Firstly, I'm glad the IF was revived, it definitely needed more action.
When it comes down to card design I try to focus on 3 main things:
- Innovation
- Affinity
- Balance
Cards which recycle mechanics already in game essentially take apart certain cards and put them back together, but not in new interesting ways. This method of card design although very safe and easy to integrate, doesn't expand the game. Also, to bring up a point which was made in a different thread; we as Card Designers are people who challenge ourselves. We should not be resorting to the "shot-in-the-blank" method of card design hoping that 1/1000 of our attempts will be included in the game. Having diligence, creativity and pride will allow you to grow as a Designer, which is more important. Elements the Game is still a relatively new game, one which has a lot of potential to grow and is not in a phase where we can afford any safe method of card design, or a method of assembly line, it needs to expand creatively, uniquely and integrate new mechanics.
This however doesn't mean that every element deserves every mechanic. When designing, I try to think of why this card fits in the element, and also why the skill cost is of a certain element. We must remember as Card Designers that every element has their playstyles and when we create a card, we are either enforcing them or making more obscure. We must always try to enforce them unless the current playstyles do not fully embody the element. We must also keep in mind that thematic link should never take precedence over mechanic affinity; just because Piranhas live in water doesn't mean that their impatience and voracity should be ignored when considering mechanic affinity and
Water's playstyle.
Once the previous points are addressed balance is more of a pseudo-optional challenge. We know that Zanzarino does his own testing anyway, the idea is what's needed mostly. A balanced card however makes a more appealing card, one which can already be imagined in game. There have previously been discussions on OT's Cost Theory, some crediting it as essential to design, others saying that there are major flaws in it. These are simply 2 sides to the same coin however. As the theory was formulated from balance within the game, its structure holds well when it considers the current simplicity, however a lot of guesswork is needed when a true value cannot be calculated for certain factors such as
hold speed,
playability, or
turn triggers, we can see that more thorough calculations become needed. This said, if your card idea can't quite use the Cost Theory as well as other ideas then you are indeed challenging the current simplicity.
Innovation, Affinity and Balance then become very interrelated. A card design which does any of these a disservice could negatively impact the game. For me these are most important. Other smaller details such as
niche specificity,
card visuals, and
comprehension are things which should not be forgotten as these are also factors which Zanzarino clearly keeps in mind when adding cards.
