Hi, I just have a simple question that all developers should ask themselves whenever pursuing a new genre.

There are huge MTG roots here, but what does FW offer that MTG online doesn't? Or that some other game doesn't?

FW has a huge dependency on moving units about and placing structures and casting spells... yet are these elements really appropriate in a game randomized by cards?

In magic, the requirement to achieve victory is incredibly independent from any of the elements in the game. You aren't confined to a specific modality of play- which makes card randomization more of a study on probability and synchronization.

I don't see how an element of randomization like card drawing should be the backbone for playing a game like FW.

I guess I'm just curious what the philosophy behind the game is, and why the developers thought it would be successful (note: I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just curious about the intent of the design because I don't quite understand it). In the context of the design, why are flux wells and glory considered a satisfying means to victory?

IDK- what I'm asking exactly, but I have a hard time buying into this project when I don't really understand what makes it more interesting than some of the other options out there.


I think that if FW really wanted to be the culmination of an MTG style game and a strategy game (preferably real-time), they would use the same design philosophy as MTG, and not make the game dependent upon cards, or ENTIRELY dependent upon cards, up to the player's option (IE, cards being quick solutions but lack infrastructure or continuity- yet capable of being the only utilized feature for a win condition). MTG is always interesting because there really is only one dependency, and that's resources. If you try to take card advantage, or drop your hands for a quick win, either can be viable. You can pretty much use any strategy you want. FW doesn't provide the same kind of freedom MTG does in this sense.

Sure, FW can utilize rushing, turtling, and booming philosophies of RTS games, but in that sense it seems like the card element being the backbone doesn't make much sense.

I'm confused, please help.

All card games have a huge basis in magic, it layed the forground for trading card games of today, have you seen a card game since that didn't? It's like saying yeah those motorcycles there to much like a bicycle by my reconing, or Lord of the Rings or Star wars is an epic like the bible. All things came by combining and building upon other ideas, few concepts are dramatic leaps. Magic came out of D&D, D&D came out of minatures games and you guessed it this is a combination of a minatures and trading card games. I'm not trying to be berating just stating, that by having a card game element, there is going to be huge compairisons. And what this has is something strategy games and card games both dont have. Because of the battlefield, its not just how strong your units are well place units can give you time by protecting, sneak past enemy defences, overun a single creature. On the other hand being a card game you have chance and resource management that aren't normaly in strategy games. It is a merger of these two ideas into something different, the same tactics of its types. As a game designer myself I see the subtle differences which are not on the surface are not always apparent but this game has new ground to encounter and will continue to evolve in a way which will ever more be independent of the genres it came out of as all successfull games do, while it may seem to be close to other games now the differences to it will only become more apparent.

bows politely, thank you for the kind words.

another thing i got side railed from discusing is the fact that cards are not random, your dealing with trying to control an element of randomness, but your object with playing cards is to negate this, your not suppost to be playing with a random stack but a ratio of effects, how many creatures how much removal, there are many a intersect levels to this and on the whole it looks like random but looking at specifics you get paterns and control as ratio, most people do not think in these terms, they see creatures spells buildings, but there are other ratios, cost, clan requirement, when you stack all the variables on top few cards sit next to each other but each slice should align concepts and synergies, wether its building a cost-curve deck or weenie, a deck that uses few but devistating spells over a more common base of lesser magics or whichever. To think of a deck as random is to ignore the numbers, and numbers are the majority of strategy games of all kinds. Its like being an incurance consultant, only with magick.

Yaya, I grew up on MTG- I have a pretty decent underestanding of synergy, casting ratios and deck design (at least enough to pay for college playing the game), but it is a game dependent upon a random element (no matter how good you are or how well designed your deck is, you can win/lose based on a top-deck). One reason why MTG functions so beautifully is because there are so many paths to victory- a random element + many win conditions = options with few limits.

In terms of strategy, chess is easily the inverse of Magic. With a fixed board position and no random elements (aside from who plays white or black).

Somewhat in the middle, or perhaps on a third-tier, are real time strategy games. Starcraft, to this day, defines the genre. Where building infrastructure and planning attack strategies and being aware of counter-cycles will provide one player with an upper hand. Ultimately you need to destroy the opponent, and ultimately who acquires the most resources has an advantage, but how you do it is entirely up to the player. It's ultimately a game of economic competition and how you utilize resources. (I would say that AOE3 is one of the few games that comes close to reconciling the differences in strategy games, but it's lack of balance doesn't really make it worth mentioning, aside from a footnote :p).


FW may be a merger of a bit of each of these styles (implementing resources, turn based board strategy, and randomization through cards), but does FW provide as much stimulation as any other?


As far as I can tell, it lacks the structure that makes chess interesting.

It lacks the liberty of play-style that makes MTG interesting (Ie, you choose your own goal). FW relies on a pretty limited board of flux-well control. It's easy to predict that a person who effectively draws a good scout/structure and manages to place them in the middle early on, does so at little risk. How the cards are drawn later can upset victory, but...

It lacks the resource competition that we find in RTS games. Sure, flux-wells are a resource, and getting them is an advantage, but NOT getting them is a HUGE disadvantage. Flux-well control is also the win-condition. I'm a little... precarious buying into this concept as something that makes for interesting gameplay (of course, two interesting people in any game will make for interesting gameplay- but sometimes the game helps). So, I'm wondering, from the perspective of other people who like the game- what makes it interesting?

Compared to chess, mtg, and starcraft, seperately or all together?

I think that if your asking others what makes it interesting, you've not found anything interesting about it and maybe its not your game, a game is their to be enjoyed if people enjoy it no justification for its existance should be needed because it is granting its design.

If I enjoy wine, is it wrong to express interest in a vintage I am unfamiliar with?

I don't know if I can agree with your approach there. There are many games which aren't initially enjoyable that become more interesting with more dedication- Magic and Chess are two such games, as well as any competitive online game. The way each of us get introduced to these games is different, but ultimately there exists an insatiable desire to continue tasting other varieties.

A few sips do not often indicate the impression that the rest of the bottle may provide, especially considering the aeration, and intonation of the glass. I'm not one to be satisfied with taking many sips, I'd rather ask a sommelier and just buy the bottle. I may not like the first sips, but if I'm not sober by the end I'll still have enjoyed it... somewhat.

I'm not looking for a replacement for SC, MTG, or Chess- but all strategy gamers who have mingled in these areas have contemplated what a combination of all of them may look like. It's a difficult task to produce something of competitive quality, especially considering the team of developers behind SC/MTG and the tradition that keeps chess going, i just want to hear some opinions.

Well of course we asked ourselves before making this game how it would be different or better than other games out there. I really think MTG is one of the best games ever made but during the actual gameplay I often feel like I have very few decisions to make. There is almost always one best play so I get bored during the actual matches. I wanted to make a game that I found interesting throughout the whole process.

The map gives the game much more strategic depth than other CCGs. Once you understand tfw the battles basically become like evolving puzzles. You must constantly be thinking of some clever trick or interesting use of the cards in your hand.

There are actually many different paths to victory. Sure you need to win by getting to 20 glory just like you need to reduce your opponent to 0 life in MTG. The point is not the win condition it is that there are a ton of ways to achieve it.

I'm super busy fixing/adding things and whatnot so I don't have time to give this a full length answer but I think the easiest thing would be for you to just play a few games against a real player, preferably a player who is good.

1. New Card Art
2. Figure + Card Elements with a different variation of stats
3. Flux Well Design
4. Current Player base

Other than that I'm not see much. I play because I rarely see games like this and I'd really like to see them developing. I find it interesting. With continued support I can see this game developing to a semi-competitive level but will probably go through some major changes/development to get there.

Yes, as a strategy gamer with strong roots in Chess, MTG, Civilization, Might and magic, and Age of Empires, I'd have to say. No, this is not what I had contemplated as an end result but then again It would take a strong team of programmers many months to even come near what I have in mind for this type of game. Not to mention artists, graphic designers, and semi-professional writers.

I'd have to say for so small a team, Jed 's doing a pretty good job.

FYI, For Noobs and MTG experienced. This game is similar to magic the gathering in this sense. The first set comes out. Certain cards work really well together and certain strategies will usually fork out a win for your horde. Due to the limited number of cards you can usually tell which combinations will beat out others. This is really apparent just by playing against Grug, Altren or the really long one that starts with a B in the league. Especially during the first week where the card sets where skewed enough that very few combination could beat theirs. I could be wrong but to my understanding most of the battles where pretty straight forward. Capture the center early, Slaughter the enemy early, or two turtles are fighting each other. mehh..

So I've decided to stop playing this, in part because law students shouldn't spend this much time not studying, in part because I don't like what the game has become. I like the idea of a more drawn out strategy game which allows for a wide variety of approaches. Unfortunately, it seems like the dominating strategy used widely now is build build build, buildings are everything, and the game will be over in roughly 12 rounds.

It's kind of ruined the game for me. I was never good, but at least I enjoyed an intense fight. Now to be honest, I question the need for creatures. I think it would take a major revamp in this game to draw me back.

_________________
-Minds