Unwritten Rules

[Scaredgirl]

I have nothing to fall back upon except my previous experience dealing with Flash game developers and discussing coding difficulties first-hand.  If you choose to discard that as irrelevant, then I have nothing.

Of course, I think it's a stupid choice to make, but it is your choice in the end. 

Then I must be really dumb because I am making that choice.

Essence, listening to developers talking about how "coding is hard" does not make you a coder or help you understand the process. I'm not bashing you here, I'm just trying to wake you up before you go and apply for a senior Flash coders position.

Here are the facts:
- your coding experience consist of talking with developers
- based on that experience, you somehow decided that graveyard is a "HUGE PITA to code."
- you are telling other players that graveyards are a "no-no" without a single word from the actual developer of this game

Don't you see the problem with that?

I personally don't think graveyards would be that difficult to code. Elements already has a deck where you take cards, and which keeps track of the cards left in the deck. All you need to do is use the same process and have two decks, one being the invisible graveyard deck. When a cards gets played or a creature dies, it goes to deck #2, the graveyard.

The interface overhaul jmizzle7 talks about is the real problem with this. Where would you put this graveyard? How do you interact with it?

Doing a graveyard system would require time, but it wouldn't be a "HUGE PITA to code.". This is why there is no point in just discarding the idea.

[Lanidrak]

ScaredGirl for president (totalitarian dictator...)

[BluePriest]

 My point about the graveyard and Phoenix is that Phoenix illustrates how Zanz plans on getting around the fact that there is no graveyard. Let's say that Phoenix was made a MtG card. It would be akin to Nether Spirit , but it would have card text that reads, "If Phoenix is in your graveyard, you may pay to return it to play. Play this ability as a sorcery." However, because there is no graveyard, another card was made to produce the same effect. The fact that Zanz took the time to create Phoenix like he did means that he obviously intends to preserve a "no graveyard" interface, at least for now.

That is certainly 1 way to look at it. However, imho I dont see it that way. All I see it as is when a phoenix dies, it turns to Ash. That is a standard thinking for what happens when a phoenix dies. And then from those ashes a new one is created. I dont think Zanz was stretching anything here. I just think that he liked the idea of a phoenix and thought it would bring a whole new element (no pun intended) to the game.

Now on the graveyard note, I think people are making it to complicated. You dont have to have the ability to interact with the graveyard 24/7 Why would you need to? Lets say there is a card. Ressurect. You pay 5 and you choose a target that had been destroyed, and summon it to the field. a little screen pops up, similar to the manage deck/bazaar screen that shows all the monsters that have died, and you choose 1.
Behind the scenes, this is what is happening. 1)When a creature dies, its deck code is added to InGraveyard . When You use resurrect, that screen comes up, and opens InGraveyard. The screen works like the manage deck and reads the code, then displays the monster. You choose the monster, and that monster is removed from InGraveyard, and put in whatever Zanz has for summoned creatures.

Now obviously that isnt how Zanz would do it, im just pointing out a simple way that I doubt would be time consuming, and would not have to change the interface at all. Now having an active graveyard where you could use creature abilities from the graveyard is another thing. But simply retrieving a spell or a monster from it, wouldnt be that big of a deal. Zanz is more creative than me, and could make all that look real nice instead of the sloppy way I threw it together.

[Scaredgirl]

What BluePriest says it true. There's actually no need to change the interface at all. Well, maybe a number indicating how many cards are in the graveyard might be needed but you could put that number anywhere.

a little screen pops up, similar to the manage deck/bazaar screen that shows all the monsters that have died, and you choose 1.

That's the only thing you need.

[Essence]

Here are the facts:
- your coding experience consist of talking with developers
- based on that experience, you somehow decided that graveyard is a "HUGE PITA to code."
- you are telling other players that graveyards are a "no-no" without a single word from the actual developer of this game

Don't you see the problem with that?

Nope.  See, I don't have any actual experience as a politican, either, but I vote.  And I don't have any experience as a wizard, either, but I don't hesitate to comment about magic on my wife's D&D boards.  Also, I have exactly zero experience as a judge, but I'm very open about my somewhat extreme opinions about crime and punishment.

I have a profound and inalienable right to my opinon, and I believe I came by that opinion through legitimate means.   You can choose to disagree.

[Lanidrak]

ninja'd./

[Anh]

Not sure I want to support Essence's viewpoint. I did misunderstand when I read your first post though. Seeing that you have a Master of Water title and some words you used hinted of restrictions. In my viewpoint, all programming is a PITA if you have no vigor compelling you to do it. For some it may be a job, for some it's a hobby. Limits and boundaries exist but sometime during the process of writing a set of code, new interesting ideas pop up and you would want to continue those ideas because you want to see the end of those ideas. But at this point, I would agree Essence's view of focusing on structuring the "less-time consuming" part to capture more player attentions. Some cards are still in development at the moment and are in need of revising. However, more player involvements would in my opinion help out a lot in the game. In any way possible, it would be better to encourage new ideas (Good or Not so good) to give players a feeling of hope to things to come. From what you have said so far Essence, it appears that ideas are implementable but just too time consuming at the moment, and I totally agree with it. But as for programming, there are always ways to get around some set of "unwritten rules." Even the Law has some bendable point. If you can't penetrate the boundary you can circumvent it. Just my half-cent view on your "debate" with Scaredgirl. No one has to give a face about my view. Just expressing it as I see fit.

NO ARROGANCY MEANT!

[Scaredgirl]

Here are the facts:
- your coding experience consist of talking with developers
- based on that experience, you somehow decided that graveyard is a "HUGE PITA to code."
- you are telling other players that graveyards are a "no-no" without a single word from the actual developer of this game

Don't you see the problem with that?

Nope.  See, I don't have any actual experience as a politican, either, but I vote.  And I don't have any experience as a wizard, either, but I don't hesitate to comment about magic on my wife's D&D boards.  Also, I have exactly zero experience as a judge, but I'm very open about my somewhat extreme opinions about crime and punishment.

I have a profound and inalienable right to my opinon, and I believe I came by that opinion through legitimate means.   You can choose to disagree.

Things like voting are a bit different because generally people who vote might not work in politics but do still follow politics and know about it because it's happening all around us. Coding is different because unless you have sat down and studied it, you know pretty much nothing about it. The way you say most of those easy-to-code things on your list are "pain in the ass to code", proves it.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, even about things you are not familiar with, but you shouldn't give the impression that you know more than you actually do. It's kind of like telling people how to fix a car without ever actually having fixed a car, and zero knowledge on how to fix a car. Doesn't make much sense right?

The biggest problem here of course is that you are very defensive and incapable of listening to constructive criticism. Even after me and others have pointed out obvious flaws in your original post, you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of being wrong. Instead you become very hostile, even to the point of breaking forum rules and having me to delete parts of your posts.

Forums are about discussion. When you post, you must be prepared to defend your arguments. Just saying "it's like this because I say it's like this" won't work here. Instead of defending your original post like it's a religion, you should listen to other people, make changes, add new thing to the list, evolve the post.

Not sure I want to support Essence's viewpoint. I did misunderstand when I read your first post though. Seeing that you have a Master of Water title and some words you used hinted of restrictions. In my viewpoint, all programming is a PITA if you have no vigor compelling you to do it. For some it may be a job, for some it's a hobby. Limits and boundaries exist but sometime during the process of writing a set of code, new interesting ideas pop up and you would want to continue those ideas because you want to see the end of those ideas. But at this point, I would agree Essence's view of focusing on structuring the "less-time consuming" part to capture more player attentions. Some cards are still in development at the moment and are in need of revising. However, more player involvements would in my opinion help out a lot in the game. In any way possible, it would be better to encourage new ideas (Good or Not so good) to give players a feeling of hope to things to come. From what you have said so far Essence, it appears that ideas are implementable but just too time consuming at the moment, and I totally agree with it. But as for programming, there are always ways to get around some set of "unwritten rules." Even the Law has some bendable point. If you can't penetrate the boundary you can circumvent it. Just my half-cent view on your "debate" with Scaredgirl. No one has to give a face about my view. Just expressing it as I see fit.

NO ARROGANCY MEANT!

That's probably the most important tip for new aspiring card designers. The more complex your idea is, the less likely it will be that it will be made a reality. Of course there could be exceptions to that (like complex good idea going over non-complex bad idea) but I'm sure you could use that as a general rule.

That does not however mean that something is a "no-no" because it requires some extra coding.

[midg3333]

Scaredgirl and Essence, you both have a reasonable point, and there are aspects of each of your arguments that I agree on, and I am sure others on this forum feel the same way.
@Scaredgirl - I have a feeling that the reason essence is feeling so defensive about his ideas is that you seem so aggressive towards him and negative about his ideas. Rather than giving constructive feedback, you quickly began to tell him that his ideas were wrong. Now, i can see where you were coming from, thinking that his post may hinder the creativity of card designers, but if you think about what he said in the original post, it could very likely help people to create cards that fit well into the current game.

That being said, i think it would be benificial if this thread were to be changed slightly. Rather than be a set of guidelines about how cards should/shouldn't be made, it could become a thread about what aspects of the game seem to have been left out so far, and try and come up with reasons why, and possible solutions. For example: the graveyard topic. So far, there is no actual graveyard, and creating one would just mean that it creates more difficulty in a game if you can sort through it etc., however it could work if:
a) more cards like phoenix that don't "just die", and possibly stay on 0 hp for an entire turn allowing them to be healed before they are entirely removed, or something like that, to replace the general concept of a graveyard
b) a graveyard that shuffles all discarded/destroyed cards into this face-down deck somewhere on the field. From this, you may be able to play cards that would shuffle random cards from the graveyard into your deck, or bring a random creature from the graveyard deck onto the field or into your hand or something.

from there, others could point out flaws in my idea, or expand on my idea and we would get a whole thread that zanz could easily refer to if he ever wanted ideas as to how he could implement something. I think that rather than a do's and dont's topic, it should just be a discussion.

But either way, please stop the arguing, it isn't getting anywhere.

[Scaredgirl]

Scaredgirl and Essence, you both have a reasonable point, and there are aspects of each of your arguments that I agree on, and I am sure others on this forum feel the same way.
@Scaredgirl - I have a feeling that the reason essence is feeling so defensive about his ideas is that you seem so aggressive towards him and negative about his ideas. Rather than giving constructive feedback, you quickly began to tell him that his ideas were wrong. Now, i can see where you were coming from, thinking that his post may hinder the creativity of card designers, but if you think about what he said in the original post, it could very likely help people to create cards that fit well into the current game.

First of all, please let moderators do the moderating around here. If you have a problem with a particular post, just use the "Report to Moderator" button.


I would never say that ideas are wrong. Ideas are a good thing. However these are not called ideas, these are called "rules". There's a big difference because rules tell you what you have to do or what you cannot do.

I actually agree with Scaredgirl here. I mean, before Shockwave was added, I have a feeling that a card that has a different effect when X is true, would have been considered hard to code, and an unwritten rule.

Like BluePriest here suggests, the core of the problem with these rules is that most of them are based on the fact that since it's not in the game right now, it's never going to be. If there is an "unwritten rule" against everything that is new and revolutionary, then we wouldn't get anything new, ever.


Here's one "unwritten rule" from the first post:
"No cards that kill a creature without taking it's HP into account on some level"
The idea here is of course that your awesome super buffed Golden Dragon cannot be killed with one card or ability.

Now here's a couple of cards that are in the game:
Both of these cards kill or "kill" the target without taking its HP into account. The rule and these cards contradict each other, so one of them has to be wrong. Is the rule wrong, or is the game wrong?

These are not ideas or opinions we are talking about, these are facts, and should be treated that way. If I say I like Harry Potter, nobody can say I'm wrong. But if I say I'm a real Wizard, I better provide some really compelling evidence to support that claim.


The basic idea behind this thread is good, but it falls short in wording and false assumptions. Like someone already said, we need guidelines that push members in the right direction on the road of creativity, not some made up rules based on guessing that say "you have to do it like this". With the right wording, the result would have been very different.


Now if we want to continue discussing about this, how about we break down each of these "unwritten rules" and talk about them a bit? Maybe we can come up with new ones too?

[BluePriest]

When it comes down to it, It just seems like the major problem with this thread is the name. "unwritten rules" as harsh as anyone may think SG is being, really does hinder the thought process of people. The name would be much better as something along the lines of frequently suggested ideas, or ideas not likely to be implemented, or as SG mentioned in the beginning Good ideas vs not so good ideas.

ll of the things pointed out are things that have been frequently suggested, but not yet implemented. That doesnt mean Zanz ISNT going to implement them in the future. And he is constantly updating the code of the game. Changing how different thinks are done in a way that the player cant tell the difference but Zanz can. I seem to remember the v 1.22 topic mentioning that he changed how some of the coding was. As the game gets bigger Zanz is probably wise enough to know that he needs to be sure to leave the game as open as possible, and not put himself in a trap where he would have to completely redesign the game to add new features.

I suppose the thing about this thread that I personally dont like is that it acts as if Zanz isnt really that creative, nor too good of a coder (and i know you werent meaning that, but it just seems that way) As i pointed out with the graveyard system, many of these ideas wouldnt be nearly as complicated to implement as people here are thinking.

[midg3333]

SG, I didn't intend for it to look like I was saying you were out of line or that I had a problem with your posts and I am sorry if you took it that way. I was just saying that he probably felt defensive about his ideas because in the first few replies, people were saying that his "unwritten rules" were mostly wrong. I think that a lot of the problem was that his ideas were misinterpreted. When he said that there are no instant kill cards, I assume what he meant was a card which had the effect "kill target creature". This wasn't due to difficult coding so much as just not fitting in with the game. Sure, there are the shockwave and mutation cards, but shockwave requires that the creature is already under the effect of another card, freeze. And mutation isn't a direct kill spell because it has a good chance to create an abomination or sometimes a mutant. A shockwave requires a combination of cards to instantly kill a creature and mutation doesn't always entirely kill them and can even be used to improve your own creatures. For these reasons, the cards aren't quite like an instant kill spell. The "rule" or, a better description, trend, is that any instant kill ability either requires a certain condition (e.g paradox requires attk hp, flood requires the creature to be in a certain position and shockwave requires freeze) or incorporates an element of chance, which is only seen in mutation so far and is unlikely to be used in any non-entropy card, and since it is already on an entropy card, it seems unlikely that it would be used on another entropy card in fear of that card being too similar to mutation.

Now, I'm sure most experienced elements players would notice that at least partially, but I can see how it could be confusing to new players. I think that these rules would seem a lot more accurate if the wording was changed slightly and each point was explained more in-depth. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it would probably be better to call them trends instead of rules.