I'm not sure players will love Level Up cards that get downsides over time. Level up is all about the dream. Some day this will become that! (even though it almost never happens, like Planeswalker ultimates).
Here that dream is ruined by putting a downside on the top level.
Mark was just talking about Echo on Blogatog yesterday (a favorite of mine) and made the point that in order to view Echo as anything but a downside, you need to have a very good understanding of the creature curve / rate, and almost no players have that. I fear the same is true for your designs.
For the record, intellectually I feel like I should be smart enough to enjoy playing cards with significant downsides. After all, I have a PhD and have been playing Magic over 20 years. If I'm honest, though, emotionally I very rarely have fun playing with cards with downsides unless they fall into two camps:
A) Cards like Ember Beast that have a downside I can work around so that it isn't a real downside.
B) Cards like Herald of Torment that technically have a downside but in practice it is super negligible.
Confession: I don't think I've ever been able to make myself put a Master of the Feast in my deck even though I know I probably should.
It's clear that the majority of the audience doesn't enjoy downsides, but I wish we had some idea what the percentages were. Not just for that, but for the psychographics, and for other audience segments as well.
If 15% of players enjoy downsides—as I do—then that's a much larger audience to cater to than uber-Johnnies, for instance. Is it enough for a keyword? Maybe not.
That said, these particularly cards are tainted by a downside, but that downside comes with a much larger upside. 4/4 vigilance for {3}? 3/4 deathtouch for {1}{B}? And those downsides are both avoidable, and don't take effect until several rounds have passed enjoying the upsides? Again, I don't expect most players to love that, but taking power on the edge of a razor is just about maximum fun for me.
Let me rephrase what I was saying: "I think what you have going on here is cool, and I don't think putting the downsides on the final level is adding anything to it, and will hurt these cards in the eyes of a lot of players. What, if anything, do you think the downsides add here?"
Jay: But many players won't see that is a discount. As Mark Rosewater said about echo, they can't see the "rate" of a card - they more keenly feel the downside than the upside (the cheaper card / better body).
Tommy: The intent seems like it was to capture the flavor of a 'runaway machine'.
Right. Thematically it shows the machine becoming more capable but also more independent, to the point that you don't fully control it. Mechanically, it follows a gameplay trope red and black often pursue, where you get great power cheaply but must walk a tightrope to prevent it from backfiring on you.
In no way am I saying most/all players will both understand the trade off and appreciate it. The question is whether the audience that will is large enough to entertain, and whether the backlash from the rest of the audience counters that benefit.
It's not a 4/4 vigilance for 3 mana though. It's a Gray Ogre on turns 3 and 4, then a 3/3 vigilance on turns 5 and 6, then a 4/4 vigilance forced attacker on turn 7, which gives the opponent plenty of time to play something(s) that can eat it in combat. Given that this card isn't particularly impressive at any point on the curve, seeing an additional late-stage drawback not on the rest of the card is really off-putting.
The solution to my particular complaint is to make the early level versions ramp up in power faster, so you can try to end the game before the drawback comes into effect (e.g. 3/3 vanilla; 4/4 vigilance; 4/4 vigilance w/drawback) but that might result in 1) format speed being too quick and 2) more of a sense of dread than progress.
I think there's a lot of variation in what counts as a "downside". Eg. "large mana cost" or "card disadvantage" are downsides, which is why spike often hates expensive cards and auras, because the downside often gets in the way of winning the game. But Timmy/Tammy often loves those cards, because the downsides are all worst cases that might not come up, but they're awesome when they work.
But when we SAY downside we often mean something that LOOKS like a downside, something Timmy/Tammy doesn't like, like lifeloss or echo.
And most players are somewhere between those extremes. But the reason I'm saying this is that I don't like _mandatory_ downsides, like repeated lifeloss, because they're scary (although I'm willing to take the chance if it's the best card). But I do like downsides which don't affect my gameplan -- eg. "must attack if able" on cards where I WANT to attack with them.
So I agree with the principle that, in general, you avoid downsides, but I think there's some downsides that don't look like downsides that might be ok (although I don't know if we can think of enough of them). As I said in my earlier comment, I think that auto-level is mandatory isn't necessary, I think even if it was optional you'd have the flavour of the creature WANTING to level up, and you having to hold it back (if you wanted the option to not attack).
I really like the gameplay of Self-Leveling, and I love the flavor of the top-end - but I'm going to agree that the downside just muddles the positive feelings of 'maxing it out'.
My question is - can we capture the feeling of an 'errant machine' without using a downside? A machine that wants something other than what you want, and acts independently?
I agree that mandatory triggered abilities are a good way to capture 'competing interests'. But the difference I propose is that we do so by having a negative trigger create a positive result - it'll feel like the creature is still wanting something that you don't want, but in this case it'll give you good gameplay still.
For some example triggers: "Whenever you lose life", "Whenever you're attacked", "Whenever a creature you control dies", and so on.
Is there enough design space in this idea? Does it really capture the same flavor? What do you guys think?
Sure. I'll just re-use the designs from the OP, but with my changes. Note that these are NOT balanced at all - I'm just showing off a potential trigger.
Magcore Sentry {3} Artifact Creature - Rebel Construct Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.) 2/2 --------------------- [Level 2-3] Vigilance 3/3 --------------------- [Level 4+] Vigilance Whenever a creature you control is destroyed, put a +1/+1 counter on Magcore Sentry. 4/4
Geistbond Reaver {1}{B} Artifact Creature - Spirit Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.) 1/2 --------------------- [Level 2-3] Deathtouch 2/3 --------------------- [Level 4+] Deathtouch Whenever you are dealt damage, put a +1/+1 counter on Geistbond Reaver. 3/4
So, as you can see, they each get 'stronger' from a negative that you suffer. It feels like they're profiting from your loss, but without the negative gameplay.
There are a few problems here, though. One, how many negative effects can we think of? And two, how many 'profiting' effects can we think of? If we can't think of enough of either - and, importantly, if we can't make this doable at common - then this isn't a viable choice.
My biggest concern is that we might end up with some Odyssey-esque gameplay where your opponent doesn't want to use their Lava Spikes because they'll help you and you want to Lava Spike yourself. That's cool for Spike, but Tammy's not so happy.
Thinking about potential upsides that feel like having their own prerogative:
"If ~ would deal combat damage to a player who controls a creature, it fights a random creature they control instead."
"Whenever one or more creatures with less power than ~ attack you or a planeswalker you control while ~ is tapped, untap it. It blocks one of them."
"At the beginning of combat on your turn flip a coin. If it's a heads, ~ gains trample until end of turn. If it's tails, it gains vigilance until end of turn."
Another option is to tie it in to the level up. What if it was a trigger "at the beginning of your upkeep tap two untapped lands you control". Then it would normally level itself up, but at max level it would keep using your resources for no benefit.
I really like Inanimate's approach here. It's an upside mechanic that still feels like your own card "wants to hurt you" or at least wants things that you don't want.
I do like Jules's first couple of options too. But I'm not sure the concerns about Tammy using her Lava Spikes are necessarily a problem. How many sets even contain Lava Spike these days anyway? If we do decide we want one, we could hide it in a lenticular way on a card like Keldon Marauders.
Magcore Sentry {3} Artifact Creature - Rebel Construct Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.) 2/2 --------------------- [Level 2-3] Vigilance 3/3 --------------------- [Level 4+] Vigilance ~ must attack each turn if able. ~ has p/t equal to the number of level counters on it. */*
I like this idea at uncommon and above.
Bionanites {3} Artifact Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.) {1}, {T}: Gain 1 life. --------------------- [Level 2-3] {2}, {T}: Gain 2 life. --------------------- [Level 4+] {3}, {T}: Gain X life, where X is the number of level counters on ~.
I'm smitten with this, but I agree that it could stand to be refined. (I'm not sold on the leveling frame. By looking as complicated as it does leveling detracts from the aesthetics)
Can't this be handled with +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters?
Fission golem 3 Art cre- golem Momentum (upkeep: put a +1/+1 on this.) Remove X +1/+1 counters from this: add X to your mana pool. 1/1
Fission golem 3 Art cre- golem Reactor 3 (this etb with 3 -1/-1 counters on it. During your upkeep you may remove one.) If there are two or fewer -1/-1 counters on this it has vigilance. If there are no -1/-1 counters on this it has trample. 4/4
-backwards compatibile with tons of effects - uses standard card frame - all forced bookkeeping is relevant at all times or shuts off - +1/+1 version appears to have "unlimited upside with no downside" -1/-1 version is flashy because it looks under costed. Power/toughness > cost
I'm not a huge fan of the level up mechanic, mostly from a form factor place. The cards are just incredibly busy, and mostly could work by just adding +1/+1 counters or whatever. That said, it's an interesting space to design.
I would still try to make these into draw triggers. Having them trigger off drawing a card plays into the "research makes them better" theme and gives players more flexibility about how quickly they can work without defaulting back to proliferate.
Cool Card Design of the Day
Oh, cool. I like the way it gets larger but less controlled as it does.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if it needs self-levelling, I feel the lure of a bigger creature combined with a cheap level-up cost is enough to sell the flavour.
I'm not sure players will love Level Up cards that get downsides over time. Level up is all about the dream. Some day this will become that! (even though it almost never happens, like Planeswalker ultimates).
ReplyDeleteHere that dream is ruined by putting a downside on the top level.
Mark was just talking about Echo on Blogatog yesterday (a favorite of mine) and made the point that in order to view Echo as anything but a downside, you need to have a very good understanding of the creature curve / rate, and almost no players have that. I fear the same is true for your designs.
For the record, intellectually I feel like I should be smart enough to enjoy playing cards with significant downsides. After all, I have a PhD and have been playing Magic over 20 years. If I'm honest, though, emotionally I very rarely have fun playing with cards with downsides unless they fall into two camps:
A) Cards like Ember Beast that have a downside I can work around so that it isn't a real downside.
B) Cards like Herald of Torment that technically have a downside but in practice it is super negligible.
Confession: I don't think I've ever been able to make myself put a Master of the Feast in my deck even though I know I probably should.
It's clear that the majority of the audience doesn't enjoy downsides, but I wish we had some idea what the percentages were. Not just for that, but for the psychographics, and for other audience segments as well.
DeleteIf 15% of players enjoy downsides—as I do—then that's a much larger audience to cater to than uber-Johnnies, for instance. Is it enough for a keyword? Maybe not.
That said, these particularly cards are tainted by a downside, but that downside comes with a much larger upside. 4/4 vigilance for {3}? 3/4 deathtouch for {1}{B}? And those downsides are both avoidable, and don't take effect until several rounds have passed enjoying the upsides? Again, I don't expect most players to love that, but taking power on the edge of a razor is just about maximum fun for me.
DeleteLet me rephrase what I was saying: "I think what you have going on here is cool, and I don't think putting the downsides on the final level is adding anything to it, and will hurt these cards in the eyes of a lot of players. What, if anything, do you think the downsides add here?"
DeleteJay: But many players won't see that is a discount. As Mark Rosewater said about echo, they can't see the "rate" of a card - they more keenly feel the downside than the upside (the cheaper card / better body).
DeleteTommy: The intent seems like it was to capture the flavor of a 'runaway machine'.
Right. Thematically it shows the machine becoming more capable but also more independent, to the point that you don't fully control it. Mechanically, it follows a gameplay trope red and black often pursue, where you get great power cheaply but must walk a tightrope to prevent it from backfiring on you.
DeleteIn no way am I saying most/all players will both understand the trade off and appreciate it. The question is whether the audience that will is large enough to entertain, and whether the backlash from the rest of the audience counters that benefit.
It's not a 4/4 vigilance for 3 mana though. It's a Gray Ogre on turns 3 and 4, then a 3/3 vigilance on turns 5 and 6, then a 4/4 vigilance forced attacker on turn 7, which gives the opponent plenty of time to play something(s) that can eat it in combat. Given that this card isn't particularly impressive at any point on the curve, seeing an additional late-stage drawback not on the rest of the card is really off-putting.
DeleteThe solution to my particular complaint is to make the early level versions ramp up in power faster, so you can try to end the game before the drawback comes into effect (e.g. 3/3 vanilla; 4/4 vigilance; 4/4 vigilance w/drawback) but that might result in 1) format speed being too quick and 2) more of a sense of dread than progress.
I think there's a lot of variation in what counts as a "downside". Eg. "large mana cost" or "card disadvantage" are downsides, which is why spike often hates expensive cards and auras, because the downside often gets in the way of winning the game. But Timmy/Tammy often loves those cards, because the downsides are all worst cases that might not come up, but they're awesome when they work.
DeleteBut when we SAY downside we often mean something that LOOKS like a downside, something Timmy/Tammy doesn't like, like lifeloss or echo.
And most players are somewhere between those extremes. But the reason I'm saying this is that I don't like _mandatory_ downsides, like repeated lifeloss, because they're scary (although I'm willing to take the chance if it's the best card). But I do like downsides which don't affect my gameplan -- eg. "must attack if able" on cards where I WANT to attack with them.
So I agree with the principle that, in general, you avoid downsides, but I think there's some downsides that don't look like downsides that might be ok (although I don't know if we can think of enough of them). As I said in my earlier comment, I think that auto-level is mandatory isn't necessary, I think even if it was optional you'd have the flavour of the creature WANTING to level up, and you having to hold it back (if you wanted the option to not attack).
I don't like that the drawback keys off an easy to miss trigger open to gaming the Judge system by the opponent.
ReplyDeleteI emphatically detest the current tournament rules around triggers. They are the least sportsmanlike they've ever been.
DeleteI really like the gameplay of Self-Leveling, and I love the flavor of the top-end - but I'm going to agree that the downside just muddles the positive feelings of 'maxing it out'.
ReplyDeleteMy question is - can we capture the feeling of an 'errant machine' without using a downside? A machine that wants something other than what you want, and acts independently?
I agree that mandatory triggered abilities are a good way to capture 'competing interests'. But the difference I propose is that we do so by having a negative trigger create a positive result - it'll feel like the creature is still wanting something that you don't want, but in this case it'll give you good gameplay still.
For some example triggers: "Whenever you lose life", "Whenever you're attacked", "Whenever a creature you control dies", and so on.
Is there enough design space in this idea? Does it really capture the same flavor? What do you guys think?
I feel like you're onto something here, but I'm not quite grokking it enough to design around it. Can you share a complete example?
DeleteSure. I'll just re-use the designs from the OP, but with my changes. Note that these are NOT balanced at all - I'm just showing off a potential trigger.
DeleteMagcore Sentry {3}
Artifact Creature - Rebel Construct
Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.)
2/2
---------------------
[Level 2-3] Vigilance
3/3
---------------------
[Level 4+] Vigilance
Whenever a creature you control is destroyed, put a +1/+1 counter on Magcore Sentry.
4/4
Geistbond Reaver {1}{B}
Artifact Creature - Spirit
Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.)
1/2
---------------------
[Level 2-3]
Deathtouch
2/3
---------------------
[Level 4+]
Deathtouch
Whenever you are dealt damage, put a +1/+1 counter on Geistbond Reaver.
3/4
So, as you can see, they each get 'stronger' from a negative that you suffer. It feels like they're profiting from your loss, but without the negative gameplay.
There are a few problems here, though. One, how many negative effects can we think of? And two, how many 'profiting' effects can we think of? If we can't think of enough of either - and, importantly, if we can't make this doable at common - then this isn't a viable choice.
My biggest concern is that we might end up with some Odyssey-esque gameplay where your opponent doesn't want to use their Lava Spikes because they'll help you and you want to Lava Spike yourself. That's cool for Spike, but Tammy's not so happy.
DeleteThinking about potential upsides that feel like having their own prerogative:
"If ~ would deal combat damage to a player who controls a creature, it fights a random creature they control instead."
"Whenever one or more creatures with less power than ~ attack you or a planeswalker you control while ~ is tapped, untap it. It blocks one of them."
"At the beginning of combat on your turn flip a coin. If it's a heads, ~ gains trample until end of turn. If it's tails, it gains vigilance until end of turn."
Another option is to tie it in to the level up. What if it was a trigger "at the beginning of your upkeep tap two untapped lands you control". Then it would normally level itself up, but at max level it would keep using your resources for no benefit.
I really like Inanimate's approach here. It's an upside mechanic that still feels like your own card "wants to hurt you" or at least wants things that you don't want.
DeleteI do like Jules's first couple of options too. But I'm not sure the concerns about Tammy using her Lava Spikes are necessarily a problem. How many sets even contain Lava Spike these days anyway? If we do decide we want one, we could hide it in a lenticular way on a card like Keldon Marauders.
I like both sets of options better than Geistbond Reaver's model.
Deleteat final level, do something with the extra free counters each upkeep.
ReplyDelete"Level 4+: If you would put a level counter on it, ."
...effect instead."
DeleteCan that "something" capture a feel of the machine having its own desires or its own agenda, though?
DeleteI like this idea at uncommon and above.
DeleteMagcore Sentry {3}
Artifact Creature - Rebel Construct
Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.)
2/2
---------------------
[Level 2-3] Vigilance
3/3
---------------------
[Level 4+] Vigilance
~ must attack each turn if able.
~ has p/t equal to the number of level counters on it.
*/*
I like this idea at uncommon and above.
Bionanites {3}
Artifact
Self-Leveling (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a level counter on this.)
{1}, {T}: Gain 1 life.
---------------------
[Level 2-3] {2}, {T}: Gain 2 life.
---------------------
[Level 4+]
{3}, {T}: Gain X life, where X is the number of level counters on ~.
I'm smitten with this, but I agree that it could stand to be refined. (I'm not sold on the leveling frame. By looking as complicated as it does leveling detracts from the aesthetics)
ReplyDeleteCan't this be handled with +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters?
Fission golem 3
Art cre- golem
Momentum (upkeep: put a +1/+1 on this.)
Remove X +1/+1 counters from this: add X to your mana pool.
1/1
Fission golem 3
Art cre- golem
Reactor 3 (this etb with 3 -1/-1 counters on it. During your upkeep you may remove one.)
If there are two or fewer -1/-1 counters on this it has vigilance.
If there are no -1/-1 counters on this it has trample.
4/4
-backwards compatibile with tons of effects
- uses standard card frame
- all forced bookkeeping is relevant at all times or shuts off
- +1/+1 version appears to have "unlimited upside with no downside"
-1/-1 version is flashy because it looks under costed. Power/toughness > cost
This is a very stimulating concept.
I'm not a huge fan of the level up mechanic, mostly from a form factor place. The cards are just incredibly busy, and mostly could work by just adding +1/+1 counters or whatever. That said, it's an interesting space to design.
ReplyDeleteI would still try to make these into draw triggers. Having them trigger off drawing a card plays into the "research makes them better" theme and gives players more flexibility about how quickly they can work without defaulting back to proliferate.