ID:1407098
 Oct 26 2013, 7:34 pm (Edited on May 6 2020, 11:27 pm)
|
|||||||
| |||||||
Un-limit
| |||||||
mana in rpgs or only limited to the way you level or distribute stat points. its limited but not in a inhibiting way. limited mana make the decks unreliable,and make your game play predictable once a person sees your mana pool and monster types.
| |
a fire mage limits his self only to fire. limting mana makes it were no one can specialize.
| |
Yut Put wrote:
Every single player agrees with me Except me. Jaysogone wrote: mana in rpgs or only limited to the way you level or distribute stat points. its limited but not in a inhibiting way. limited mana make the decks unreliable,and make your game play predictable once a person sees your mana pool and monster types. Mp is a limit in practically every RPG ever. When you use a spell, it depletes, when you have none you cannot use spells. It's entire purpose is to limit the number of spells you can use. It's the same principal here. Mana is limited to prevent you from being able to spam a billion of whatever you want. | |
Views on the discussion (You can skip... turned out a bit lengthy)
Well, i for one don't really agree with YutPut, especially as his first post suggested that limits be removed from all mana cards in general bar the rainbow card, the reasons against this already being covered by you, and indeed it'd be too easy. However, i do understand/share, to a degree, the view that a maximum of 4 cards for each mana type can be too restrictive, especially considering the way that the deck's 'random' ordering doesn't often seem very convincing at all; you could have a combination of cards in your mana deck that you'd think would get you a fair amount of the primary/secondary types of mana that your game would make use of, even with tough draws, yet so often you'd get far too much of one without the other(s). If you wanted to employ the use of more than 2 types of mana (maybe you wanted to try having different angles/themes to a deck) you might then find the majority of your mana too often going towards the other mana and not the primary or secondary, despite them being represented in a significantly lower fraction of cards in comparison. In general this was and is most tedious when you are someone just coming into the game, learning the ropes and trying to adapt your mana deck in such a way as to enable you to battle to the best of your abilities, while not yet having any fancy support cards, nor a great range of combinations to work with in the mana cards. So as mentioned it's more of an inconvenience for new players, and the problem does/can ease up later on, particularly with the acquisition of a number of cards like: manacept, treasure chest (due to it's allowance for many useful combinations), and a collection of other cards/monsters with their useful effects. Once you've acquired a wider range of mana cards (e.g. that give 3 of one, 1 of the other), they can also help you to better tailor a mana deck that affects mana output closer to your liking. Suggestion 1: Anyway, my suggestions are these: you could perhaps raise the limit to 5 (maybe 6) in a deck per kind of mana card and in response add/further any current limitations to support cards (this is just because they, understandably, have no restrictions on the amount of times they can be played per turn). I would think that you could do this by applying an increase to all mana requirements as you saw fit, and then moreso to those of the game changing cards, or you could simply increase all requirements by 1 and instead further limit the amount of times such cards would be allowed in a deck to two, (meaning cards like manacept, treasure chest, 'spellbook..' cards -most of them anyway if i'm not mistaken on their effects- and so on would be affected). Suggestion 2: A second, perhaps less contentious, idea i'd propose would be to alter slightly how your random ordering system (i'll go with that) for the mana deck works, mainly in the area of how they get recycled; i think it would be interesting to have something in place where perhaps once a mana card(s) was/were drawn, you held them until after the next draw from the mana deck happened before funnelling them back in. The purpose of this would be to allow the way players select mana cards to have a more 'direct' impact in a game, because by having one or two cards temporarily absent during the next draw from the mana deck, a more expected/realistic mana output should be achieved, due to the greater fraction of the whole deck that each of the remaining mana groups would have for a short time. Explanation - | |
Suggestion 6:
Let the players decide the limit of manna cards before the duel. My $.02: It's true that manna is a limiting factor in any RPG, but I know from experience that limited energy games actually work. Just look at games like pokemon and MTG as an example for such. My style is not to have any restrictions and boundaries, and there's a law about marketing. You always give the people what they want, prudent or not. Fail this, you won't have a customer base in the first place. I also have an argument AGAINST limits. Even transcendence is technicly a limit, a limit of no llmit, as it's defined. The question really should be whether, like it or not, such limitations broken would affect the game in a way that destroys just how important tactics will play a role in the first place. I AM a tactician.... so the natural inclination in spite of the merits I see in this, is to raise the limits as too many are complaining - especially as too many energies will be unwieldy, and they all repeat anyhow in this game. That repeated energies factor makes it 80% irrelevant to increase the limits where I stand. Think of it as a gauge to indicate importance of certain energies. So... I would raise it to 5 normal, and 3 rainbow. | |
If I was to make it unlimited, I would just remove it because that would have exactly the same results.
Saying make mana unlimited, is like saying MP should be removed from RPGs because it limited how many spells you can cast. It exists for a reason. DEAL WITH IT.