What do YOU want to do next for a project?

[ZephyrPhantom]

Seems like we're sliding towards a development interest in a position/field/AoE based series, then. Does 1 card for each element sound like a good baseline?

[AD TienzuStorm]

Seems like we're sliding towards a development interest in a position/field/AoE based series, then. Does 1 card for each element sound like a good baseline?

That begs the question on "do we want every element to have CC"

Although I suppose the elements where CC is generally discouraged (namely Life and Light) could just have the more passive ones like "move target creature one slot to the left" or something (except, ya'know, actually a bit more useful).

[dracomageat]

More like "Blinding Light 3 Creatures in target row are delayed for a turn."

[OldTrees]

Seems like we're sliding towards a development interest in a position/field/AoE based series, then. Does 1 card for each element sound like a good baseline?

1 card per X is a card series trap we should avoid unless we coincidentally arrive at that conclusion as a result of development. If we opt for this kind of project, I would think the specific project would determine the amount and distribution necessary to add the concept. I would make a low estimate of 15 cards added in 2 waves(to gather further playtesting data as Zanz did).

A position matters based series would be looking to implement:
Terrain(minor and major), Auras, Minor AoEs(burst, column, cone?), Tactical Movement, and thing's I haven't thought of. (Might even entail a feature added to creatures in general)

This should be broad enough to grant potential to every element but that does not mean that a thin spread would be a good initial addition. The CIA can cover holes via the promotion of single cards afterwards.

"Define what exactly is taboo in card design and what is merely discouraged" As an avid card designer, I'd love to tackle this project. I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to things, and I don't like to post half baked card ideas

I feel this has been covered already although buried with age. It basically is:
Taboo: Graveyard(Zanz: we can do better)
Severely discouraged: Instant Kill without considering a defense(exceptions exist in game), Multi element costs(due to the necessity for coding change and the card cost to implement fully with 12 elements)
Merely discouraged: Target the untargetable and other X the unXable language abuses(but Shard of Wisdom exists)

[andretimpa]

Another taboo that is silly imo is multi targetting

[OldTrees]

Another taboo that is silly imo is multi targetting

I knew I missed one. Although I would mark that as Severely Discouraged. The reason against it was the rapid clicking exploit. So it is a non trivial programming problem rather than a full Taboo.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Worth noting that Cygnia suffers from less programming restrictions than EtG does - the example Fippe gave me is that it'd be fairly simple for a "prison"-esque card in Cygnia to store all the "data" of a creature, and even multiple creatures if needed. Hybrid/Pseudoquanta/etc... would require the creation of a new cost object defining what the card drains - it may be time-consuming but I think it falls within the realm of doable given enough combined effort.

[AD TienzuStorm]

Isn't "remove immortality" a taboo thing too? I mean, even if it's severely discouraged, you might as well put it in taboo considering how quickly the community shoots those ideas down.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Isn't "remove immortality" a taboo thing too? I mean, even if it's severely discouraged, you might as well put it in taboo considering how quickly the community shoots those ideas down.

Just because the community shoots it down constantly doesn't mean it deserves to be shot down (slot moving for example). Remove immortality should be warned against though because it starts devaluing it as a mechanic.

[AD TienzuStorm]

Isn't "remove immortality" a taboo thing too? I mean, even if it's severely discouraged, you might as well put it in taboo considering how quickly the community shoots those ideas down.

Just because the community shoots it down constantly doesn't mean it deserves to be shot down (slot moving for example). Remove immortality should be warned against though because it starts devaluing it as a mechanic.

But the community doesn't shoot down slot moving because they don't like the mechanic (usually), it's more of a "this is useless because it can't really work with anything". Meanwhile, with removing immortality, it's just "been done before, and we don't like it".

[ZephyrPhantom]

But the community doesn't shoot down slot moving because they don't like the mechanic (usually), it's more of a "this is useless because it can't really work with anything".

I'm in agreement with this...

Meanwhile, with removing immortality, it's just "been done before, and we don't like it".

But not this.

"we don't like it" =/= "bad design", which is a point I'd like to make clear so that it doesn't cause problems down the line. Are vanilla creatures 'bad design'?  In a vacuum, no. The community doesn't like them though because they'd currently be a redundant addition to EtG metas unless tons of vanilla support was suddenly added. Removing immortality should be considered "bad design" in most cases because it goes against the point of immortality being immune to spell targeting, regardless of how much the community likes or dislikes the idea.

[AD TienzuStorm]

Also, just a thought: we could also have a series that gives passive (and/or airborne) a bigger impact in the game. This could be done in many ways, like making new passives (see Roar link in my signature), making passive lobo effects (see Roar again), making cards that give/trade passives, etc.

Or we could focus on airborne alone, although that's kinda boring. I'd say maybe a mix, like some of them introduce more passives while others focus on airborne. Thoughts on this?