I want a second active CCG, and am interested in hearing opinions on how to achieve this. No cards in this thread. Please contribute <3

[.Nu-13]

Agreed. We should start with mostly generic stuff

[Icy]

[quote name='.Kowalski' timestamp='1300901124' post='5091630']
Agreed. We should start with mostly generic stuff
[/quote]

Generic stuff should attempt come from the TCG/OCG and trickle its way down into the balance system. This way it has more of a personalized flow and still relatively easy to manage.

[.Rai]

Mostly generic, yes. Problem is a total lack of theme in sets. It can put off people from experience, especially if they're new to deck-building etc.

[-Griffin]

Bump.

[-DOOM]

[quote name='Icyblue' timestamp='1300901280' post='5091633']
Generic stuff should attempt come from the TCG/OCG
[/quote]

That's the common praxis, done so many times. Why don't we try it the other way round? Only themes from the TCG, generic stuff from the CCG, at the beginning, for the first set. This way, people like Nexus Prophet, who like to have a fully Custom CCG, won't be forced to play TCG cards.

[-Griffin]

I honestly think that NGD and many other past CCGs were kicked off incorrectly. Foolishly, I believe, we thought that we should start it in a state like it'd be for a lot of the time. To best explain what I mean, I think it helps to relate it to some maths algorithms I've looked into recently - don't worry, nothing maths-y to learn.

Some of the problems - maximizing flow through a network, minimizing cost to transport stuff, and some other things - that maths can be used to tackle, are really a pain to fix when you're just given the basic problem description. They're really, really easy, however, if you've got a 'possible' (but bad) solution to improve on. I think there are a lot of parallels with the starting of a game. If you have an image of what the final product should be - as we tried to have with NGD (my fault largely, apologies) - then getting over early hurdles can be tough. It's hard to, for example, promote boss monsters when you don't know what boss monsters the game will have to promote. Or to make a boss monster viable when you don't know how viable the concept of a boss monster is in the game anyway.

The reason that people can make really interesting cards for the TCG is that it's already 'there' to have cards made for it and be changed. Simply editing the TCG would require so much clearing of junk cards/banning of badly designed cards that it would really be more trouble than it's worth to try and 'perfect' it, and it would also feel less 'created' if we started by modifying the current card base - there's just so many that custom cards would be swamped.

My proposal is that we have a 'set 0' - a set of 'anything goes, this is setting the ground rules'. From that set, we can cut off the cards that are obviously way above most, and clean out the ones no-one would use, and hopefully we'd be left with a middle-ground of cards. They might be woefully below the TCG or, on average, better than current meta Decks, but as long as we get them roughly all playable, then we've got a great base to add new cards. After all, you can't support cards that aren't there! A big bit of the fun of creating cards is how they interact with stuff that exists already. If we want that to be interactions with custom cards, then we need to churn out a big number of them so that cards have something to interact with, and can really be enjoyable to design all the nuances of it.

Also, I'm tired, so this might make no sense. I'ma take a nap. Someone point out if the above was idiotic please? :3

[.Rai]

That's a really good idea, in my opinion. Go about it like this:

1) Make 100-card set.
2) Test cards and scrap whatever cards.
3) Go back and add more cards to fill the empty gaps.
4) Testing process again.
5) Repeat till perfect.

You'd have to do that for every set however, which is time-consuming.

[.Nu-13]

Nah, it would take up too much time

[-Griffin]

No, the process would be like:

Set 0:
Make a big set. As big as we can. Aim for at least 500 as a base. No serious Quality Control.
[b][/b] . Scrap what doesn't work.
[b][/b] . Add more if it's become really tiny.

Set 1+: Have plans and make strong, 100ish sized packs that are quality-checked somewhat.

[.Nu-13]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1301170659' post='5098358']
No, the process would be like:

Set 0:
Make a big set. As big as we can. Aim for at least 500 as a base. No serious Quality Control.
[b][/b] . Scrap what doesn't work.
[b][/b] . Add more if it's become really tiny.

Set 1+: Have plans and make strong, 100ish sized packs that are quality-checked somewhat.
[/quote]

I second that

[.Rai]

So basically normal standardized process for Set 1+? Fine.

[-Griffin]

Alright. Are there any other points people would like to bring up or contest? People seem kinda active right now.

[.Nu-13]

I think we established everything...

[-Griffin]

So, revising the earlier post, here's how I would do it, please add, remove, or tinker with things and re-post this with how you would do it:

[quote]
-[b]An initial set which has no archtypes and very little quality control will be made with an estimated 500 cards. Cards from this set that do not work well will be removed, rather than banned, to stop having a redundantly large banlist. This will set the standards for what is 'balanced' (the average cards here will be the ones considered balanced) and will give people a stepping stone to support cards from.[/b]

-Focus on holidays. During each summer, 2-3 'main sets' [b](est. 100 cards)[/b] will be released, which will each have a specified angle, some things we specifically want, ect.

-Cards will be highly encouraged to have pictures. Quality is not an issue, but anything at all to represent them is good, so that you don't have to keep reading names and stuff.

-A banlist will be used. Cards can be errata'd if it would save a Deck by modding a little nuance, but generally the banlist is the way forward here.

-During the school term, 'extra-pack' style released will happen that are much smaller - 20 card max sorta stuff. This will stop people drastically falling behind or missing out on submitting to make the CCG 'more theirs' if they can't be active in term time. Duels are encouraged throughout term, but by no means required.

-New banlist at the start/finish of Summer and at Christmas. Emergency updates if really required.

-One 'main set' [b](est. 100 cards)[/b] over each Christmas holiday.

-TCG will [b]not[/b] be in the initial set. [b]TCG cards will only be to add archetypes to expand the options, or if good backing can be given. Their numbers will be few.[/b]

-It will be YVD. There is no other practical solution, unfortunately.

-Duels will not be required, but if people cannot give backing for their card, relating to how duels in the game pan out, then that can be reason for rejection of the card, so it's a 'soft-requirement' in that if you haven't dueled for a week or so, you can still probably justify your cards. This won't be used zealously to discourage people who aren't great at justification, only if we think it's required due to card flooding or people who just 'don't get it', as a way to start a debate and get them thinking.

[b]-Cards made before the CCG are totally allowed, but should be checked and modified to suit the nuances of the CCG. There's no reason to deny a good card based on date of creation.[/b]
[/quote]

Bold'd changes.

[.Nu-13]

IMO, everything is ok

[-DOOM]

500 cards and no archtypes sounds stupid. I'm sure that there are going to be many cards people spammed without thinking at all to fill the set, so they can start making their archtypes.

[-Griffin]

500 cards, 100 of which may belong to archtypes, 15 cards max for an archtype. y/n?

[.Nu-13]

[s]Hmm... well, that may be an issue actually. Maybe we should do at least little quiality-check for first set?[/s]

EDIT: 15 cards for an Archetype seems too much... 10?

[-Griffin]

I was trying to give a generous max, but on second thought, they don't need everything they'll ever get in the first set, so yeah, 10's good.

[-DOOM]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1301174366' post='5098528']
500 cards, 100 of which may belong to archtypes, 15 cards max for an archtype. y/n?
[/quote]

150 and 30 card max for archtype. Quantity over quality in the initial set, right?

[.Nu-13]

So are going to actually release some cards during the term? Like someone before suggested?

[quote name='Hp doom' timestamp='1301174530' post='5098537']
150 and 30 card max for archtype. Quantity over quality in the initial set, right?
[/quote]

Do you want to end up with Archetypes like Fierce Beasts from NGD?

[-DOOM]

[quote name='.Kowalski' timestamp='1301174532' post='5098538']
So are going to actually release some cards during the term? Like someone before suggested?



Do you want to end up with Archetypes like Fierce Beasts from NGD?
[/quote]

No, and it won't happen sine bad card will be removed regardlessly.

[-Griffin]

30 is really too much. 15 would be acceptable if you think people will be okay with reasonable portions of their archtype scrapped, but 30 would be too far.

@Klavier: "-During the school term, 'extra-pack' style released will happen that are much smaller - 20 card max sorta stuff. This will stop people drastically falling behind or missing out on submitting to make the CCG 'more theirs' if they can't be active in term time. Duels are encouraged throughout term, but by no means required."

[.Nu-13]

Right, forgot about that

[Aesirson]

Wait! 10 cards per archetype per set, or 10 cards per archetype at all?

Because I would like to try out my of the Twelve archetype, which includes 12 monsters.