|
Misc Customs Project Forum A subforum for all project based customs that generate numerous threads related to the same project. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
I'd like to join.(This is the 3rd thime I've said this, I'm beginning to feel like you don't like me)
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Quote:
btw: I probably won't be able to post my thoughts on our processes until sometime tomorow. I've used all my breaks at work already and I'm not getting home until late-ish tonight. I don't need no instructions to know how to rock.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Quote:
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Okay, Wulfhunter, I just sent you a PM asking to be let in. I am quite glad someone has the time/energy to start up this thread again, I thought it was going to crash and burn.
If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of congress? America is the only place in the world where a pizza delivery guy gets to your house faster than an ambulance. --NightSwipe-- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Well if we're going to start with guidelines, I've got some suggestions. The biggest problem I saw with the last thread was that people were too concerned with translating each pokemon in exacting detail from the games. I'd rather have a HS mini that feels like I'm using a Pikachu (for example) but still plays smoothly than worry with a lot of complicated new rules intended to mimic the video game. Things like switching out and evolution may need to fall by the wayside, though there may be a way to work with that.
First, a proposed guideline: -All special attacks/abilities should, when possible, use the names of moves in the video games (e.g. Thunder Wave, Psychic, Water Gun). General traits like Flying or Aquatic are acceptable. Second, a suggestion: -One of the big draws of Pokemon is the complex interaction between the different elements. One of the big draws of Heroscape is the simplicity and common-sense nature of gameplay. Obviously, these don't really mesh. Let's not go overboard on the resistance/weakness thing. It's ok if not every fire attack is stronger against a grass pokemon, for example. Finally, an idea: -Regarding Trainers: This one is inspired by the Stronghold cards from the Legend of the Five Rings CCG. The idea here is that each player starts the game with a Trainer card that represents him/her and gives some kind of bonus. So for example: Blaine Fire Affinity: Reduce the cost of Fire-type Pokemon in your army by 5 points. Ash Ketchum "I Choose You": Once per turn, instead of revealing an order marker, you may reveal the "X" marker instead and take a turn with the corresponding unit. Just a few things to get us started off... FiddlerJones Customs "I ended up with forty acres; I ended up with a broken fiddle -- And a broken laugh, and a thousand memories And not a single regret." |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Not exactly what I was going for since we still need group rules, but let's roll with it...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
These are some excellent ideas. I have a few of my own to share, and I encourage all of you to share as well. I would like to see the rules we will follow, the guidelines for card creation and the general card format discussion finished by next Friday. If we can do that, it will be a great start. More tomorrow. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Alright so as far as voting goes I would think a simple 2/3 or 3/4 majority would be a good amount to pass a unit from one stage to the next.
Basing our playtest requirements off of the C3G's, I think we can fairly safely cut the heavy hitter test down to three or four units, eliminate the squad test, and possibly even change the two army tests to be generic (I hadn't noticed before but it's interesting that they don't require testing against a mixed army like knights/4th which seems odd). For playtest results themselves I think we should require some amount of game description in the posts so that the individuals who can't/don't playtest a given unit can get an idea of how it performs. For design order I think we should follow the order in which people are listed in the first post allowing people to pass (moving on to the next member) if for some reason they don't have the ability to take their turn when it comes up. If we do incorporate this rule, I would change the rule requiring one design every two months to drop members after two consecutive passes. As a question to the other members, how do we want to handle the induction of new members after we've finished our initial "rush?" I'd be in favor of just stealing the C3G's method of nominating people that help out and puting it to a vote (either 2/3 or 3/4) by the existing members. I don't really have much more to say as far as administrative matters go (at least not that I can think of) when we move onto design guidelines I'm sure I'll end up writing a novel, but we're not quite there yet. Edit: apparently we are touching on design matters now so I'll say a little and write more tomorrow. On trainers: I like the idea but I think they should be kept out of the "classic compatible" standard rules (though we could put together some Coliseum scenarios that use trainers and mimic the feel of trainer vs. trainer battles more). But really before we get into anything that deep we have to decide whether or not we're designing to be compatible with classic scape, or if we're using the scape engine to create a stand alone game. Personally I'm inclined to design to be fully compatible with classic scape but to give the option of full pokescape (once we have some units out, basically this would be where we introduce the coliseum rules and probably trainers as well). Designing with classic scape heavily in mind does present some issues though. We would have to downplay type interactions, unless we wanted to issue errata for classic scape and require a number of reference sheets. If we limit ourselves to the big interactions (ground/flying, ghost/normal, or possibly even re-work the type charts so that each type is only strong against one other) we might be able to retain that metagame. We really need to have an answer to the bold question before we can go anywhere on any kind of design issues. I'm sure I'll have more to say tomorow. I don't need no instructions to know how to rock.
Last edited by Xn F M; April 10th, 2010 at 02:29 AM. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
I too am in favor of designing to be fully compatible with classic Heroscape, though I agree it makes type interactions tough. There's no reason we can't have the Trainers I suggested as an optional rule, too, so long as the pokemon themselves are fully compatible. 2/3 seems like a good number for a voting majority, and I agree with capping membership soon, and inducting new members based on their contribution.
Once we figure out procedure for voting and creating cards, there are some points we'll need to discuss before we get into making cards. These include (but are not limited to): -Evolution: Yes or No (and How)? -Trainers? -Types and Type Interaction -Status Effects? -Standardized Miniatures? (The Pokemon Trading Figure Game holds some possibilities here) -Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it) But that's all for after we establish our procedures. FiddlerJones Customs "I ended up with forty acres; I ended up with a broken fiddle -- And a broken laugh, and a thousand memories And not a single regret." |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Well, we do need to finalize the group rules before we get too far into design details....but since everyone else is sharing, I'll jump in too.
IMO, the cards we create should be fully compatible with classic scape. I want to be able to have Obi-Wan and Pikachu take on Venom and Venoc Vipers (or whatever combination). Basing it on the video games is fine as long as we don't dismiss attacks and abilities taken from the card game out of hand - espcially when we get to the point of creating glyphs. There are a lot of trainer cards like Potion, Full Heal, Gust of Wind,etc that could be really fun when translated to glyphs. Evolution. This seemed to be a real divider in the last thread. My proposal would be to first create cards for the different stages. Let's have Charmander, Charmeleon, and Charizard created that will work with Scape, then, again, down the road we can work on optional rules covering Evolution, Stadium cards, etc. Trainers. Again, seemed to be a divider in the original thread. Some wanted trainers as playable cards and some wanted trainers to be more of an unseen general. We can do both - not at the same time - but we can do both. Once we have a dozen or so Pokemon, IMO, we should make playable cards for some of the iconic Trainers - Ash, Misty, Brock, etc. All trainer bonding and synergies would be on these cards instead of the individual Pokemon. I picture their abilities being more of boosts to whatever Pokemon are in their army - maybe even a "Catch 'em All" kind of ability ala Mindshackle. Then down that same road again, when we start working on optional rules, we can create those generals. When we get into the design phase, we need to not let ourselves get carried away and try to jam every known ability that Blastoise or Bulbasaur has used. We don't need that. We need to pick 1-3 abilities or special attacks that capture the flavor of that Pokemon. Trainers, in either form, or glyphs can add extra attacks to our little monsters. Types are another issue we will have to hash out. I think we need to have the Type on our cards. I don't picture us having a lot of "Squirtle rolls 1 additional attack die against Fire Type Pokemon" but having the type on there will be beneficial when working on the Pokemon specific optional rules. Quote:
Man, I get wordy when I don't get enough sleep. To sum up, IMO, let's not limit Project Pokemon. We can make cards that any Scaper could use and a set of game mechanics only for the Pokefreaks (I may be a rusty Pokefreak, but I'm still a Pokefreak). |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
Well, if we're throwing around ideas...
On Trainers: I think the best way to incorporate Trainers would be as Kato Katsuro-style general-type figures (yes, actual figures) that offer bonuses and Order Marker flexibility to Pokemon (perhaps particular types of Pokemon). This would allow us to capture the personality/affinity of each Trainer and still remain inside the Heroscape system. On evolution: This one's a toughie, but I have a few ideas. One, we could use an ability like Bloodlust to have a Pokemon move off the field when it destroys a certain number of figures (experience; they even have Experience Markers for us already) and be replaced with their evolved form, as stated in the ability. (Perhaps a glyph could also induce early evolution.) Another idea would be to place an evolution chain at the bottom of the card (where the Super Strength symbol goes on Marvel cards, or the Flying symbol on C3G cards). This method would work the same as the first one, but it would save a lot of space on the card and allow for more abilities. Yet a third option (that seems quite practical) is to leave out evolution altogether - how often does one see a Pokemon evolve mid-battle? Certainly never in the games, though I think it might have happened a few times in the old TV show. One way or another, evolution's going to take some hammering out. On types/type interaction: I think the best way to deal with this (should we choose to include it at all) would be to simplify, replacing the 4x damage/2x damage/.5x damage/0x damage system with a simple 'roll extra defense against this type' or 'add one to your attack value when attacking this type.' As for how to determine type, there are a few ways I've come up with. One is to place type, as well as what it's strong against, down with the Super Strength symbol. This could work very well, creating a quick-reference system of identifying type. Another idea (though I don't know how many diehards will resent Pikachu not being listed as a Mouse) is to place type where Class is currently located on the card, and have and ability on the card (similar to Negative Element) that stated what type of Pokemon is affected by type interaction. However, this once again brings up the issue of space, so its success depends on the complexity/number of abilities on each Pokemon. That's all of my major ideas for now, save one. I have experience/skill with creating custom cards, and I've got a cool idea for Pokemon cards that frees us from the constraints of Classic- or Marvel-style cards. I was thinking of coloring the cards based on the Pokemon's type - for example, Blaziken would have red as the primary color (fire being his primary type) and brown as the secondary (as fighting is his secondary type). This would create an intuitive method of determining type for players already experienced in the strengths/weaknesses of different types, and would give each Pokemon the unique feel its type gives it. That's all for now. I hope my ideas are useful. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
I think I will wait to share my views until after this thread gets a bit more organized. Pass!
If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of congress? America is the only place in the world where a pizza delivery guy gets to your house faster than an ambulance. --NightSwipe-- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Project Pokemon Design Thread
I agree with Xn's comments, mostly because taking inspiration from C3G is probably the safest and most organized route we can take.
I'd also like to throw in my opinions on fiddlerjones's questions. Quote:
Funny, I haven't actually posted in the main forum for a while. Shame; I really need to get back into 'Scape. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ask the Design Team thread. | Onacara | HeroScape General Discussion | 1092 | November 12th, 2010 08:39 PM |
Pokemon Heroscape Project | Pumpkin_King | Custom Units & Army Cards | 14 | May 18th, 2009 03:30 PM |
Heroscape Storage (Concept Design Thread) | tyguy94920 | HeroScape General Discussion | 26 | February 18th, 2008 03:57 PM |
The Official Pokemon Thread | Hal0fan117 | Other Games | 1 | January 3rd, 2008 05:47 PM |
Pokémon Battle Revolution thread | STAROCEAN980 | Other Games | 4 | September 19th, 2007 06:35 PM |