MArcomage

Looking at some concepts I've noticed that cards tend to have very long text. I propose to create a standard convention using abbreviations: Quarry = Q, Magic = M, Dungeon = D, Bricks = B, Gems = G, Recruits = R, Tower = T, Wall = W. Short cards shuold still use the actual words. There could be some problems with newbys. What do you think?

I think the optimal solution is still to make cards without the lengthy text.

I hope a newby checks the forum out and sais what he thinks about this.

If this is will be done, I suggest using either E or O for Enemy/Opponent.

Basilisk 10R
A 20
W +10
Q -1
E W +10
E Q -1


Nice idea!

Whereas those of us who've been playing for a year or two might make such a transition easily, comfortable with the basics of the game as we are, I think this would make the game seem too cryptic and inaccessible for new players.

I agree with DPsycho

I agree with DPsycho as well. Basic rules and terminology must be understandable even without reading the game manual. I think the problem is elsewhere. As Fithz Hood shown us many times, it is possible to create nice original cards that have short card text. Always have fine picture and are balanced in most cases, I really like them ;-)

I think that even the advanced terminology should have some explanation available in the game (like using html abbr or acronym tag)

on the other hand we could introduce the new terminology and in addition create an option where players can open a window while they play their game showing them what each abbreviation means

Basilisk 10R
A 20, W +10
Q -1, EW +10
EQ -1

I believe it might even miss his point to make longer card text more insightful, since that means placing it on fewer lines. It already feels slightly more blurry if I do that for the Basilisk.

I was ironic.
Even if we replace common words with letters, rest of text will remain dead bulk.
The only way to counter this is just to make more clear wording and short text.

Just two points for clarification:
1- I think that using abbreviations can lead to a greater learning curve, but maybe a few "special tags" or short wording could be used for "If New". For instance:
does this
NEW: does that
OLD: does this other thing

so Always word could be omitted

2- the wording needs to be consistent:
- use enemy always not opponent
- use > and >=, etc. when necessary in opposite of using words to explain that (maybe explain this >, <, <= in the manual :-) )

I don't think "OLD" is appropriate for a card that lacks the New tag, and there will still be need for "Always" unless you want to list effects on a card more than once. I'd rather we continue to use If and Else statements. They're short and inherently interpretable.

I agree that we could stand to have some conformity on the opponent/enemy front. Though enemy is a shorter word, opponent feels more appropriate. Whether you look at it from the perspective of being two rival towers at war or of two friends playing a strategic card game, opponent is fitting.

Too many abbreviations will just be annoying. We've got C/U/R, which works fine. I think we gotta be careful before adding new abbreviations.