On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, comex wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> All right, I'm incorporating suggestions into the next full cards draft. >> Meanwhile, please comment on the following outline/proto for card types >> and gameplay balance (relative frequency etc.). Also suggest other card >> types, but I'm not inclined to have # of types explode in first >> implementation. > > Why? A large amount of types is what makes it fun.
1. Just want to do basics for the first proposal so that people don't vote up and down based on a few cards they might not like, to make sure a card we've never tried doesn't screw things up from the beginning, and so other players can propose expansion sets -- if past experience is any measure *that's* half the fun (debating expansion sets that is). In fact, once I've got the basic proposal in the queue no reason some expansion sets can't be submitted right away as companion proposals. 2. Last go-round (and with any tabletop card game IMO) there's a balance between "lots of card types" and "the basics don't come up often enough and it's all too random." There was definitely a time period where we all felt the latter last time around before the balance was changed a bit. But mostly right now reason 1. -G.
