

Having the better way of just having flash (or 'quick') on everything.

IE in MTG, a Sorcery could have the Flash affix and be what is currently an instant.

A creature could have flash. An enchantment could have flash.

Much more elegant, and very easily changed. I would think to implement this system it would take an hour at most.
Hey look, the MTG designers agree with the OP too!

nicosharp
06-13-2013, 02:32 PM
That is actually a pretty good and logical idea.

However, I always give CZE the benefit of the doubt.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 02:53 PM
What MeRo referred to was a radical reworking which completely changes the way the spells work. In a physical medium this might make sense, as card real estate is valuable. However, this being a digital game with the computer handling the rules for you, such consolidation might be considered to be actually the less elegant solution. By changing it into a single word on a card, it actually makes the rules more complicated and forces the users to navigate more levels of explanation to make apparent the timing uses of these cards, as you now not only have to look at the detail of the card, but click through to a keyword (of which there can be several) to identify what it actually does. All of this for a few non-quick actions which are affected by such rules?

There is also the very real problem that people would most likely become confused about the relation of "quick" to those cards we currently refer to as "quick actions". As I've said before, I encourage you all to think about the many situations that could occur instead of a single "perfect world" situation.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 02:56 PM
Nope, it isn't. I still strongly feel that people don't understand the meta. I can't explain the meta of M:tG to you guys, it's just something you get or you don't get. You'll have to do your own research on figuring out why it can't work like you would like it to work.

The lead designer of Magic has mentioned making instant a super type on a number of occasions. If you're going to disagree you need more than an incorrect appeal to authority.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 03:06 PM
The lead designer of Magic has mentioned making instant a super type on a number of occasions. If you're going to disagree you need more than an incorrect appeal to authority.

Look up. Unless it took you 3 minutes to write that post, you would've seen the one right above yours.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 03:19 PM
Look up. Unless it took you 3 minutes to write that post, you would've seen the one right above yours.

You're not referencing arguments, or making them. Until you're doing more than just saying 'I know best' there is no reason to engage with you.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 03:24 PM
You're not referencing arguments, or making them. Until you're doing more than just saying 'I know best' there is no reason to engage with you.

Have you even read post #36? We're all doing our best to have a conversation, I suggest you start putting forth an effort too.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 03:29 PM
What MeRo referred to was a radical reworking which completely changes the way the spells work. In a physical medium this might make sense, as card real estate is valuable. However, this being a digital game with the computer handling the rules for you, such consolidation might be considered to be actually the less elegant solution. By changing it into a single word on a card, it actually makes the rules more complicated and forces the users to navigate more levels of explanation to make apparent the timing uses of these cards, as you now not only have to look at the detail of the card, but click through to a keyword (of which there can be several) to identify what it actually does. All of this for a few non-quick actions which are affected by such rules?

There is also the very real problem that people would most likely become confused about the relation of "quick" to those cards we currently refer to as "quick actions". As I've said before, I encourage you all to think about the many situations that could occur instead of a single "perfect world" situation.

Just because I can't help myself.

Having fewer keywords and fewer words on a card - especially getting rid of different words that do the same thing - is not 'more confusing', it's the opposite.

The game isn't out yet. People will have a much more intuitive reaction to what quick means if it is clearly established from the start.

Quick - this card can be played any time you might use an ability.

Quick Action - an Action that is Quick.

Quick Troop - a Troop that is Quick.

If you establish this clearly and consistently then the game is much more intuitive and grokable, especially for more complicated applications such as with socketing gems,

Minor Sapphire - this card become Quick.

or Constants,

Constant X - while this card is in play all Troop cards are Quick.

or Actions,

Action Y - all Actions are Quick until the end of your turn.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 03:34 PM
Edit - oops!

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 03:39 PM
Having fewer keywords and fewer words on a card - especially getting rid of different words that do the same thing - is not 'more confusing', it's the opposite.

This is not necessarily true. Anyone who is exposed to slang that they're not familiar with can tell you that it is not necessarily a hard and fast rule that substitution of one word with an arbitrary meaning is always easier to understand than a verbose explanation. I suspect you've heard of cases where someone wrote "IMHO" or "LOL", and the other party didn't understand. I very much doubt that if you wrote "In my humble opinion" or "laugh out loud", that the other party would not understand. You even use the word "grokable", which is a very niche word. You have to think about these kinds of considerations rather than just pick something you would view as a more elegant solution for your own use.

DjiN
06-13-2013, 03:42 PM
I'm on the same page as OP. Having a keyword "Quick" is more consistent and simplifies the game by having one less card type. Good Point!

Tathel
06-13-2013, 03:48 PM
This is not necessarily true. Anyone who is exposed to slang that they're not familiar with can tell you that it is not necessarily a hard and fast rule that substitution of one word with an arbitrary meaning is always easier to understand than a verbose explanation. I suspect you've heard of cases where someone wrote "IMHO" or "LOL", and the other party didn't understand. I very much doubt that if you wrote "In my humble opinion" or "laugh out loud", that the other party would not understand. You even use the word "grokable", which is a very niche word. You have to think about these kinds of considerations rather than just pick something you would view as a more elegant solution for your own use.

Your entire argument is essentially based on the fact that any given player will both already know MTG well enough that the difference will seem odd and also be too dumb to learn the rule in the few seconds it would take.

By the same token threshold will destroy this game because it is different than how cards colour limited in MTG

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 03:48 PM
I'm on the same page as OP. Having a keyword "Quick" is more consistent and simplifies the game by having one less card type. Good Point!

At the same time, it adds a keyword very similar to Speed and Swiftstrike, which adds complexity to the game.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 03:51 PM
Your entire argument is essentially based on the fact that any given player will both already know MTG well enough that the difference will seem odd and also be too dumb to learn the rule in the few seconds it would take.

By the same token threshold will destroy this game because it is different than how cards colour limited in MTG

Sir, you have not grasped the basis of my argument. I'd also love to see where in that post I called anyone dumb. I don't view people who don't know "IMHO" dumb, I just think the person typing "IMHO" might need to do a better job of communicating.

Hollywood
06-13-2013, 03:51 PM
I'm on the same page as OP. Having a keyword "Quick" is more consistent and simplifies the game by having one less card type. Good Point!

No. Having more Keyworded powers is far more complicated than having more card types simply because Keyworded powers get interacted and referenced more often than a specific card type. For example, Magic actual made "instant sorceries" in Portal (either 1 or 2). It was, and is, a terrible idea because it is a complete contradiction.

Simple as this. A Keyword ability describes what a card does. A card type defines what a card is.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 03:52 PM
This is not necessarily true. Anyone who is exposed to slang that they're not familiar with can tell you that it is not necessarily a hard and fast rule that substitution of one word with an arbitrary meaning is always easier to understand than a verbose explanation. I suspect you've heard of cases where someone wrote "IMHO" or "LOL", and the other party didn't understand. I very much doubt that if you wrote "In my humble opinion" or "laugh out loud", that the other party would not understand. You even use the word "grokable", which is a very niche word. You have to think about these kinds of considerations rather than just pick something you would view as a more elegant solution for your own use.

You don't get it. Quick is already in the game. Nothing is being added. Players have to grasp what Quick means in terms of an Action, so there is no extra language being used. Less, in fact.

Also you seem to be confusing keywords with super types.

Also you seem to be focused on the word 'quick' itself, rrather than the logical basis for a super type. You could call it anything else you wanted to if necessary.

Personally I would rename quite a few of the card types and keywords as I think they are I intuitive or confusing - however that has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Tathel
06-13-2013, 03:53 PM
Sir, you have not grasped the basis of my argument. I'd also love to see where in that post I called anyone dumb. I don't view people who don't know "IMHO" dumb, I just think the person typing "IMHO" might need to do a better job of communicating.

I was not saying someone is dumb for not knowing IMHO I was saying if someone told them "IMHO, stands for in my humble opinion" and they are an English speaker and still can't understand, then they are dumb.

Eckish
06-13-2013, 03:53 PM
At the same time, it adds a keyword very similar to Speed and Swiftstrike, which adds complexity to the game.

The keyword would already exist for use on creatures that can be played at anytime a QuickAction can be played. They would just share this keyword. If the keyword, itself, is being confused with other keywords, that can be solved with renaming them. The keyword could be "PlayAnytime"

Hollywood
06-13-2013, 03:57 PM
The key word could be "PlayAnytime"

I hope you are just joking. Lol!

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 03:59 PM
The keyword would already exist for use on creatures that can be played at anytime a QuickAction can be played. They would just share this keyword. If the keyword, itself, is being confused with other keywords, that can be solved with renaming them. The key word could be "PlayAnytime"

You can't actually play it at anytime though. Only during times where you could play a quick action. This illustrates the difficulty of trying to implement this kind of a consolidation.
Would it be more easily understandable and efficient to change this entire system (which is already built) to eliminate all references to quick actions and text on secondary cards which can sometimes be cast with the same timing as a quick action? It might actually be less efficient and harder to understand than simply leaving the current wording in place.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 04:02 PM
There a reason to have to have a difference between keywords and card types.

Types say what the card is and when it is allowed to be played.

Keywords say what the card does when it is played or in play.

Instant or Quick dictates when a card is allowed to be played.

Therefore it is clearest to include it in reference to type.

Swiftstrike or Rage indicates what the card does or can do when in play, therefore it is clearest to have the as keywords.

Players will clearly follow this more than a game where the two cross over.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 04:04 PM
You can't actually play it at anytime though. Only during times where you could play a quick action. This illustrates the difficulty of trying to implement this kind of a consolidation.
Would it be more easily understandable and efficient to change this entire system (which is already built) to eliminate all references to quick actions and text on secondary cards which can sometimes be cast with the same timing as a quick action? It might actually be less efficient and harder to understand than simply leaving the current wording in place.

Well, at least you've gone down to the "it'll be too hard to change now" argument (for a templated digital game - maybe less hard ;) soon you'll come around entirely.

Eckish
06-13-2013, 04:52 PM
You can't actually play it at anytime though. Only during times where you could play a quick action. This illustrates the difficulty of trying to implement this kind of a consolidation.

When can you play a QuickAction? This still needs to be taught to new players. You can't escape that this is a fairly complex timing mechanic and it must be taught. As it stands, right now, it is both a card type and a keyword. So, it must be taught twice. If it were just a keyword, it only needs to be taught once.

If you are just disagreeing with my choice of renaming, then you missed the point. Just find a name that accurately describes the keyword without being confused with other keywords. Or don't. The nice thing about digital cards is that you can easily reference what a keyword means by adding a click text or hover text.


Would it be more easily understandable and efficient to change this entire system (which is already built) to eliminate all references to quick actions and text on secondary cards which can sometimes be cast with the same timing as a quick action? It might actually be less efficient and harder to understand than simply leaving the current wording in place.

As far as comprehension goes, this system might as well not exist. We are all basing our knowledge of how these work based on past card game knowledge. The actual timing may be different.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 06:38 PM
I'll offer a suggestion that will show this proposition in a different light. In MtG, you can only have 4 of any given card in a deck, with the exception of Basic Lands. Basic is an odd word that's only occasionally interacted with, and means that you can break this rule. Should Basic lands have text on them that say "You can include any number of this card in your deck," or should they have the Basic supertype?

If you think that they should go with the Basic supertype, because it cuts down on text that nobody needs to read every time they look at the card, then I suggest that we could similarly use Quick as a supertype. What's more, we're eliminating a whole card type at this point, which does more good than just eliminating a line of repetitive text in terms of simplifying the game structure. The truth is, the rule that "You can only play spells when the stack is empty and it's your turn," is one that's going to be broken many times, and often not just because of Quick Actions. There's a whole gem that makes troops Quick already, and who knows how many spells will change this, too? A new player will inevitably ask, "So what's the difference between a Quick Action and a Basic Action?" And then realize that the difference that separates two complete card types shows up in all sorts of places.

Basically, more things than Actions are going to be Quick. To minimize the exceptions, it's best to just make Quick a supertype here and now, so that applying it to other things is easy and natural.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 06:59 PM
Yep.

DjiN
06-13-2013, 07:04 PM
Also the rules when to play cards would be very simple to explain: You can only play cards in your turn in one of the two main phases except the card text says something else.

Your done then. No explanation needed why there is two types of actions and that theres also troops than can be quick but they are not called quick troops and so on.

Hollywood
06-13-2013, 07:16 PM
Please go look at some of the WoW cards CZE has made. There are Basic Abilities and Instant Abilities, Allies and Instant Allies.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 07:22 PM
When can you play a QuickAction? This still needs to be taught to new players. You can't escape that this is a fairly complex timing mechanic and it must be taught. As it stands, right now, it is both a card type and a keyword. So, it must be taught twice. If it were just a keyword, it only needs to be taught once.

If you are just disagreeing with my choice of renaming, then you missed the point. Just find a name that accurately describes the keyword without being confused with other keywords. Or don't. The nice thing about digital cards is that you can easily reference what a keyword means by adding a click text or hover text.



As far as comprehension goes, this system might as well not exist. We are all basing our knowledge of how these work based on past card game knowledge. The actual timing may be different.

Sir, you are the one missing the point. I don't have to come up with a way to implement your idea. I am pointing out that your idea may needlessly complicate the issue. If you can not come up with a better word than "PlayAnytime", it is quite possible that you are not factoring in the issue of adequately communicating and helping people to understand. Magic the Gathering has accumulated over 100 keywords so far. This is just another idea to put a new keyword into a game where it may not even be merited. It is a fact that if implemented without thought, could only cause the situation to slip into a morass of confusion and bad communication. I really think you need to consider these points before you simply dismiss valid opinions.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 07:24 PM
I'll offer a suggestion that will show this proposition in a different light. In MtG, you can only have 4 of any given card in a deck, with the exception of Basic Lands. Basic is an odd word that's only occasionally interacted with, and means that you can break this rule. Should Basic lands have text on them that say "You can include any number of this card in your deck," or should they have the Basic supertype?

If you think that they should go with the Basic supertype, because it cuts down on text that nobody needs to read every time they look at the card, then I suggest that we could similarly use Quick as a supertype. What's more, we're eliminating a whole card type at this point, which does more good than just eliminating a line of repetitive text in terms of simplifying the game structure. The truth is, the rule that "You can only play spells when the stack is empty and it's your turn," is one that's going to be broken many times, and often not just because of Quick Actions. There's a whole gem that makes troops Quick already, and who knows how many spells will change this, too? A new player will inevitably ask, "So what's the difference between a Quick Action and a Basic Action?" And then realize that the difference that separates two complete card types shows up in all sorts of places.

Basically, more things than Actions are going to be Quick. To minimize the exceptions, it's best to just make Quick a supertype here and now, so that applying it to other things is easy and natural.

Very well said. Basic should be removed from Actions and become a supertype also. Differing meanings for Basic in regards to Resources and Basic in regard to Actions will only confuse new players.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 07:31 PM
Sir, you are the one missing the point. I don't have to come up with a way to implement your idea. I am pointing out that your idea may needlessly complicate the issue. If you can not come up with a better word than "PlayAnytime", it is quite possible that you are not factoring in the issue of adequately communicating and helping people to understand. Magic the Gathering has accumulated over 100 keywords so far. This is just another idea to put a new keyword into a game where it may not even be merited. It is a fact that if implemented without thought, could only cause the situation to slip into a morass of confusion and bad communication. I really think you need to consider these points before you simply dismiss valid opinions.

1) In a game with over a hundred keywords, I don't see how adding one more evergreen keyword could 'cause the situation to slip into a morass of confusion.' In fact, flash didn't do so. However,
2) I don't think the proponents of this idea are asking for a flash keyword, but instead want it coded into a supertype, cutting out a whole card type that is barely different from one we already have, and avoiding the need for an extra keyword altogether.

I've been trying to gather from your posts what your argument is against this. You seem to suggest that having extra card text will complicate cards, but this text is pretty simple to explain (You can play this card any time you have priority), and this text resides in the space that would already be used: In the type line, it would say "Quick Action" in the current system, while in the proposed system it still reads, "Quick Action." We just don't need extra text to explain "Quick Troop" in the text box, because it'll be contained in the type line now.

If you're concerned about players internalizing an extra rules word, they still have to internalize "Quick Action" in the current implementation, and we're just swapping out "quick action" for "quick." I'd argue that 'quick' is a lot easier to grasp than 'quick action,' too, since there's no extra questions about "are there quick troops? do quick actions basically do the same thing as regular actions?" etc.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 08:08 PM
1) In a game with over a hundred keywords, I don't see how adding one more evergreen keyword could 'cause the situation to slip into a morass of confusion.' In fact, flash didn't do so. However,
2) I don't think the proponents of this idea are asking for a flash keyword, but instead want it coded into a supertype, cutting out a whole card type that is barely different from one we already have, and avoiding the need for an extra keyword altogether.

I've been trying to gather from your posts what your argument is against this. You seem to suggest that having extra card text will complicate cards, but this text is pretty simple to explain (You can play this card any time you have priority), and this text resides in the space that would already be used: In the type line, it would say "Quick Action" in the current system, while in the proposed system it still reads, "Quick Action." We just don't need extra text to explain "Quick Troop" in the text box, because it'll be contained in the type line now.

If you're concerned about players internalizing an extra rules word, they still have to internalize "Quick Action" in the current implementation, and we're just swapping out "quick action" for "quick." I'd argue that 'quick' is a lot easier to grasp than 'quick action,' too, since there's no extra questions about "are there quick troops? do quick actions basically do the same thing as regular actions?" etc.

1) That game is M:tG. It's not simple anymore because the designers introduced a lot of keywords. It used to work better, but then stuff like this happened. It seems simple at first, but it's not really thought out. Look at all these people trying to get it to work, but they just don't see any perspective but their own.

2) We still haven't at all had any solid logic that this system would work better than just leaving in "quick action" and cards that have the text "can be played at the same time as a quick action". People have said they personally have an opinion it works better, but they're not really weighing all the pros and cons. You don't just scrap everything that already works because you think maybe you have a semantically more elegant way of referring to it.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 08:14 PM
1) That game is M:tG. It's not simple anymore because the designers introduced a lot of keywords. It used to work better, but then stuff like this happened. It seems simple at first, but it's not really thought out. Look at all these people trying to get it to work, but they just don't see any perspective but their own.

2) We still haven't at all had any solid logic that this system would work better than just leaving in "quick action" and cards that have the text "can be played at the same time as a quick action". People have said they personally have an opinion it works better, but they're not really weighing all the pros and cons. You don't just scrap everything that already works because you think maybe you have a semantically more elegant way of referring to it.

There is a lack of logic and understanding here, but given that your contribution to the topic is only a "but, nah! I know best!" it isn't with those you are disagreeing with.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 08:15 PM
2) We still haven't at all had any solid logic that this system would work better than just leaving in "quick action" and cards that have the text "can be played at the same time as a quick action". People have said they personally have an opinion it works better, but they're not really weighing all the pros and cons. You don't just scrap everything that already works because you think maybe you have a semantically more elegant way of referring to it.

Well, let's start weighing them. So far, I have:

Pros:
- Cuts down on a card type
- Cuts down on card text in cases of Quick creatures

Cons:
- Introduces supertypes (I don't think Hex has these yet?)
- Adds a type to learn

If you have specific cons you'd like to add, or pros you'd like to disagree with, feel free to speak up or present your own list. Personally, I feel like the 'adding a type' and 'removing a type' counteract each other, and that Quick would be a very easy supertype to immediately get, which makes the change very easy in my mind.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 08:31 PM
Well, let's start weighing them. So far, I have:

Pros:
- Cuts down on a card type
- Cuts down on card text in cases of Quick creatures

Cons:
- Introduces supertypes (I don't think Hex has these yet?)
- Adds a type to learn

If you have specific cons you'd like to add, or pros you'd like to disagree with, feel free to speak up or present your own list. Personally, I feel like the 'adding a type' and 'removing a type' counteract each other, and that Quick would be a very easy supertype to immediately get, which makes the change very easy in my mind.

You forgot a few cons:

-The game code must be substantially rewritten.
-All existing cards affected by the changes must be changed to come into line with the new changes.

I'd be interested in exactly what pros could be worth pushing this back a few months to work in these changes... If poorly implemented, such an idea could actually turn the pros you mentioned into cons as the game becomes less intuitive.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 08:41 PM
Fair enough. I approach this question from purely a game-design perspective, rather than including implementation questions. I doubt it'd take months to make this switch. An hour is a silly-low estimate, but I don't think it'd take a complete re-write of the code to change timing restrictions, especially considering the framework is already in-place: Quick actions and activated abilities already use this timing procedure, so they obviously have some sort of indicator in the card data for when it can be played. As for retroactively changing the ~1500 cards they have, better to do it now than a few years from now.

As for 'poor implementation' that could 'turn the pros ... into cons,' we've already described how this would work, and it doesn't make the game less intuitive, unless you think having creatures that can be played at Quick speed but having two categories for Quick Actions and Basic Actions is more intuitive. We don't need to consider how this could be poorly implemented, because it can clearly be implemented intuitively.

So, my opinion: I think that Quick as a supertype makes cards cleaner and more intuitive, and don't think that the necessary coding changes in their alpha product are a large enough obstacle on their own to discount making the change. Now, if a dev comes in and says, "Yeah, Quick as a supertype would suck, due to the way our code structure works," then I'll take the definitive answer. Until then, it's speculation that we apparently disagree on.

Arveene
06-13-2013, 08:57 PM
Also, MaRo's discussion of the New New World Order:



http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/241c

I would just like to point out that this article is from April 1st of this year. You should also read all the way to the bottom of the article.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 09:12 PM
Fair enough. I approach this question from purely a game-design perspective, rather than including implementation questions. I doubt it'd take months to make this switch. An hour is a silly-low estimate, but I don't think it'd take a complete re-write of the code to change timing restrictions, especially considering the framework is already in-place: Quick actions and activated abilities already use this timing procedure, so they obviously have some sort of indicator in the card data for when it can be played. As for retroactively changing the ~1500 cards they have, better to do it now than a few years from now.

You know, I have to ask, what exactly do you think that these changes would require in code? I definitely have my own ideas from my experience, but I'm curious about what exactly you think these changes entail.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 09:13 PM
You forgot a few cons:

-The game code must be substantially rewritten.
-All existing cards affected by the changes must be changed to come into line with the new changes.

I'd be interested in exactly what pros could be worth pushing this back a few months to work in these changes... If poorly implemented, such an idea could actually turn the pros you mentioned into cons as the game becomes less intuitive.

If they haven't got a system that can easily do the second already then they should re-design so they do. I expect they already do though.

lamaros
06-13-2013, 09:15 PM
I would just like to point out that this article is from April 1st of this year. You should also read all the way to the bottom of the article.

Not sure what either of these points has to do with the discussion at hand? Unless you mean the general scope of the article and the New New World Order - which is strongly in the "supertype it" camp, as it cuts down on a lot of extra information processing for the player.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 09:24 PM
If they haven't got a system that can easily do the second already then they should re-design so they do. I expect they already do though.

Actually, it's more an issue of trying to completely change the structure of cards. There are a lot of dependencies. If this were a physical card, you would just send the printers a revised proof. Computers are very literal though, so think of how the cards could possibly be created, stored, edited, and injected into the builds. Then figure if that might be pretty scary to change at this point. This is just the specific cards themselves too, it says nothing of how much code is required for the game to actually use those card entries.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 09:37 PM
Not sure what either of these points has to do with the discussion at hand? Unless you mean the general scope of the article and the New New World Order - which is strongly in the "supertype it" camp, as it cuts down on a lot of extra information processing for the player.

It means it's an April Fools article. The New New World Order was a joke, and oversimplified everything. Anything said in it should be disregarded as taking things too far. If it advocates Flash as a supertype, we should almost count that as a mark against supertypes.

And Karmakappa, I don't know much about programming at all, I can freely admit. 'Months' seems like an excessive time frame to add a supertype, though. My guess is that each card has an entry of information in a database that the program refers to, from which it gleans general information like Name, Cost, and Type, as well as instructions of what to do when it's cast, and timing and such. Our relevant information is the timing restriction. I would guess that this information is gleaned from card type, but if it has its own entry, this should be fairly simple to implement, since this data will remain unchanged.
To implement the Quick supertype, instead of looking at the card type to determine timing, you can simply look at supertype. Everything would be at slow speed unless it has the Quick supertype. We know that they already have the code for this timing window because activated abilities and Quick Actions use this time frame, so it's just a matter of changing the reference from whatever they used before when referring to a card and its timing restrictions to checking if it has the Quick supertype.

Updating the cards shouldn't take too long. Heck, you could probably knock it out in an afternoon using Find/replace to switch Quick Action into Action, and then copy-paste "Quick=yes" or whatever that is in their programming language.
That is to say, I expect that the game-engine refers frequently to a card database much like a textified Gatherer. Changing the card database should be trivial, while the brunt of the work lies in changing the reference for timing restrictions to look at supertype, rather than whatever it looked at before. The two speeds already exist, after all; it's just a matter of keying off different queries.


Like I said, I don't program, so if you do, you can laugh at my ignorance all you want without hurting my feelings. This is where my expectations came from, though :P

nezumi414
06-13-2013, 09:43 PM
I may not be as experienced, or as knowledgeable at TCGs, or Coding as some of the people posting here. But the issue I see here (and I have read every single post in this thread) is not that the proposed change/system isn't better, but that it's different than what is already in place.

What every argument and rebuttal has boiled down to has been that in an optimal world where this was pre-planned from the beginning the proposed change would be better in every way where it would cut down on text, confusion, and make game play more intuitive. The thing that I'm seeing and reading seems to be that the only downside is that isn't the case and it was designed with different thinking in mind and that it would require a lot of time and effort to change - even with the acknowledgement that it is a, if not better, cleaner system.

I'm intentionally leaving out the "I'm simply smarter than you," argument that's been tossed around in a really silly and immature matter. It's always better to at least attempt to explain your thinking in the lamest (simplest) way possible instead of assuming that your logic is simply superior and that your opposite is to simple to understand what you're trying to say. That's my opinion on it, and that's all I'm going to say on that topic.

MrSeriousBsns
06-13-2013, 09:46 PM
I think that now is the perfect time to bring up large structural issues like this. Who knows if its still possible, but at least the acknowledgement of the issue would be nice.

I also agree that, based on the arguments presented so far, the favorable aspects of making a change like this are very attractive. Lets face it - for new players, this game is going to be complex no matter what. The advantage that Hex has is the ability to handhold in very specific ways (which Cory has talked about - i.e. giving players a specific hand of cards with a scripted AI response) to slowly ease people into new ideas. So, I don't think any arguments alluding to increases in learning curve difficulty apply.

That being the case, any overall improvements that can be made to the most basic of card structures to simplify card types moving forward. As such, I completely support the "Quick" (or whatever they call it) supertype suggestion. Nice job OP.

It would be interesting if Crypto had a response already lined up regarding this (akin to their resource explanation) with something we haven't considered or if this was a "trying to keep familiarity by doing it the way MTG did it". Arguing that it "would be too complex to code" isn't a valid position to take as none of us know what system limitations, if any, would prevent this until we hear it from Crypto directly.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 09:46 PM
I may not be as experienced, or as knowledgeable at TCGs, or Coding as some of the people posting here. But the issue I see here (and I have read every single post in this thread) is not that the proposed change/system isn't better, but that it's different than what is already in place.

What every argument and rebuttal has boiled down to has been that in an optimal world where this was pre-planned from the beginning the proposed change would be better in every way where it would cut down on text, confusion, and make game play more intuitive. The thing that I'm seeing and reading seems to be that the only downside is that isn't the case and it was designed with different thinking in mind and that it would require a lot of time and effort to change - even with the acknowledgement that it is a, if not better, cleaner system.

I'm intentionally leaving out the "I'm simply smarter than you," argument that's been tossed around in a really silly and immature matter. It's always better to at least attempt to explain your thinking in the lamest (simplest) way possible instead of assuming that your logic is simply superior and that your opposite is to simple to understand what you're trying to say. That's my opinion on it, and that's all I'm going to say on that topic.
An impressive first post, sir. Welcome to the Hex forums!

nezumi414
06-13-2013, 09:49 PM
An impressive first post, sir. Welcome to the Hex forums!
Thank you for the warm welcome. I try to only speak when I have something to say.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 09:52 PM
Thank you for the warm welcome. I try to only speak when I have something to say.

As a 'wise' scarecrow once said: "Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking."

Thank you for your discretion - we would all do well to emulate :)

TheBokononist
06-13-2013, 10:00 PM
+1 for OP's Quick as a super type

@nezumi414 Beautifully done, I'm proud to know an individual such as yourself is a part of this community.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 10:02 PM
And Karmakappa, I don't know much about programming at all, I can freely admit. 'Months' seems like an excessive time frame to add a supertype, though. My guess is that each card has an entry of information in a database that the program refers to, from which it gleans general information like Name, Cost, and Type, as well as instructions of what to do when it's cast, and timing and such. Our relevant information is the timing restriction. I would guess that this information is gleaned from card type, but if it has its own entry, this should be fairly simple to implement, since this data will remain unchanged.
To implement the Quick supertype, instead of looking at the card type to determine timing, you can simply look at supertype. Everything would be at slow speed unless it has the Quick supertype. We know that they already have the code for this timing window because activated abilities and Quick Actions use this time frame, so it's just a matter of changing the reference from whatever they used before when referring to a card and its timing restrictions to checking if it has the Quick supertype.

Updating the cards shouldn't take too long. Heck, you could probably knock it out in an afternoon using Find/replace to switch Quick Action into Action, and then copy-paste "Quick=yes" or whatever that is in their programming language.
That is to say, I expect that the game-engine refers frequently to a card database much like a textified Gatherer. Changing the card database should be trivial, while the brunt of the work lies in changing the reference for timing restrictions to look at supertype, rather than whatever it looked at before. The two speeds already exist, after all; it's just a matter of keying off different queries.


Like I said, I don't program, so if you do, you can laugh at my ignorance all you want without hurting my feelings. This is where my expectations came from, though :P

I can tell you from experience, it would not be trivial just to change the cards. It would require revamps of the tools and databases which store cards to accomodate this. That in itself would be a fairly good sized undertaking. Then you need to handle the links from the databases to the client and server code to ensure it understands the new format of cards. After that, you have to change the deckbuilder some because it has to accomodate the cards in its filters. Then you need to go through in game and validate that the engine itself correctly uses the timing for the update keywords and cards. You have to make sure it's in the keyword database and linking properly. Then there is the entire matter of an overhaul of the AI. These are some of the tasks I can think of offhand. Chances are there would be a lot of other areas you would have to change because of the input and output of the affected pieces of code.

Yoss
06-13-2013, 10:06 PM
I still vote +1 to the OP. Leave it to CZE to decide if it would cost too much to implement.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 10:15 PM
I'm intentionally leaving out the "I'm simply smarter than you," argument that's been tossed around in a really silly and immature matter. It's always better to at least attempt to explain your thinking in the lamest (simplest) way possible instead of assuming that your logic is simply superior and that your opposite is to simple to understand what you're trying to say. That's my opinion on it, and that's all I'm going to say on that topic.

I think by definition if you INCLUDE it in your post, you're not "leaving out" anything. It's just a cheap tactic, please try to keep it clean.

nezumi414
06-13-2013, 10:17 PM
I think by definition if you INCLUDE it in your post, you're not "leaving out" anything. It's just a cheap tactic, please try to keep it clean.

I didn't leave it out of my post. I left it out of the main body of my observation because it didn't have to do with my main point, and then provided an opinion on it. I apologize for the confusion, and for using what you see as "a cheap tactic."

RobHaven
06-13-2013, 10:19 PM
It would be interesting if Crypto had a response already lined up regarding this (akin to their resource explanation) with something we haven't considered or if this was a "trying to keep familiarity by doing it the way MTG did it". Arguing that it "would be too complex to code" isn't a valid position to take as none of us know what system limitations, if any, would prevent this until we hear it from Crypto directly.

1) I hate the "well this is the way Magic did it" argument used in any capacity with regards to this game. [Note to self: Go back over own posts and make sure I didn't ever use that argument.] Just because Magic did it one way doesn't mean that's the best way. I've read every post in the thread, and I honestly could not get passed the idea that Karma just doesn't like the proposed change because it's different. I asked my roommate [teacher for 7 years] and he said he'd much rather teach a concept once and have his students know the concept in a concise manner than have to explain it in full every time an instance of this concept occurs [assumed: moderate frequency of use]. I also am still somewhat shocked that Karma tried to use "you don't know enough to know what you don't know" as a valid rebuttal early on. That's...it's just poor form.

2) I write code* for a living. I'm not making games, but I think my work has something to offer this discussion. Often times when I write out how I want the output to be, I think I know what I'm doing...then I see the results and I realize I need to make changes. Sometimes I think my build is sound, but two months later I realize that there is a significant flaw in the way the datamart is pulling numbers. I have two choices: Put a bandaid on the existing information and make adjustments every time that datamart is accessed, or re-write everything from the ground up so that it's done correctly. A lot of times a re-write means an entire day's work, but the trade-off is that I'm not constantly fixing my output every two weeks for X years; it's an investment
The point I'm trying to make is that it is ALWAYS better to have an ideal build as early as possible. [Fairly obvious, right?] If you don't agree that supertypes belong in the optimal build, that's fine...but "too much work to code" is not and should never be a valid reason not to improve design. If you truly believe that your build will stand the test of time, you'll want it to be right today so you're not backtracking tomorrow.

[I]*Full Disclosure
I work with a proprietary SQL variant. My job involves designing and executing KPIs that pull metrics from datamarts shittily built in a logistics program.
I'm currently in school for programming [and economics], but I haven't done enough programming there to use that experience as an additional qualification.

Arveene
06-13-2013, 10:19 PM
Not sure what either of these points has to do with the discussion at hand? Unless you mean the general scope of the article and the New New World Order - which is strongly in the "supertype it" camp, as it cuts down on a lot of extra information processing for the player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day

KeplerVerge
06-13-2013, 10:22 PM
There is little difference between learning what a card type does and learning what a keyword does. Both require knowledge of ruleset. There is zero difference between this knowledge when you move a card type into a keyword. Doing so, however, allows you to modify a card's effective state without changing it's type.

Personally I'm not a fan of some of the word choices and would like to see something like
Action instead of BasicAction
QuickAction turned into the keyword Ambush (Action - Ambush) Anything with Ambush can be played anytime you have priority.
The word "ambush" lends itself directly to the type of action: a surprise. I'd have suggested "Surprise" but it sounds too cheesy and doesn't fit so well as a troop modifier. (Velociraptor[2] Surprise 2/2 lol no). With Ambush, you already get a general idea of how to play any card with it just by the definition of the word itself.

I'd also like to see the wording changed when referring to keywords:
Speed changed to a form of either Agility, Quickness or Nimble
If reference is "So and so has" then use Agility, Quickness
If reference is "So and so is" then use Agile, Quick or Nimble
Speed just makes me think a troop that "has Speed" is either selling meth or cracked out on it.
Just to clarify, I don't think there should be 3 keywords equivalent to "Speed." I'm just giving multiple options as grammar examples.

more eg: "So and so is Invincible" vs "has Invincible" (which gramatically should be "has Invincibility")

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 10:34 PM
RobHaven, if you know anything about games, I refer you to such gems as Duke Nukem Forever, Battlecruiser 3000AD, and Daikatana. The principles you're describing actually were the basis of those games. My point (which you have only partially understood) is that you have to make sure the reward is worth the risk. In this case, nobody has actually said anything other than that they would personally like to have it changed to a keyword. They haven't actually made a compelling case for it being BETTER. I've actually been the only one who tried to bring some knowledge of what it would actually entail into the conversation.

nezumi414
06-13-2013, 10:39 PM
I feel required to explain my post as karmacappa has brought the issue of clarity up, and I apologize for the mostly off-topic post before I begin.

Although I personally would like to see the proposed change (Quick as a supertype) implemented I do not pretend to know the deep inner workings of TCG nor do I have the coding prowess to make an really educated opinion one way or another as I don’t understand the effect it would have on gameplay as a whole and I don’t know the details of what would have to be changed to actually put it in.

This being said what my post was about was what I was seeing, and summarizing the points being made on both sides as a newcomer who has taken in the opinions of everyone who had posted before me. This was meant to be unbiased but I can see how it that wouldn’t have come across to some people reading it. I can see that the proposed change has not been overly challenged from a mechanical standpoint but from a codebase standpoint, which is completely valid.

The last thing I brought up was not a summary or an argument. It was an opinion and nothing more. I am of the firm belief that tactics such as “I’m smarter than you” are not valid in winning an argument or making any friends. It was clearly targeted, I will admit that, but not without just cause. I firmly believe that if you cannot explain your reasons for a belief in an adequate manner to people who are not already intimately knowledgeable of a subject then you should not be preaching your opinion to them and should learn the subject matter better and learn the best ways to communicate it to them in a non-condescending matter so as to make them more receptive of the information being provided.

Aradon
06-13-2013, 10:45 PM
RobHaven, if you know anything about games, I refer you to such gems as Duke Nukem Forever, Battlecruiser 3000AD, and Daikatana. The principles you're describing actually were the basis of those games. My point (which you have only partially understood) is that you have to make sure the reward is worth the risk. In this case, nobody has actually said anything other than that they would personally like to have it changed to a keyword. They haven't actually made a compelling case for it being BETTER. I've actually been the only one who tried to bring some knowledge of what it would actually entail into the conversation.

No. Those games suffered because they were scrapped for entirely new engines. I'm not suggesting they start over in some other programming language. We're not even talking about making major rules changes. We're rearranging some pieces that are already there.

As for compelling cases for why it'd be better, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that it's far more intuitive and will simplify many, many cards in the future. This is a fundamental part of the game, and it's important to get it right before the game's set in stone. I think that's pretty compelling, but at best, you've said, "No, trust me, I know that it really isn't a good idea so forget what you just said."

I'd love to hear some hard estimates from the devs on how much work this would entail, since it seems we've got wildly optimistic/pessimistic estimates from both sides.

Arveene
06-13-2013, 10:59 PM
I would argue that there could be a card(or cards) in the future that can remove keywords or affect cards with certain keywords. Having Quick being part of the card type would leave them unaffected. Now they might never have something like that, but it's certainly possible and could be an issue.

Edit: I would also say that because being able to react to your opponent casting troops, spells, and activating abilities is a core part of the game, having quick as a keyword that could be removed shouldn't be a thing. Again, this is under the assumption that there could be cards that could do such a thing. They have equipment where cards can gain keywords, so I wouldn't be surprised if removing keywords is a possibility.

nezumi414
06-13-2013, 11:01 PM
I would argue that there could be a card(or cards) in the future that can remove keywords or affect cards with certain keywords. Having Quick being part of the card type would leave them unaffected. Now they might never have something like that, but it's certainly possible and could be an issue.

I would like to hear more responses like this that challenge this change on a gameplay mechanical base. This is a valid point, and may be part of the reason why the developers chose to make the mechanics the way they were.

karmacappa
06-13-2013, 11:09 PM
No. Those games suffered because they were scrapped for entirely new engines. I'm not suggesting they start over in some other programming language. We're not even talking about making major rules changes. We're rearranging some pieces that are already there.

As for compelling cases for why it'd be better, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that it's far more intuitive and will simplify many, many cards in the future. This is a fundamental part of the game, and it's important to get it right before the game's set in stone. I think that's pretty compelling, but at best, you've said, "No, trust me, I know that it really isn't a good idea so forget what you just said."

I'd love to hear some hard estimates from the devs on how much work this would entail, since it seems we've got wildly optimistic/pessimistic estimates from both sides.

Sadly, it was the entire ethic behind them that failed. The engine changes are VERY similar to the changes that are being mentioned here. At some point, you have to say, "This solution is different but not better. What we have works. We could TRY that, but it would take months of work and might not even pay off." This suggestion is pretty much the DEFINITION of feature creep (people have figured out more features that have to be added just to implement this feature). You've got a game that has a couple of months before it goes public and has to hit some pretty definite milestones.
As for arguing mechanics, I brought up several points. They were never properly addressed. It's like two grade schoolers yelling "NUH-UH, YOU!" at each other. We'll have to agree to disagree and accept that this solution is not universally accepted as good.

RobHaven
06-14-2013, 12:14 AM
RobHaven, if you know anything about games, I refer you to such gems as Duke Nukem Forever, Battlecruiser 3000AD, and Daikatana. The principles you're describing actually were the basis of those games. My point (which you have only partially understood) is that you have to make sure the reward is worth the risk. In this case, nobody has actually said anything other than that they would personally like to have it changed to a keyword. They haven't actually made a compelling case for it being BETTER. I've actually been the only one who tried to bring some knowledge of what it would actually entail into the conversation.

As stated elsewhere, I do feel like compelling evidence was brought forward; you didn't feel it was compelling, but that doesn't make it not-compelling, just as my declaration of "is compelling" doesn't make it so. As you said, we're at an impasse on that point.

The second point you made was on the technical implementation. I'm inclined to think you're being somewhat short-sighted here. Yes, I get that there are deadlines they need to meet, but we're talking about a game that could be around for 20 years (ref - M:tG). It's very, very important to perfect the core as much as possible right now so that there aren't significant changes constantly being made to base mechanics as the game evolves. As an aspiring game designer, I'd like to believe that no designer would just say "it's too much work" and throw out an idea that could potentially have a very large, positive impact on the game's reception.

As far as feature creep, we're not talking about "I needz moar guild pvp with 50v50 mode." No one is asking for anything to be forced into the build. We're asking for a change that - while probably labor intensive - could be a major boon that pays dividends year after year as it impacts the way the game is played.

RobHaven
06-14-2013, 12:16 AM
I would argue that there could be a card(or cards) in the future that can remove keywords or affect cards with certain keywords. Having Quick being part of the card type would leave them unaffected...

I would also say that because being able to react to your opponent casting troops, spells, and activating abilities is a core part of the game, having quick as a keyword that could be removed shouldn't be a thing...

I'm genuinely confused by your post, and I'm hoping you'll clear it up for me. If I remember correctly, you were mostly in this thread arguing against the change, but in this post you seem to validate the need for Quick being a supertype [versus being in the card's text]. Am I misreading that? You're saying that Quick as a type makes it invulnerable to removal, and then edited to add that you don't think Quick should be removable anyway. So then you're for Quick as a supertype, yes?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I hope my post doesn't read that way. I'm only trying to understand your position.

Enyeez
06-14-2013, 01:07 AM
I disagree, I prefer the quickaction (instant) cardtype.

imagine a "dispel" (magic card) type spell, with this wording, it would say: "Counter target action with subtype "QUICK""
or "Envelop" (Counter target sorcery spell): "Counter target action without the subtype "QUICK" on it"

it doesnt limit the design space, but a card like this would read weird:

"return all actions with the subtype "QUICK" on them from your graveyard to your hand"
instead of "return all instants from your graveyard to your hand"

or "you may play target action with subtype quick in a graveyard, it loses all threshhold"

I dont really mind either way, but I prefer the instant supertype.

Patrigan
06-14-2013, 01:20 AM
I'm not sure why this thread even exists. This game is designed by the people who do WoWTCG. They have Instant and basic as a supertype. I suggest you go read up on those. They have Instant Allies (Quick Troops) in WoWTCG. So CZE knows how powerful/problematic something like that would be and based on that, they made a decision here.

However, I have yet to see anything that makes "Quick Troop" impossible with what we currently have. I am 99% certain that CZE has made sure that the possibility to implement it is there. They might just decide that set 1 is not the right place for a Quick Troop...

Arveene
06-14-2013, 01:36 AM
I'm genuinely confused by your post, and I'm hoping you'll clear it up for me. If I remember correctly, you were mostly in this thread arguing against the change, but in this post you seem to validate the need for Quick being a supertype [versus being in the card's text]. Am I misreading that? You're saying that Quick as a type makes it invulnerable to removal, and then edited to add that you don't think Quick should be removable anyway. So then you're for Quick as a supertype, yes?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I hope my post doesn't read that way. I'm only trying to understand your position.

If my choice is between supertype versus being a keyword, then I would say supertype. Using MTG terms, I would personally like to just leave it as a card type and just use "can be played any time you could play a quick action" for other card types that can be played at quick action speed. I suppose that there wouldn't be much difference between that and supertype though. My previous post that pointed out the bad source for his argument was just that. I was reading over material linked in the thread for arguments and just wanted to point that out. At that time, I had not formulated my own.

Due to how cards in Hex can permanently affect cards out of play (hand, graveyard, library), I feel that the term "Quick" should be kept out of touch from such effects. The safest place is most likely as a card type or supertype. I feel this way because of the mechanics of the game itself. Your opponent plays a spell, you have a chance to react to it. By having "Quick" as a keyword, it makes it vulnerable to modification from other spells and abilities. I don't believe something so important to the core mechanics of the game should be able to be defeated like that. My entire argument could be proven wrong if they don't have cards that can remove or modify keywords. We've already seen cards that add keywords so I do not believe it is much of a stretch to believe we could see cards that remove keywords. We should take into account that MTG has cards that remove abilities and keywords as well. With that in mind, Hex seems to take concepts such as that and adds some digital flavor to them. We've already seen many of MTG's "Enchantment - Aura" cards turned into Basic Actions that apply their effects permanently. Inner Conflict and Blood Aura are good examples of this. So cards that will change or remove keywords from cards in your hand or library don't seem very far-fetched. One example of one card already that permanently changes cards in the library significantly is Spirit Dance.

What I think it comes down to is this. By leaving Quick Actions (and troops or whatever) as a card type / supertype, you leave yourself open to be able to add in more mechanics later down the line related to keywords. Whether or not that ever happens, we won't know.

Edit: After seeing Enyeez's post, I wonder if everyone here has the same definition of super-type, card type, and sub-type. For my post, I've been using the terms used here http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Category:Card_types

He does bring up a good point though. MTG has plenty of cards that say "Counter target instant". If Quick were a keyword, those cards would have to say something like "Counter target spell that has the keyword Quick". It would also then allow them to counter Troop cards played at instant speed, which in some cases gives the card added utility against cards it wasn't initially intended to counter. (This is actually wrong now that I think about it since you could change spell to action, but my last point still stands.) You want to talk about simplification and easy to learn, I think "Counter target Quick Action" is much more intuitive.

Last Edit: Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot to take into account here.

TimeZero
06-14-2013, 02:17 AM
-The game code must be substantially rewritten.

Only the part where Quick is in effect would have to changed, not entirely rewritten. A week top to make that change.


-All existing cards affected by the changes must be changed to come into line with the new changes.

Here it's even easier. An SQL request to the database to modify all the affected cards would take no longer than 48 hours at most.


I'd be interested in exactly what pros could be worth pushing this back a few months to work in these changes... If poorly implemented, such an idea could actually turn the pros you mentioned into cons as the game becomes less intuitive.

Pushed a few months? You need to learn how a software is made. It would take no longer than a week or two perhaps to implement these changes for the following reasons:

1) The game isn't out, even the Alpha version isn't out yet. This is THE perfect timing to do it.
2) The game is near it's Alpha version, so they are not writing from scratch.

lamaros
06-14-2013, 05:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day

Who keeps a joke up after midday - the joke is on them! ;)

Awkward, but it doesn't change any of the reasoning behind this discussion.

Maybe as some have said what is being discussed is actually the case already - and they just don't have their templating down clearly yet.

This would be a lot of talk for nothing if that was the case!

karmacappa
06-14-2013, 05:50 AM
Only the part where Quick is in effect would have to changed, not entirely rewritten. A week top to make that change.



Here it's even easier. An SQL request to the database to modify all the affected cards would take no longer than 48 hours at most.



Pushed a few months? You need to learn how a software is made. It would take no longer than a week or two perhaps to implement these changes for the following reasons:

1) The game isn't out, even the Alpha version isn't out yet. This is THE perfect timing to do it.
2) The game is near it's Alpha version, so they are not writing from scratch.

1) You pretty much gloss over the places in code you have to adjust. From the beginning, think through what they've showed us and what their featureset is. Then try to figure out which places might be affected by these changes. I'll give you a hint, there are some in my other posts, and I'm sure you can find more than the ones I mentioned if you tried.

2) What happens when the simple SQL request to do a bulk modification breaks all sorts of things they need to do their jobs? Simply put your solution is too simplistic, because you're just thinking of this as a cut/paste. You need to put more thought into it.

3) Software is faster to program when "it isn't out yet"? I mean, not to give you a conniption or anything, but these things are already in. They can stream people playing the game right now. It's not perfect, it has a LOT of bugs they need to fix. Right now they're shooting for 3 months to beta. They've got a fearsome amount of work to do right now. I challenge you to go back and think a bit more about your estimates and what they involve.

Arveene
06-14-2013, 06:15 AM
Who keeps a joke up after midday - the joke is on them! ;)

Awkward, but it doesn't change any of the reasoning behind this discussion.

Maybe as some have said what is being discussed is actually the case already - and they just don't have their templating down clearly yet.

This would be a lot of talk for nothing if that was the case!

You are correct about that. I was just pointing it out before anyone tries to build further upon that. If you take a look at my post above, I think we're in agreement for the most part.

Anyways, I see karmacappa's points. It's not as simple as a simple SQL thing. What I don't know though is if Time Zero is arguing that it should be a keyword. I believe that is what karmacappa against. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Even just making Quick a supertype can cause problems, but most likely to a lesser extent. Let's start with a few simple examples, the deck editor. I'm going to make a few assumptions in this, but I believe them to be fair because the deck editor would be useless without them. If Quick was a keyword, you'd need to first make all the quick actions basic actions. First, you would need to take all the current quick actions and give them the Quick keyword. Then, you could change all of the Quick Actions into Basic Actions. This isn't something that should be done without double checking. (and triple, and quad) That takes time and resources. Remember, there are going to be about 650 cards on release. (PvP and PvE) So now all the cards are changed, what's next? Well, you would have to modify the deck editor / collection browser since you can no longer show the card type Quick Action. The way cards are organized and shown would be changed. Maybe they have a sort option for Keywords, maybe they don't? MTG doesn't, you have to type the keyword into the search box. This has the fun effect of not only bring up the keyword, but also any cards that reference it, and that have the name of the keyword in it at all.

The more likely area where you run into problems is the actual game itself. Now, we don't have any clue how exactly everything is coded. Changing from a card type of Quick Action that can be played whenever you have priority to a card having the keyword Quick being able to be played whenever you have priority might be simple or it might be complex we just don't know. What we can do is come up with likely areas where things will have to be changed to accommodate this keyword. I think the major question is how would the change affect the game's AI? How are Quick Actions programmed into it? Does it look at card types to determine if a card is playable at a certain point in time? Can you easily change it to look at card type AND the keywords it has instead? There's a lot more to making Quick a keyword rather than a card type than just changing all instances of Quick on a card. I'm sure there are other places, but I've been up for quite awhile now since I picked up Last of Us at midnight. I'm looking forward to reading some of the responses because there are some good arguments in this thread.

Edit: Post #6 links a wonderful article about MTG instants and why if they could they would use a Flash keyword. I believe I've seen some of their staff names on Pro Tour decklists and such. You don't think they know about that article or any of the other articles in which Wizards has talked about that before? They've been in development for two years before this kickstarter. I don't think they made this decision blindly.

Hollywood
06-14-2013, 06:43 AM
I'm not sure why this thread even exists. This game is designed by the people who do WoWTCG. They have Instant and basic as a supertype. I suggest you go read up on those. They have Instant Allies (Quick Troops) in WoWTCG. So CZE knows how powerful/problematic something like that would be and based on that, they made a decision here.

However, I have yet to see anything that makes "Quick Troop" impossible with what we currently have. I am 99% certain that CZE has made sure that the possibility to implement it is there. They might just decide that set 1 is not the right place for a Quick Troop...

This! Thank you! The first Instant Ally in WoW wasn't even implemented until Set 3 if I remember correctly (the 3/3 guy for 4).

Please take it from those of us who are intimately familiar with this company; when it comes to card and game mechanics, they know what they're doing.

Arveene
06-14-2013, 06:51 AM
This! Thank you! The first Instant Ally in WoW wasn't even implemented until Set 3 if I remember correctly (the 3/3 guy for 4).

Please take it from those of us who are intimately familiar with this company; when it comes to card and game mechanics, they know what they're doing.

That's not what the argument is even about. The argument is keyword "Quick" vs super-type / card-type Quick. Please make sure you read the thread fully.

Edit:


You can still make that card. Now all cards have to be played at slow speed. Not seeing the problem here.

Unrelated to the above, but that makes any card that is reactionary in nature useless. While counterspells do the same thing, it's a 1:1 tradeoff in cards.

Hollywood
06-14-2013, 06:58 AM
That's not what the argument is even about. The argument is keyword "Quick" vs super-type / card-type Quick. Please make sure you read the thread fully.

It appears it is not I who should read the whole thread. Please re-read page 1 for my initial reply to the thread.

Also, what Patrigan and I have said is that these guys are more aware of the pros and cons listed here, and some that probably even aren't, than 99% of the people in this thread. They have already implemented "instant" as a super-type previously in another game.

Arveene
06-14-2013, 07:10 AM
It appears it is not I who should read the whole thread. Please re-read page 1 for my initial reply to the thread.

Also, what Patrigan and I have said is that these guys are more aware of the pros and cons listed here, and some that probably even aren't, than 99% of the people in this thread. They have already implemented "instant" as a super-type previously in another game.

Yes, I saw your initial reply, and I apologize for coming off there as aggressive towards you. I agree with you that they mostly likely are aware or the same pros and cons, but what's wrong with the community being able to debate it ourselves? Maybe we'll come to the same conclusion for the same reasons as the devs when it came to this decision?

Also, just because they have card-types set that way in the WoWTCG means it can't be different here? I don't see how that fact makes this any less debatable in the community?

Edit: You now have me looking up and reading information about the WoWTCG and how it's played. I now hate you. :mad:

Hollywood
06-14-2013, 08:33 AM
Yes, I saw your initial reply, and I apologize for coming off there as aggressive towards you. I agree with you that they mostly likely are aware or the same pros and cons, but what's wrong with the community being able to debate it ourselves? Maybe we'll come to the same conclusion for the same reasons as the devs when it came to this decision?

Also, just because they have card-types set that way in the WoWTCG means it can't be different here? I don't see how that fact makes this any less debatable in the community?

Edit: You now have me looking up and reading information about the WoWTCG and how it's played. I now hate you. :mad:

Debate is perfectly fine as long as it is understood to be mostly hypothetical. Honestly though, this type of debate, with all of its conjecture, can be very confusing for players who are new to TCG's and don't yet understand card types or timing rules, game verbiage, etc.

Lol. WoW was by far the best TCG mechanically that I've played. I didn't always agree with the way CZE runs their OP department, but you can't deny that it is just a vastly superior game design.

Yoss
06-14-2013, 10:00 AM
The second point you made was on the technical implementation. I'm inclined to think you're being somewhat short-sighted here. Yes, I get that there are deadlines they need to meet, but we're talking about a game that could be around for 20 years (ref - M:tG). It's very, very important to perfect the core as much as possible right now so that there aren't significant changes constantly being made to base mechanics as the game evolves. As an aspiring game designer, I'd like to believe that no designer would just say "it's too much work" and throw out an idea that could potentially have a very large, positive impact on the game's reception.

As far as feature creep, we're not talking about "I needz moar guild pvp with 50v50 mode." No one is asking for anything to be forced into the build. We're asking for a change that - while probably labor intensive - could be a major boon that pays dividends year after year as it impacts the way the game is played.
This.


I disagree, I prefer the quickaction (instant) cardtype.

imagine a "dispel" (magic card) type spell, with this wording, it would say: "Counter target action with subtype "QUICK""
or "Envelop" (Counter target sorcery spell): "Counter target action without the subtype "QUICK" on it"

it doesnt limit the design space, but a card like this would read weird:

"return all actions with the subtype "QUICK" on them from your graveyard to your hand"
instead of "return all instants from your graveyard to your hand"

or "you may play target action with subtype quick in a graveyard, it loses all threshhold"

I dont really mind either way, but I prefer the instant supertype.
Actually, with the supertype I'd write it "return all Quick Actions from your graveyard to your hand". The counterspell versus Quick would read: "Counter target Quick Action." The other counterspell would read: "Counter target non-Quick Action." Seems simple enough, and certainly no worse than the current system.

karmacappa
06-14-2013, 10:08 AM
As stated elsewhere, I do feel like compelling evidence was brought forward; you didn't feel it was compelling, but that doesn't make it not-compelling, just as my declaration of "is compelling" doesn't make it so. As you said, we're at an impasse on that point.

The second point you made was on the technical implementation. I'm inclined to think you're being somewhat short-sighted here. Yes, I get that there are deadlines they need to meet, but we're talking about a game that could be around for 20 years (ref - M:tG). It's very, very important to perfect the core as much as possible right now so that there aren't significant changes constantly being made to base mechanics as the game evolves. As an aspiring game designer, I'd like to believe that no designer would just say "it's too much work" and throw out an idea that could potentially have a very large, positive impact on the game's reception.

As an aspiring designer, you need to learn that every change has a cost. As near and dear to your heart as the idea may be, sometimes you have to determine whether it is effective to continue with the plan. I think this is the REAL divide between a good designer and an amateur that aspires to design. A lot of people in this thread need to take a step back and really look at the thing as a whole. As nifty as the concept is, there are several different ideas of how it works, a large technical issue, and none of the people here apparently understand enough about MMO production to be able to adequately address the issues. At some point, these detractions become enough to say, "It seemed like a good idea, but it might do more harm than good."
As far as feature creep, we're not talking about "I needz moar guild pvp with 50v50 mode." No one is asking for anything to be forced into the build. We're asking for a change that - while probably labor intensive - could be a major boon that pays dividends year after year as it impacts the way the game is played.

I'm actually the one being far sighted. It's short sighted if you just say, "IT WILL BE AWESOMEZ" and commit yourself to something you don't know how to implement. I don't think you or a lot of other people have given near enough thought to this to put it forward. It's more like a dream or a kernel of an idea than something that could be implemented rationally. Honestly, you're talking about pushing back the start of beta to rework fundamental aspects of timing and cards. That's not terribly responsible.

Hollywood
06-14-2013, 10:10 AM
This.


Actually, with the supertype I'd write it "return all Quick Actions from your graveyard to your hand". The counterspell versus Quick would read: "Counter target Quick Action." The other counterspell would read: "Counter target non-Quick Action." Seems simple enough, and certainly no worse than the current system.

I'm fairly certain that this is how the cards are currently set up. With "Quick" being a super type. We'll probably be seeing the first Quick Troops and Quick Constants before Set 4 I imagine.

Aradon
06-14-2013, 10:16 AM
I'm fairly certain that this is how the cards are currently set up. With "Quick" being a super type. We'll probably be seeing the first Quick Troops and Quick Constants before Set 4 I imagine.

The Card Overview page supports what you are saying: "In HEX, there are five general types of cards: Constant, Artifact, Troop, Resource, Action."

That's a little awkward.

Ryoma_Echizen
06-14-2013, 07:02 PM
Archmage Wrenlock (http://hex.potion-of-wit.com/card.php?c=184) also effects "actions" rather then "quick actions and basic actions".

Yoss
06-15-2013, 10:01 AM
The Card Overview page supports what you are saying: "In HEX, there are five general types of cards: Constant, Artifact, Troop, Resource, Action."

That's a little awkward.
So this whole conversation was for nothing? LOL!

nezumi414
06-15-2013, 12:14 PM
That would make me pretty happy actually. It was fun though!