General Custom Cards: The Lab
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
How can I be expected to remember a card that old
hey these arent cards but just two things i feel like we get stuck on too much on in this thread over the past several years (not just recently).
1) focusing too much on numbers that dont affect the core main idea of the design too much. especially just talking about power level
different cubes are different. saying that makes it sound pretty obvious, but i see a lot of talk about mana cost or damage or p/t without relation to environment. we all have very different cubes.
if you're designing a card, you're generally designing the idea behind the card. numbers are easy to fix with testing the card (and i hope folks are testing their cards at least a little in goldfish games before they unleash them on folks (?)). the core design of a card is not always so obvious
if we're talking a lot about the numbers on a card it should probably be one of:
- qualified by an environment you mention
- or what kind of environment those numbers need
- discussing relationships with specific other cards
- the psychological effects of it. (ex: that really annoying asymmetry of griselbrand costing 8)
- when the numbers differences do make two actually totally functionally different cards in practice. a more subtle example might be how sensei's divining top having a 1 mana activation cost means that players can spin top many times a turn and do something time consuming very often, vs if the activation costed 3+ or something.
- in relationship to the other numbers on the card
- ok, in rare cases, maybe the core idea of the card is about numbers, like maybe i post a lightning bolt that does 5 or something? but in that case i'd probably still be wondering about the resulting environment.
2) focusing on what wizards is will print as a strict ruleset
this is incorrect for three reasons:
we CAN design things that wizards will never design. we are free of all their legal and financial restrictions. we know our target situation (cube). wizards are driven by a business model where they print sets that come in packs with rarities, and so forth. that's just not what we're doing at all.
we CAN'T design things that wizards will actually design. wizards are considered the authoritative voice of mtg, and we're just some "modders". i remember years ago i designed some cards with the energy mechanic, and i showed them to people, and people reacted like the mechanic was some unset weirdness they'd never print. (funnily enough, my testing revealed a lot of the same annoyingness of the actual WotC energy cards, but that's sort of irrelevant i guess). my point here is that you can come up with cards that wotc will actually print and design, but if people react uncomfortably to them bc it's too strange, it doesn't matter. and this is true about a lot of things wotc has actually printed, like eldrazi or energy or so on.
wizards just simply isn't perfect. they print a lot of cards. no matter how good you think their designs are overall, some of their cards will just be straight up garbage. you can find a handful of cards over the quarter century history of the game to support almost any kind of design as "see, wizards did it". in the same way, just because they haven't printed it, that doesn't mean they know what they're doing either.
1) focusing too much on numbers that dont affect the core main idea of the design too much. especially just talking about power level
different cubes are different. saying that makes it sound pretty obvious, but i see a lot of talk about mana cost or damage or p/t without relation to environment. we all have very different cubes.
if you're designing a card, you're generally designing the idea behind the card. numbers are easy to fix with testing the card (and i hope folks are testing their cards at least a little in goldfish games before they unleash them on folks (?)). the core design of a card is not always so obvious
if we're talking a lot about the numbers on a card it should probably be one of:
- qualified by an environment you mention
- or what kind of environment those numbers need
- discussing relationships with specific other cards
- the psychological effects of it. (ex: that really annoying asymmetry of griselbrand costing 8)
- when the numbers differences do make two actually totally functionally different cards in practice. a more subtle example might be how sensei's divining top having a 1 mana activation cost means that players can spin top many times a turn and do something time consuming very often, vs if the activation costed 3+ or something.
- in relationship to the other numbers on the card
- ok, in rare cases, maybe the core idea of the card is about numbers, like maybe i post a lightning bolt that does 5 or something? but in that case i'd probably still be wondering about the resulting environment.
2) focusing on what wizards is will print as a strict ruleset
this is incorrect for three reasons:
we CAN design things that wizards will never design. we are free of all their legal and financial restrictions. we know our target situation (cube). wizards are driven by a business model where they print sets that come in packs with rarities, and so forth. that's just not what we're doing at all.
we CAN'T design things that wizards will actually design. wizards are considered the authoritative voice of mtg, and we're just some "modders". i remember years ago i designed some cards with the energy mechanic, and i showed them to people, and people reacted like the mechanic was some unset weirdness they'd never print. (funnily enough, my testing revealed a lot of the same annoyingness of the actual WotC energy cards, but that's sort of irrelevant i guess). my point here is that you can come up with cards that wotc will actually print and design, but if people react uncomfortably to them bc it's too strange, it doesn't matter. and this is true about a lot of things wotc has actually printed, like eldrazi or energy or so on.
wizards just simply isn't perfect. they print a lot of cards. no matter how good you think their designs are overall, some of their cards will just be straight up garbage. you can find a handful of cards over the quarter century history of the game to support almost any kind of design as "see, wizards did it". in the same way, just because they haven't printed it, that doesn't mean they know what they're doing either.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I get your beef with the "Wizards would never print this" argument, that discussion has been a bit... omnipresent recently, in no small part thanks to the discussion Velrun and I where having. Talking costs feels natural to me though. Of course things are different for different cubes, but as was the case with the Beastmaster's Goggles, it's clear the cost was there because of Pyromancer's Goggles cost, whereas in my mind it wasn't obvious that these effects should be valued equally, and that seems like a very legit point to make?
I very much agree with you Anotak.
However there is a sentence that CAN be used: “Wizards printed this so therefore I can too.” which is very legit and cannot be mistaken for “Wizards has never done this and therefore we cannot.”
I used the former with my “Pick this as the last card to gain a buff” mechanic which has memory issues like many of Wizards’ cards from their draft-sets.
However there is a sentence that CAN be used: “Wizards printed this so therefore I can too.” which is very legit and cannot be mistaken for “Wizards has never done this and therefore we cannot.”
I used the former with my “Pick this as the last card to gain a buff” mechanic which has memory issues like many of Wizards’ cards from their draft-sets.
"Wizards printed this so I can too".
Ancestral Recall. Treasure Cruise.
That said, if you're cubing power, and run customs, why not buff Lightning Bolt to 5 damage to keep it in par with Ancestral. Maybe Treasure Cruise should draw 4, because it's strictly worse than Ancestral?
Good point, anotak, about people being less open minded about custom cards than official cards. There's lots of cards that wizards has printed that would have been scoffed at if I posted them on custom card site before. Beastmaster's Helmet gets a mostly positive response, but if Goggles didn't exist, people might have laughed and said it was hopeless broken, would never be printed.
So I tend to try to do cards that are riffs off of other cards, relatively obvious uses of mechanics that wizards just didn't do for some reason, etc.
Ancestral Recall. Treasure Cruise.
That said, if you're cubing power, and run customs, why not buff Lightning Bolt to 5 damage to keep it in par with Ancestral. Maybe Treasure Cruise should draw 4, because it's strictly worse than Ancestral?
Good point, anotak, about people being less open minded about custom cards than official cards. There's lots of cards that wizards has printed that would have been scoffed at if I posted them on custom card site before. Beastmaster's Helmet gets a mostly positive response, but if Goggles didn't exist, people might have laughed and said it was hopeless broken, would never be printed.
So I tend to try to do cards that are riffs off of other cards, relatively obvious uses of mechanics that wizards just didn't do for some reason, etc.
"i very much agree with you. statement that disagrees with your post completely."
i dont know what to really say to this
What he said isn't directly contrary to what you said.
Statement 1: You said "We can't do what wizards can do."
And Statement 2: "We can do what wizards can't do."
Statement 3: Velrun Said: "We can do what Wizards has done."
You sort of hinted that Statement 3 is false/irrelevant. I assume Velrun was agreeing with the first two, which you said much more clearly.
I think statement 3 sort of goes along with statement 1.
1: If we create cards like the energy cards, people scoff at them.
3: If we create cards more similar to cards that wizards already has done, people accept them.
People run power if they want to. One of the most balanced cubes I have ever seen is a cube that had the design purpose “What if the Power 9 cards were the right level of power?” Lots of fun and was super balanced. There is nothing wrong with doing what Wizards are doing. And like Anotak is stating there is also nothing wrong in doing something other than what Wizards are doing.
I believe you misunderstand. You recently made a post with a lot of excellent points and I salute you for that reason. I believe it is possible to agree and even ‘very much agree’ and still disagree on some levels. It should be possible in a modern world where all people are allowed to share their opinions.
Suicufnoc figured it out.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I mean I basically always ask for a second set of eyes when I need numbers help, and a ton of the cards I make is explicitly cards wotc wouldn't make, so I feel very personally attacked right now 
So should this cost 3 or 4? At 1UU its a better Time Ebb, which isn't played(there's a scry 1 version too, I forget the name, and a more expensive Memory Lapse. I think thats probably an OK place to be, though the cycling ability makes it better obviously.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
1UU at most I'ld say, maybe even 2U?
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Not so sure about the name though
It's cool, but does it actually fit the function?
It's cool, but does it actually fit the function?
Not so sure about the name though
It's cool, but does it actually fit the function?
Nah it was the name of the drawing. Which I kind of like, but I wish it was a painting. Like with color and stuff.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Ah, gotcha. I like it at 2u, but I'm a madman.
Though it's usually better to test cards when pushed and scale down rather than the reverse
Though it's usually better to test cards when pushed and scale down rather than the reverse
That's right
Redacted
Instant
Change the text of target spell or permanent an opponent controls by removing up to three consecutive words. The resulting text must remain legal Magic templating. (This effect lasts indefinitely.)
What does this break? Does it sound like fun? (Assuming you like arguing over templating.)
Instant
Change the text of target spell or permanent an opponent controls by removing up to three consecutive words. The resulting text must remain legal Magic templating. (This effect lasts indefinitely.)
What does this break? Does it sound like fun? (Assuming you like arguing over templating.)
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I mean it counters day of judgement
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
It makes most cumulative upkeep spells a lot better?
Stops card draw
It makes future custom cards veeeeeery interesting and fun to design Perhaps a format with all such whackyness <3
It turns Strip Mine into an insane blast cannon of doom.
It turns Maze of Ith into a truly unfair combat trick land.
Mishra’s Factory now buffs everything.
Compulsion LOL
Mindslaver GG (Say goodbye to 13 mana combo, say hello to 4 mana combo)
Perhaps a format with all such whackyness <3It turns Strip Mine into an insane blast cannon of doom.
It turns Maze of Ith into a truly unfair combat trick land.
Mishra’s Factory now buffs everything.
Compulsion LOL
Mindslaver GG (Say goodbye to 13 mana combo, say hello to 4 mana combo)