EDH, Planechase & Vanguard Mode

Suggestion about new game mode (campaign, EDH, etc...)
Post Reply
kingbob
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:13 pm

EDH, Planechase & Vanguard Mode

Post by kingbob »

Note that these are LONG-TERM and in no way should programming effort be spent on these until way in the future.

-An Elder Dragon Highlander or EDH format. It's growing in popularity, and it's my favorite format. You make a 100 card deck with no more than one of the same card. You also choose a Legendary creature as your General which begins the game in a zone called the command zone. You may play your General as though it were in your hand. If your General would be put into a graveyard or removed from the game, the General returns to the command zone. You may play your General again for its mana cost plus 2 for each time it has been played before. There are additional rules including a color restraint based on your General's colors. For more information go to http://www.dragonhighlander.net/rules.php.

-Planechase. A fun new way to play using the new plane cards. Great in multiplayer, though I have also played it with 2 players before. For more info go to http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/A ... feature/51

-Vanguard. Another interesting way to play. Uses Avatars which affect your starting life and hand size. Some have playable abilities in the game.

These are all programming nightmares and I don't expect them for a long time, if at all. They are just fun suggestions that would be great to see.

[EDIT ABRA - renamed & Moved]
wololo
Site Admin
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Japan

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by wololo »

Regarding Vangards, we already have momir basic, which is the most interesting one.
EDH is definitely interesting, and Planechase too...
gdspsp
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: ohio, usa

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by gdspsp »

I am sure someone has said it before, so i will parrot the request: May we request the implementation of Planeswalkers?
I have a strong feeling that planeswalkers will continue to be a part of MTG for the long haul. I also realize that currently, even if we could implement all of the Planeswalkers, it only adds maybe 13 cards.

I totally understand how complex this really is.
1. have to choose if a creature during an attack or a damagae source is directed at a planeswalker.
2. the use of loyalty counters representing "life" and effect cost.
3. the effects of a planeswalker (some effects may be easier to code than others, eg, Jace Beleren vs. Sorin Markov)
Psyringe
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:53 am

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by Psyringe »

gdspsp wrote:May we request the implementation of Planeswalkers?
Certainly, as long as we can request a coder to implement them in return. :mrgreen:

Joking aside, I think most people agree that Planeswalkers are a cool feature and that it would be nice to have that available. However, as you already mentioned, they do seem pretty tough to implement, and there are many other cool features that are a lot easier to do, so the devs have concentrated on the latter. If someone shows up and says "Hey, I want to code Planeswalkers into the game, where do I start?", I'm sure no dev would object and he'd get all the help he can get. However, as long as we don't have a coder who values Planeswalkers that much more than all the other things that could be added, many other features will be added to the game before Planeswalkers get on top of the list.
mickey_brown
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:32 am

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by mickey_brown »

I think the biggest thing that needs a face lift in wagic is the deck editor. Its the only part that I find to be underdeveloped. It just takes so long to browse through cards. If you could sort by set and/or type (creature, enchantment, et cetera), it would make deck building so much faster. Then further upgrades could include the ability to sort by converted mana cost, color combination's, subtypes (elves, goblins, et cetera), and rarity.
Daddy32
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:20 am
Location: Slovakia

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by Daddy32 »

I agree with the deck editor needing improval and will try to make it happen in the future.
exra
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:22 pm

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by exra »

if i can get the abilities im trying to make working then i would so love to code planeswalkers :D
Thanatos.02
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:06 pm

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by Thanatos.02 »

well, since these are *long term* requests, how about finishing the library of traditional cards and functions?
I would also like to see a better way to grade the AI from easy to difficult. I have no idea if it is possible, but I would like to see the AI be able to play a combo deck with some sort of efficiency
wololo
Site Admin
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Japan

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by wololo »

Thanatos.02 wrote: how about finishing the library of traditional cards and functions?
Just so that people don't have too much hope: this is probably never going to happen.

This is definitely not our priority, for several reasons.

One is that some cards are technically impossible to code

Another reason is that whatever we do, Wizards will come up with new mechanics and cards every year (that's why we like MTG, I think...), so we'll always be "behind".
People who want to play with all the cards tend to use MTGO or MWS, not Wagic. So it would be a useless fight.

Yet another reason is that even if we coded 99% of the existing cards, people would complain about the missing 1%... so in terms of "pride" and "positive feedback" for the developers, the benefit would be close to 0.

For example the 3 last releases have more than doubled the amount of cards available in Wagic in less than 3 months... People still ask for more, not realizing that they probably will never have the time in their life to try each one of the cards already available :lol:

The last reason, I've discovered it recently, is that some cards are not made for a "computer" version of the game. For example, all cards that involve triggers that say "you may..." are a pain in the a## for the flow of the game. They are very annoying to play. Some of them are really powerful, but I personally tend to avoid having more than 1 card with such abilities, otherwise I get lost. And I can't think of a simple way to follow the MTG rules 100% without that kind of annoyance... So as long as we can't find ways to improve the flow of the game, some cards are just out of the question, I think.
mickey_brown
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:32 am

Re: *Long-Term* Requests

Post by mickey_brown »

wololo wrote: Yet another reason is that even if we coded 99% of the existing cards, people would complain about the missing 1%
If you had 99% of the cards coded, and somebody complained about the missing 1%, they should be banned.
Post Reply