gabe
Elder Immortal
"I will not forget this..."
Posts: 280
|
Post by gabe on Jan 28, 2019 13:06:20 GMT -5
I have always, and will continue to express gratitude for them keeping the game going. I appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by dragothebreaker on Jan 28, 2019 14:09:15 GMT -5
Indeed
|
|
|
Post by Mjay Rivers on Jan 28, 2019 22:31:40 GMT -5
This is a great game i just wish it was more readily available to the public other then ebay and a few sellers online.
|
|
|
Post by Brent Bailey on Jan 29, 2019 2:23:04 GMT -5
Balancing aggression and control has always been difficult in Highlander. Swordmaster suffers from being a win-more system. Since hand size and ability are tied together, being the first to take damage puts you at a significant disadvantage. Plus, with 15 card hand sizes and near limitless cycling ability, combos are so consistent, you need consistent methods to stop a combo. I know when Tim and I were making the game, we were taking over from a control crazy type one. We wanted to limit control and thought nerfing Holy Grounds and making defense/removal gem dependent would accomplish that. While it was an improvement, we still made more mistakes. In hindsight, having generic toolbox that does not have a cost to play is kind of a mistake. Especially when that toolbox started to be less gem restrictive. When we switched to third edition, one goal was to ramp attack again without making it so combo oriented. But, there wasn’t a way to really put the cat back in the bag. There were already too crazy of attack combos that you couldn’t just nerf more toolbox and defense without the game swinging the other way.
I haven’t played much in a while, and don’t know any of the newer cards. But, I agree with the original post to some extent. It would be great if there was a balance where attacks landed more frequently. My favorite games I’ve played were ones where each side took damage and had to react. My least favorite games are when either side has to hunt for toolbox to avoid a play lock. It’s hard to balance, and honestly, with the size of the current card pool, pretty impossible.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Jan 29, 2019 9:22:21 GMT -5
Essentially, from a design standpoint, the game became "introduce a new attack style and see how it goes" , because you cannot see ALL the things players will do with it. Sometimes a broken combo emerges and you try to fix it.
Immortals have themes and some immortals are more attack oriented than others. Some PLAYERS are more attack oriented than others. We have to design with both in mind.
|
|
|
Post by dragothebreaker on Jan 29, 2019 11:17:51 GMT -5
Highlander has a few things that are very unique irt card games - hand size tied to life - you can recycle your deck (most games you lose or take massive losses per card) - ability for auto win condition at any time
In reference to lethality - a possibility may be change in starting life totals- 15 to 10. It could become more like cube in that way (10 life 3 to exhaust). Not sure that answer is viable based on fetch cards to start combos decks, but it does put more power to immortal persona powers, and your 3-4 cards played a turn become far more important to get defensive/offense into your hand.
For consideration,
|
|
|
Post by dragothebreaker on Jan 29, 2019 11:20:05 GMT -5
Essentially, from a design standpoint, the game became "introduce a new attack style and see how it goes" , because you cannot see ALL the things players will do with it. Sometimes a broken combo emerges and you try to fix it. Immortals have themes and some immortals are more attack oriented than others. Some PLAYERS are more attack oriented than others. We have to design with both in mind. - KAPLA (yes I know Star Treck - but you get the point)
|
|
gabe
Elder Immortal
"I will not forget this..."
Posts: 280
|
Post by gabe on Jan 30, 2019 1:04:21 GMT -5
Brent, thank you for your insight. I also want to apologize to Steve Rice, if anything I posted, offended him. My intention was not to attack him. I was simply trying to let everyone know that he told me his intentions during card design, which brought us to the current state of the game. Again, sorry to him and any close friends of his.
|
|
|
Post by RusselMerchant on Jan 30, 2019 16:15:49 GMT -5
To me control and defense is not to big of a deal if that is the meta you tool box for it. What I do not like is the ability of the opponent to use end game as their method of killing. That all they really have to do is just play some what defensively and just play slow and thus win. We want to play the game not wait for the game to be over. If a persons slowness puts the game into end game they should be the one punished for it not their opponent.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Jan 31, 2019 20:08:21 GMT -5
Brent, thank you for your insight. I also want to apologize to Steve Rice, if anything I posted, offended him. My intention was not to attack him. I was simply trying to let everyone know that he told me his intentions during card design, which brought us to the current state of the game. Again, sorry to him and any close friends of his. I didn't say that. I designed certain immortals to be defensive because that's what they are. I also designed a bunch of offensive stuff. You and I disagree on design, that's fine. Your group believes I am a cheater, THAT is where we have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by ultra on Feb 1, 2019 1:43:17 GMT -5
As the newb-est of this bunch, I want to say that I actually like the variety I have seen so far. It's enough to be staggering. I wish we had a larger player base... So we can see different decks pitted against each other and see how they fare.
We can't even play bracket style, as originally intended. This itself is a meta influencer during deck construction. I'm sure there are decks that can generate a hit. Decks that can soft lock. Decks that can hard lock. Decks that can play for endgame/piddle.
I feel we need players sss ssss. The number of retained players is the biggest piece to the foundation of the game. And it is the biggest piece we lack. Cards are worthless and boring unless being played. Wish we can strive towards this goal.
2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Feb 1, 2019 8:45:16 GMT -5
[/quote]Your group believes I am a cheater, THAT is where we have a problem. [/quote] Please stop assuming the statements of one or a few are the opinions of all. I, for one, have never called you a cheater.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Feb 1, 2019 9:38:41 GMT -5
Your group believes I am a cheater, THAT is where we have a problem. [/quote] Please stop assuming the statements of one or a few are the opinions of all. I, for one, have never called you a cheater.[/quote] You would be the only one who has said so, no one else from that group has refuted his statement
|
|
|
Post by Heel Santa on Feb 1, 2019 9:53:59 GMT -5
As the newb-est of this bunch, I want to say that I actually like the variety I have seen so far. It's enough to be staggering. I wish we had a larger player base... So we can see different decks pitted against each other and see how they fare. We can't even play bracket style, as originally intended. This itself is a meta influencer during deck construction. I'm sure there are decks that can generate a hit. Decks that can soft lock. Decks that can hard lock. Decks that can play for endgame/piddle. I feel we need players sss ssss. The number of retained players is the biggest piece to the foundation of the game. And it is the biggest piece we lack. Cards are worthless and boring unless being played. Wish we can strive towards this goal. 2 cents. Don't think I could have said it better. I concur Ultra. Here are the issues though which everyone knows as it has been discussed since the re-birth of 2e. That was my point to the others. It's great that certain areas (Omaha) get more than 3 players. In SoCal, even know the population is large in general we have far fewer people that get together and game. That's why GenCon SoCal bombed after only 2 years etc... It's a weather thing I"m guessing. And even if the number of people are decent we are spread so far apart turnouts for tourneys are minimal. Regardless of the game being made more agro than "turtling" it's not going to attract more players by the droves like people dream of happening. I flew to Missouri a few years back so that I could play in a tourney with a whole 8 people!!! What about GenCon? The largest US gaming convention. I went several years in a row just to play Highlander and we still never had more than 8-12 people. Had zero to do with game design, or the "state" of the game. Make as many changes as you think necessary to the game and yes you will bring in a few more people (and I mean that in a literal sense) but it will never be revived. Now, If a reboot movie or TV show comes out that may help draw more interest that could help. But again we are talking minimal amounts. The cost to revamp and revise does not outweigh the reward. It's a dead genre (the 90's) and the millions of card games that exploded because of MTG. That's why my sentiment is to play the game if you like it, buy the cards you want and don't buy the ones people don't want. Have fun and enjoy what we have. It's funny, you are spot on when talking about metagame and having to think about what the other two players may play instead of going to a big con tourney and just playing the best deck you can build to beat most other decks. PS. this isn't directed at you when I say "you" I'm speaking in general terms as players.
|
|
|
Post by RusselMerchant on Feb 1, 2019 10:00:17 GMT -5
As the newb-est of this bunch, I want to say that I actually like the variety I have seen so far. It's enough to be staggering. I wish we had a larger player base... So we can see different decks pitted against each other and see how they fare. We can't even play bracket style, as originally intended. This itself is a meta influencer during deck construction. I'm sure there are decks that can generate a hit. Decks that can soft lock. Decks that can hard lock. Decks that can play for endgame/piddle. I feel we need players sss ssss. The number of retained players is the biggest piece to the foundation of the game. And it is the biggest piece we lack. Cards are worthless and boring unless being played. Wish we can strive towards this goal. 2 cents. Well that is the "pickle stuck in the jar" isnt it. How do you get people to want to play a dead game, that is hard to get, and who's quality of product has at times been suspect? Many of us have had ideas on it but in the end it would have to come from the owner of the game. That person or group has to invest in the property both in product, design, and advertising. That takes money, time, and a well thought out plan.
|
|