Lavalval Chain

[Miror B]

So even if some of them do possess some kind of cost or requirement, a RotA will ALWAYS be bad design?

If it possesses a cost or requirement, it's not a RotA.

[The Warden]

@Black: I was actually more referring to the likes of Shaddoll Hedgehog, as a RotA doesn't have to necessarily be a Spell. But is it worth qustioning the context of Type searchers versus Archtype searchers? Surely the former must be much more poorly designed than the latter (disregarding Convenant Infernal for being a continuous OPT searcher).

 

@Miror: In this context, I consider any card that searches a monster from the Deck to be a RotA.

[Miror B]

@Miror: In this context, I consider any card that searches a monster from the Deck to be a RotA.

You might want to confirm that with Black, because as far as I've known, RotA refers to the costless searching of a card. Like Stratos or Tenki.

[Zauls]

Nobody understands card design except black/thread

 

This topic has gone off on a bit of a tangent...

 

Lavalval Chain is bad design, RotAs are bad design, Lumina is bad design and a card's design doesn't ever change (unless a card is errata'd obviously). 

 

Also, yes the card needs a reprint. Having to empty my wallet just to get a second one was pretty painful. 

[CLG Klavier]

Nobody understands card design except black/thread

 

This topic has gone off on a bit of a tangent...

 

Lavalval Chain is bad design, RotAs are bad design, Lumina is bad design and a card's design doesn't ever change (unless a card is errata'd obviously). 

 

Also, yes the card needs a reprint. Having to empty my wallet just to get a second one was pretty painful. 

Neither do you do then so you can't agree/disagree with him since according to you, no one knows anything except him. Stroke Black's already huge e-penis more and more. Honestly saying, all of what he said in this thread is utter f***ing BULLSHIT because he has NO IDEA about what he's talking about, but alright, have it your way. I forgot Black is the God and everything he says is the law. No one can say "no" to him. So I will do it now, and this is my last response in this f***ing thread:

 

ENABLERS ARE AS BROKEN AS THE CARDS THEY CAN ENABLE. YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG - ENABLERS AREN'T BAD DESIGN. THEY LET YOU DO THINGS, AND THEY'RE AS BROKEN AS THINGS THEY ALLOW YOU TO DO. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ENABLE, AN ENABLER ISN'T BROKEN. YES, ENABLERS GET BROKEN AND OBNOXIOUS THE MORE THE TIME PROGRESSES, SINCE EVENTUALLY, SOMETHING WILL BREAK THEM. BUT THAT "EVENTUALLY" MIGHT NEVER HAPPEN. ARE ENABLERS BANNABLE? NOT ALL. ARE THEY BAD DESIGN? HELL! f***ing! NO! READ SOME f***ing ARTICLES ABOUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CARD AND GAME DESIGN FIRST BEFORE YOU ACT ALL HIGH AND MIGHTY.

 

Yes I mad. Becaues you all worship a narcisstic, selfish idiot who, I don't deny, is good at the game, but knows nothing about it on a deeper level.

[Lonk]

Neither do you do then so you can't agree/disagree with him since according to you, no one knows anything except him. Stroke Black's already huge e-penis more and more. Honestly saying, all of what he said in this thread is utter f***ing BULLSHIT because he has NO IDEA about what he's talking about, but alright, have it your way. I forgot Black is the God and everything he says is the law. No one can say "no" to him. So I will do it now, and this is my last response in this f***ing thread:

 

ENABLERS ARE AS BROKEN AS THE CARDS THEY CAN ENABLE. YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG - ENABLERS AREN'T BAD DESIGN. THEY LET YOU DO THINGS, AND THEY'RE AS BROKEN AS THINGS THEY ALLOW YOU TO DO. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ENABLE, AN ENABLER ISN'T BROKEN. YES, ENABLERS GET BROKEN AND OBNOXIOUS THE MORE THE TIME PROGRESSES, SINCE EVENTUALLY, SOMETHING WILL BREAK THEM. BUT THAT "EVENTUALLY" MIGHT NEVER HAPPEN. ARE ENABLERS BANNABLE? NOT ALL. ARE THEY BAD DESIGN? HELL! f***ing! NO! READ SOME f***ing ARTICLES ABOUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CARD AND GAME DESIGN FIRST BEFORE YOU ACT ALL HIGH AND MIGHTY.

 

Yes I mad. Becaues you all worship a narcisstic, selfish idiot who, I don't deny, is good at the game, but knows nothing about it on a deeper level.

 

 

Time to watch another thread degenerate into ego-stroking.

[byak]

Who cares if it is poorly designed or not?

[The Warden]

People who clearly care way too much about the game?

[Althemia]

ENABLERS ARE AS BROKEN AS THE CARDS THEY CAN ENABLE. YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG - ENABLERS AREN'T BAD DESIGN. THEY LET YOU DO THINGS, AND THEY'RE AS BROKEN AS THINGS THEY ALLOW YOU TO DO. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ENABLE, AN ENABLER ISN'T BROKEN. YES, ENABLERS GET BROKEN AND OBNOXIOUS THE MORE THE TIME PROGRESSES, SINCE EVENTUALLY, SOMETHING WILL BREAK THEM. BUT THAT "EVENTUALLY" MIGHT NEVER HAPPEN. ARE ENABLERS BANNABLE? NOT ALL. ARE THEY BAD DESIGN? HELL! f***ing! NO! READ SOME f***ing ARTICLES ABOUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CARD AND GAME DESIGN FIRST BEFORE YOU ACT ALL HIGH AND MIGHTY.

Except this post overlooks a rather crucial detail in the design stage of interaction between cards. You have to design a deck with the thought of interaction between other cards in mind. A deck can make power plays without those power plays being done in an outright unfair and potentially unhealthy way by a mixture of appropriate costings and restrictions. Of course overcomplicating a card with stuff like that is also a poor design choice, but if the enabler's already getting to that point then it already is bad design as it does too much.

I will agree with you on some of the things that you have been saying though. Lumina in and of itself is not a badly designed card and I think that people are putting it down due to prejudice against Lightsworns as a whole because we all really do hate that deck deep down, but the problem exists with Judgment Dragon. This supports your argument of enabler vs enabled, as the only problem with Lumina comes from the fact that she's a Lightsworn and Judgment Dragon happens to just need those names in the Graveyard. Although this is disregarding the time when it was released, which was a time where Lightsworn's interaction with Zombies in general was a tad unhealthy due to the combination of her and Mezuki so that's a strike against her design since they didn't check that. This is my analysis of Lumina just by looking at her without knowing really anything else about her.

But you must be wondering where this is leading to. It's leading to my point: Enabler vs Enabled may only work on some cards in a vacuum as it is disregarding interaction. It's isolating the enabler and the enabled from other cards that interact with both of them and can ultimately make them both incredibly silly. For reference, Brotherhood of the Fire Fist - Spirit and Brotherhood of the Fire Fist - Horse Prince. In a vacuum, one could argue that Horse Prince is worse design. However, when you take into account that Brotherhood of the Fire Fist - Rooster exists, it will begin to become obvious that maybe Spirit or Rooster is the card that's at fault due to it becoming an incredibly unfair amount of consistency. Another example would be Onslaught of the Fire Kings and Fire King High Avatar Garunix. Are you willing to argue that Garunix is really the problem with Onslaught of the Fire Kings and it's not the other way around? Keep in mind that Onslaught tutors literally anything of that typing, for the cost of it being destroyed in the End Phase. As you are going to be doing something with that monster regardless, this card will literally just put a monster on the board for no cost whatsoever. Is this considered fair design?
 

Who cares if it is poorly designed or not?

me
:'(

@Miror: In this context, I consider any card that searches a monster from the Deck to be a RotA.

A RotA is a card that can costlessly (ambiguous wording as technically Crystal Skull and Grimro are RotAs, but regardless) tutors from the deck for a specific monster. Basically it's a +0 tutor without additional restriction.

[Greiga]

ITT: byak

Also, just ignore Black if he annoys you. This is the internet, log off and go outside or something if a mysterious entity is causing you so much pain. No need to ruin everyone's day just because you feel bad.

As for the actual topic, which is apparently now card design, I have nothing to contribute but please keep posting as I am learning.

@Koko: So for example, is Covenant a RotA because you just play it, while Factory is not (because you need to activate a Wind-Up)?

[Althemia]

@Koko: So for example, is Covenant a RotA because you just play it, while Factory is not (because you need to activate a Wind-Up)?

Covenant (if I'm thinking of the right card as a DD, yes?) and Factory are Whirlwinds iirc. They are Continuous cards that stay on the field and, for an activation requirement, tutor a card that makes them good long-term investment cards. As the term implies, it started with Black Whirlwind with it's ever so hard requirement of Normal Summoning a Blackwing. Under the same definition, technically Qliphort Tool is also a Whirlwind. Note that Whirlwind-esque cards tend to be frowned upon due to the insane amount of card advantage they can give you without appropriate answers, as well as the ability to stack multiples being a huge problem as that's far more advantage than they were intended to give.

[Greiga]

Oh yeah, I forgot that Covenant was once per turn. I didn't even know Whirlwind was a term now.

I'm not thinking of any RotA that DOES have a "restriction".

[CLG Klavier]

Except this post overlooks a rather crucial detail in the design stage of interaction between cards. You have to design a deck with the thought of interaction between other cards in mind. A deck can make power plays without those power plays being done in an outright unfair and potentially unhealthy way by a mixture of appropriate costings and restrictions. Of course overcomplicating a card with stuff like that is also a poor design choice, but if the enabler's already getting to that point then it already is bad design as it does too much.

I will agree with you on some of the things that you have been saying though. Lumina in and of itself is not a badly designed card and I think that people are putting it down due to prejudice against Lightsworns as a whole because we all really do hate that deck deep down, but the problem exists with Judgment Dragon. This supports your argument of enabler vs enabled, as the only problem with Lumina comes from the fact that she's a Lightsworn and Judgment Dragon happens to just need those names in the Graveyard. Although this is disregarding the time when it was released, which was a time where Lightsworn's interaction with Zombies in general was a tad unhealthy due to the combination of her and Mezuki so that's a strike against her design since they didn't check that. This is my analysis of Lumina just by looking at her without knowing really anything else about her.

But you must be wondering where this is leading to. It's leading to my point: Enabler vs Enabled may only work on some cards in a vacuum as it is disregarding interaction. It's isolating the enabler and the enabled from other cards that interact with both of them and can ultimately make them both incredibly silly. For reference, Brotherhood of the Fire Fist - Spirit and Brotherhood of the Fire Fist - Horse Prince. In a vacuum, one could argue that Horse Prince is worse design. However, when you take into account that Brotherhood of the Fire Fist - Rooster exists, it will begin to become obvious that maybe Spirit or Rooster is the card that's at fault due to it becoming an incredibly unfair amount of consistency. Another example would be Onslaught of the Fire Kings and Fire King High Avatar Garunix. Are you willing to argue that Garunix is really the problem with Onslaught of the Fire Kings and it's not the other way around? Keep in mind that Onslaught tutors literally anything of that typing, for the cost of it being destroyed in the End Phase. As you are going to be doing something with that monster regardless, this card will literally just put a monster on the board for no cost whatsoever. Is this considered fair design?

Of course, this is what I mean the entire time, maybe I said it wrongly. Yes, you need to keep in mind interactions when you design a card. However, when a card is released and there are no broken/obnoxious interactions with it at the moment it came out, is it truly a bad designed card then? It's not, since at THAT POINT OF TIME, it's totally fair. But later on, something comes out that breaks it. Does it suddenly make it a bad design? Not really.

Exactly what I mean again. Lumina came out, she wasn't broken per se with Lightsworns, but Zombies made her a think, so she got Limited, because her power level at that time was a tad strong. However, again - she wasn't a bad designed card. There were just overlooked interactions, so she deserved a hit on the list. Design level =/= power level.

No, of course not Garunix is the problem, since Garunix itself is a fair card. (I think). Onslaught is the type of enabler though that IS pushing it since it has zero conditions or setup needed at all. You just need not to control a monster. Meanwhile Lavalval Chain does require you to summon it, has limited number of uses, and is still a monster.

Lemme rephrase then - not all enablers are fair, since there are enablers that are simply stupid and pushing it. However, that doesn't mean every enabler is a bad thing, since some of them require setup, cost, or whatever else. Lumina is a fair enable, Onslaught maybe not so much since it's just too broad at what it does.

[Blake]

Neither do you do then so you can't agree/disagree with him since according to you, no one knows anything except him. Stroke Black's already huge e-penis more and more. Honestly saying, all of what he said in this thread is utter f***ing BULLSHIT because he has NO IDEA about what he's talking about, but alright, have it your way. I forgot Black is the God and everything he says is the law. No one can say "no" to him. So I will do it now, and this is my last response in this f***ing thread:

ENABLERS ARE AS BROKEN AS THE CARDS THEY CAN ENABLE. YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG - ENABLERS AREN'T BAD DESIGN. THEY LET YOU DO THINGS, AND THEY'RE AS BROKEN AS THINGS THEY ALLOW YOU TO DO. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ENABLE, AN ENABLER ISN'T BROKEN. YES, ENABLERS GET BROKEN AND OBNOXIOUS THE MORE THE TIME PROGRESSES, SINCE EVENTUALLY, SOMETHING WILL BREAK THEM. BUT THAT "EVENTUALLY" MIGHT NEVER HAPPEN. ARE ENABLERS BANNABLE? NOT ALL. ARE THEY BAD DESIGN? HELL! f***ing! NO! READ SOME f***ing ARTICLES ABOUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CARD AND GAME DESIGN FIRST BEFORE YOU ACT ALL HIGH AND MIGHTY.

Yes I mad. Becaues you all worship a narcisstic, selfish idiot who, I don't deny, is good at the game, but knows nothing about it on a deeper level.

Get the fuck over yourself.

Selfish? I give up almost all of my time to be with Bree. I put her needs before myself almost all of the time, even when my heart is breaking. So what if I didn't help you? You, albeit jokingly, said you were going to kill her. Fuck you.

Narcissistic? I may know what I'm talking about, but that doesn't mean I'm hot shit. Outside of YCM, where it's a case of biggish fish, small pond, I'm a nervous wreck. You know full fucking well any confidence I have is a facade.

Idiot? No, not really. And it's not because I'm good at the game, because I'm decent at best. YCM is just terrible. However, you've failed to take something crucial into account; card design is not set in stone for all games the same. For example, pets look at Cardfight!! Vanguard.

There are 3 cards on the Japanese ban list, and 2 on the English.

The 2 in English are Barcgal and Lizard Soldier, Conroe. Both of these are starters. They aren't bosses, they're early game units that can enable you to make more power plays or up consistency of those power plays. Barcgal ups consistency because it's guaranteed, unless sniped, and Conroe is a cheap search for any Grade 0 or 1 unit. This can greatly improve your decks consistency and comboes, as seen with Nouvelle Vague and her support.

Meanwhile, Japan has 1 boss banned in addition to this; Eradicator, Dragonic Descendant. Why? It completely overwhelmed the meta game early after it's release. It was only at more than 2 for 3 months.

Now, why was it not at 2 in English? As it turned out, the game power creeped it out right after it would have been hit in English, making the hit redundant. Japan is scared of it, but it's not ruining the ECG Meta.

Other bosses (and a powerful G2 supporter) had been limited, and Conroe had a form of limit in conjunction with one, but never had any of them alone. Each of them were hit in conjunction with their starter. Hell, one of their alternate bosses that served as a major enabler was restricted.

None of this happened in the ECG, though. It wasn't scared of good decks dominating and only hit the degeneracy itself; Conroe and Barcgal. The problems with their decks did go deeper than them, and Vanguard is a wild game, but that still shows just how much those cards do if they're the problem; which they generally were.

MTG design works one way. Yugioh another. Cardfight another. It is all relative to the rules in place and is not the same game-to-game.

Also, enablers may be designed in a dubious way but that doesn't mean they're badly designed- yes, it does. Design should be clean, concise, and not leave the potential to be ABUSED. There is nothing wrong with helping an engine exist , but there is a degree when you do too much.

You've proven nothing about my point wrong. Not even one. You've behaved like a spoilt brat and tried to insult me because you couldn't back up your arguments or see the big picture. It's no wonder. You couldn't put up, so shut up.

[evilfusion]

What the hell happened here?!

 

Temporarily locking topic. I don't have the time right now to page through this, and I want to avoid this topic escalating further.

 

Update: Situation evaluated and punishments given as deemed appropriate. While I applaud the discussion of good design vs bad design, this particular thread has gathered too much hostility and conflict, and I will be keeping it locked.