MArcomage

There are two issues, the way I see it:
1. Would you want to limit the number of keywords that gather tokens, as you proposed. I agree with Progressor that this is not a good idea.
2. Because of space restrictions on the game screen, and maybe because one wouldn't want to have a too cluttered screen, one would have to limit the number of visible keyword though. The issue is how to go about that, what keywords to show.

A separate issue concerns the question if this token overview should be visible to oneself only or also to the opponent. My take on it is that, not only would that clutter the gamescreen even further, but it isn't really necessary for the opponent to know in advance when the tokens are going to be released. The way I see it, is that the token count overview is just there as a support for the player.

Now, back to the issue of which keywords to display and how to implement it, I still think that my proposed option #3 is the best. Your started work, which is in a line with my ideas for option #2, would mean that only limited number of keywords are visible during the whole game. If indeed one has a "mixed" deck with a lot of different keywords, even if they would still all be counted, one wouldn't be able to decide beforehand which ones to display and which ones not.
My own option #1 would solve that problem, as during a game one could switch back and forth between different keywords, but this would mean such a hassle that in fact that would be totally impractical and a lot more difficult to code as well.

My option #3 solves all of these issues. At each turn of the game, a player's accumulated token count is displayed in descending order, limiting it to 3 (or 4 or 5, whatever) keywords. This way you wouldn't have to add any extra dbase fields to the deck, players wouldn't have to select or choose anything at any time, and at all times players have the information available that matters, which is which keyword tokens are close to getting released. With a list of 3 (to 5) for most decks this would show ALL relevant information needed. Someone who likes to base a deck around the Rainbow Dragon is not really that much interested in token accumulation and release, but more on diversity, but still even such a deck would show a slow accumulation of certain keywords over time, enough to be able to use that information and time a token release accordingly.

to satshanti: thanks, it's nice to hear that you like our webgame :)

The option 3 is actually harder to implement. It requires system to store all the token counters not just 3 and also it needs to update the token counters every round (sort them according to their values). But this really isn't the main reason.

I think it's not necessary to do this. It is good to let the player choose which 3 token counter he wants. This way the player can avoid getting unwanted side-effect (Titan for example). Don't forget, that there are strategies that don't depend on side-effect very much.

In general I think the option 2 is better and more solid approach then option 3. Also, it's less confusing to display 3 token counters, compared to displaying a part of a token queue (the tail is hidden).

"-If you limit keywords, you potentially limit creativity (Rainbow Dragon), so if you want to limit I want to know this: Why?"

I'm not limiting number of keywords. You may choose any cards you want. But only 3 keywords are allowed to accumulate tokens and to trigger side-effects. (I made the system so, that I could easily expand it to 4 token counters, because I'm not sure that 3 are enough. We will see after some time...)

Now about visibilty. Token counters and their values can be seen by both players. It was meant to be this way becuase

- you can prepare for enemy side-effect
- you can see when and which sid-effect triggered, thus preventing confusion which sometimes occured

It is true that token counters can tell some information about opponent's deck at the start of the game, but I doubt it's more then his starting hand. Also in some cases, you can choose keyword counters for keywords, that you don't have, to trick your opponent (for example if you don't depend on side-effects at all).

Of course this will also be tested after the update and if it proves to be an issue, I can easily change it, so that token counters of your opponent will be visible only when triggered.

"In general I think the option 2 is better and more solid approach then option 3. Also, it's less confusing to display 3 token counters, compared to displaying a part of a token queue (the tail is hidden)."

Yes, I see your point, it is "cleaner".

"Now about visibilty. Token counters and their values can be seen by both players. It was meant to be this way becuase
- you can prepare for enemy side-effect
- you can see when and which side-effect triggered, thus preventing confusion which sometimes occured"

Yes, I see your point also here. That's one of the first things I thougth about while learning about this (for me) new keyword system, is that at the moment it's hard to see when and for how much the keyword is triggered. Your idea would make everything completely transparent, which is a good thing in my opinion.

All in all, there's a alot to look forward to. I also like your idea about the new level and rating system.

Final remark about limiting keyword token accumulation to a max:

My point here is, that your deck might be build on the long run, therefore having the time to accumulate the tokens of less present keywords, making it relevant. Rainbow dragon was my way of saying: You take a lot of keywords to be relevant for your deck. With cards carrying 2 keywords combined (say, 1 deck with Fanatics as well as Fallen knight (ignoring charge, since tokens don't apply for it) I'd take 4 keywords to be an essential minimum. We might even want more (other pro for more: decks that do have a keyword focus will still have room to confuse the enemy, claiming their Soldier deck contains Unliving cards).

Meanwhile switching to visibility:

Taking the confuse part into account, I don't really object against all time visibility.

All in all Mojko's answers were pretty good ;-)

Edit: Petrified Minotaur also exist, making 6 min required

One issue that I can see so far as player-chosen keywords is Undead. If the player picks which keywords he's using in deck builder, why would he ever pick the only keyword with a built-in drawback? No normal deck would want this, as there are other keywords that actually grant bonuses... and especially no Undead deck would want this, as it'd specifically effect them.

That kinda negates the point, don't you think?

Undead will have a different side-effect (upgrade undead cards the similiar fashion as necromancy amplifier does) after the update and holy side-effect will be slightly modified.

*sigh* This is really going to happen?

Ugh, I really don't like this change at all.