MArcomage

Free multiplayer on-line fantasy card game

Please log in

strafer on 11:11, 15. Sep, 2015
Hi there!

In the first place, sorry for my english.

I have suggestion about new keyword and tokens — Technic


Mechanic: Basic gain 20, bonus gain 5, Replenishment - if opponent lowered your stock last round, you regain lost N stock (N based on played card rarity, Common - 1, Uncommon - 2, Rare - 4). If there are no stock losses last round, you gain stock +M (M based on played card rarity too, Common - 0, Uncommon - 1, Rare - 2).


Involved cards: obviously mechanical cards, mechanism-using cards, craft cards, explosion-based cards, traps

There is a list of already existing matching cards: battering ram, trigger trap, windmill, dwarven miners, gnome thief, goblin saboteur, ballistae, catapult, sabotage tunnel, dwarven forge, hidden traps, sabotage, orc engineer, architect academy, cannoneer, darkforge, demolition troop, trebuchet, dwarven kingdom, infinite weapon works, manufactory, plague thrower, steam golem


And i had created several new Technic cards in Concepts.


Waiting for your responses.
sq on 12:34, 15. Sep, 2015
I actually love the idea of the keyword. It would though take time to balance it the right way.

I would also suggest to change the token effect, as there are too many resource gaining tokens already available.

How about this one: Magic Immunity - Cancel the positive/negative effect of opponents last round (basic 10%, uncommon 30%, rare 50%)
strafer on 13:00, 15. Sep, 2015
sq wrote:
I would also suggest to change the token effect, as there are too many resource gaining tokens already available.
Idea of keyword itself is regain lose resources, not gain more. I add overcome for avoiding of useless tokens resets.
But it's discussible of course.

sq wrote:
How about this one: Magic Immunity - Cancel the positive/negative effect of opponents last round (basic 10%, uncommon 30%, rare 50%)
Why not, it's frequent confrontation in fantasy-steampunk settings — magic versus mechanic/steam (diesel :-E).

Trouble place in both variants is absence of initiative: opponent can guess tokens reset with ease and just don't do harm action in this round. It will only token, side-effect of which depends on opponent's move directly.
Lord_Earthfire on 05:34, 16. Sep, 2015
While the idea is promissing, i have the feeling, that this keyword overlaps too much with runic, siege and unliving. Unliving in particular covers that spot quite higly since every moving, bot- or mech-like card already belongs into that keyword. Items of warfare most time belong to siege and i would consider tools and so on into the runic archetype.

Not that i like the suggestion, but it looks like its already there.
strafer on 07:45, 16. Sep, 2015
Lord_Earthfire wrote:
that this keyword overlaps too much with runic, siege and unliving. Unliving in particular covers that spot quite higly since every moving, bot- or mech-like card already belongs into that keyword.
Unliving is about magically animated creatures, like golems. Mechanic is about mechanisms with little portion of magic/runes sometimes.
Explosions/sabotage/firearms cards have no their own keyword at all.
Runic is about magical repairing of buildings. And Siege is sort of attack only, not synonym of mechanical nature. For example Harpies aren't mechanical in themself, but they are siege.
sq on 09:53, 16. Sep, 2015

While the idea is promissing, i have the feeling, that this keyword overlaps too much with runic, siege and unliving. Unliving in particular covers that spot quite higly since every moving, bot- or mech-like card already belongs into that keyword. Items of warfare most time belong to siege and i would consider tools and so on into the runic archetype.


I would have to admit that its true that the type of effect discussed is already in place for siege and runic. However, I still like the idea in terms of atmosphere and that its token based. So I would have another go at the token effect.

As an idea for discussion - a good representation of the mechanical work would be direct conversion of resources into tower / wall / damage. So what if we have the triggered token make you lose a part of resources and gain some wall or (wall and tower) at the same time?
strafer on 11:42, 16. Sep, 2015
sq wrote:
As an idea for discussion - a good representation of the mechanical work would be direct conversion of resources into tower / wall / damage. So what if we have the triggered token make you lose a part of resources and gain some wall or (wall and tower) at the same time?
It's a pity, but tower/wall gain is already used by Aqua (although it isn't a token).
In the case of damage side-effect it will be too similar to Barbarian. And i think Mechanic will be more powerful/useful in zero wall situation.
sq on 12:49, 16. Sep, 2015
The idea is that it does not directly increase your wall and tower, as aqua does, but uses your own resources to do it (e.g. stock-2, tower and wall +5)
Mojko on 13:01, 16. Sep, 2015
A while ago I had an idea for a new keyword that would manipulate resources of both players.

Trade guild (always trigger) -> trade N highest resources between both players, N based on played card rarity (2, 5, 10)

However this was only a draft and wasn't properly balanced, but some existing cards would fit into this.
strafer on 13:43, 16. Sep, 2015
Mojko wrote:
A while ago I had an idea for a new keyword that would manipulate resources of both players.
I thought about it, but such behavior don't match mechanical set in terms of game atmosphere.
strafer on 14:14, 16. Sep, 2015
Few other ideas:


Serial Production — played card stays in hand


Suppression of Magic — opponent's tokens decrease by N (N based on played card rarity: Common - 25, Uncommon - 50, Rare - 100)


Upgrade of model range — upgrade lowest cost and rarity Mechanic card in hand based on played card rarity (Common — common card to uncommon, Uncommon — common/uncommon card to rare, Rare — common/uncommon/rare card to rare and gain cost of the resulting card)
Zaton on 14:32, 16. Sep, 2015
To be specific and win the people who doubt over, we could define what changes will be made and what not.

Perhaps such a definition would be helpful: restrict Mechanic to the strict mechanical creations and their creators - Unliving creatures, who are at least a little independent by definition, would not count unless we talk very advanced technological robots(as in, one where magic is not required for the robot to be functional), such as the ones the ancients had in the original universe.

Siege would be combined more often, but in the end, there would only be a healthy overlap, not a full replacement of anything.
strafer on 19:52, 16. Sep, 2015
May be «Technic» or «Technical» will be more suitable name for this keyword. It describes essence more completely.



Zaton wrote:
there would only be a healthy overlap
And partial overlaps are base for interesting decks/strategies.




I have created temporaly deck with involved existing cards and tried to shared it, but can't find it in list, maybe because of its incompleteness.

There is screenshot http://s1.postimg.org/7uhdfe5sv/deck.png (i have added some more cards in comparison with initial list: Blacksmith, Master bricklayer, Flame spitter)
As you can see there are only 4 siege, 3 runic and 1 unliving cards — light overlap in very deed.
strafer on 11:48, 20. Sep, 2015
I have created Technic cards in Concepts.
dimitris on 14:29, 28. Sep, 2015
I love the idea of having Technomancy and technic cards in the game, though it feels like it's quite close to Magic/Mages as a concept.
Zaton on 16:50, 29. Sep, 2015
dimitris wrote:
I love the idea of having Technomancy and technic cards in the game, though it feels like it's quite close to Magic/Mages as a concept.


Depends on how we construct the fluff. 'Technomancy' might be a push - they could just as well be mundane advanced technology. And not even advanced all the time: Submersibles were invented in the 18th century in the real world. Rifled guns in the 16th. Portable shields were from the early Middle Ages. Trebuchets just a little later. We can just say they spread faster and we're done.
MeCho on 08:50, 30. Sep, 2015
New keyword would be nice
strafer on 03:51, 19. Oct, 2015
Zaton wrote:
Submersibles were invented in the 18th century in the real world.
It's not correct: first submersibles appeared in the 17th, 1605 — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_submarines#Early_submarines.
Zaton on 18:23, 20. Oct, 2015
They didn't actually submerge back then. They were just ships with a very deep draft and low surface area. They couldn't dive below the surface or manipulate their depth at all.

Look at the picture of your own link. They are just goofy manpower-driven boats. They called them submersibles back then since they had low expectations. A boat able to navigate BELOW water would have been deemed witchcraft.

The submersibles which did in fact submerge were from the 18th.