Less is more!

Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest MtGPQ General Discussion
1

I wonder if I’m spoiled having grown up in Scandinavia, but after just finishing Doomskars Claimant I really wish the developers knew how to incorporate a little bit of Scandinavian design into the development of MTGPQ.

For those who are unfamiliar with Scandinavian design, the primary characteristics are minimalism and functionality in order to achieve simple living. For more information see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_design

You may wonder; why am I bringing up SD in connection with MTGPQ. Well, to begin with I sure don’t see minimalism or functionality in an event where you have to stall your engine (like, by killing your own creatures) in order to achieve secondaries, particularly in a game where cascades are all to common and risk you lose a match.

Nor do I like the slow interface that comes from numerous flashy effects that are triggered endlessly.

Nor with the introduction of the glazed gems that results from being turned into a snow gem (I really wish you had made a design where the centre of the gem was the same, but the border was similar to the edges of snowflakes; or a snow gem had a different centre icon like a white snowflake).

Don’t get me wrong, I do like some things about the DC. I like how the event showcase the mechanism of Kaldheim, because I feel that Snow and Foretell really shines with the node rules you have added.
(side note - I didn’t play Kaldheim cards until this DC, because I didn’t have the mythic keycards in order to take advantage of snow and I thought both Boast and Foretell looked to slow in other events and I didn’t have the mythics to prove me wrong).
However I feel this showcase is bittersweet, because it seems that without those particular node rules all three mechanism will seem lacklustre in comparison. So when I play these mechanisms in other events, I know they will not be fantastic as in DC.

I also liked the prizes which was ok, not great but ok. (though I didn’t get a first prize)

(I might add more here later, if more comes to mind)…

So how would Scandinavian design translate into MTGPQ?
Well that is a though one, but you could start by redesigning the UI so that effects happen semi-simultaneously. Right now, you do it like this E1 (effect 1) completes with lines being drawn between support gems, PWs and/or creatures, then E2 completes in the same fashion, then E3 and so on and so. I propose you initiate the E1 effect and while completing the drawing of the effect, you start E2 shortly after, and then do the same with E3 and E4. In order to keep the user informed, you should aggregate the mana given, the damage dealt and the loyalty earned and so on and so on, next to each recipient and let that number fade out slowly. You will need order and colours to separate the individual effects, but that should be easy if you can implement the described interface.

Secondly, you need to reconsider your elaborate node rules. Yes, I know I wrote above that DC was good, but we don’t always have to have node with extremely complicated node supports. I’m sure it is fun to brainstorm this in the office, but could you try to remember “less is more”? In one event (I forget the name) you made a simple rule saying human creatures are not allowed, and it has a huge impact on deck design in this event. Similarly, once in a while you could make events where only mono coloured cards are allowed, or artifacts are banned.

Thirdly, you need to redesign/implement your code templates. My only explanation for the level of bugs in this game, is a lack of order and structure in the development department. So developers make basic coding mistake, because they have to reinvent the wheel again and again.

And finally, remember “less is more” in everything you implement in MTGPQ.

2

This post surely isn’t an example of Scandinavian minimalism, more or less.

3

@Asylamb - why do you post, if you have got nothing to add?

4

I guess the thing Asylamb added is humour.

I think “less is more” as a design principle is a good one to keep in mind, and I thought it was an interesting read. I think it can be taken too far though, and an example I’d give is way back when Apple made one-button mice without the ability to detect a right click. Mtgpq has a way to go before reaching that point though!

5

I agree regarding Doomskar Claimants, but it felt in some ways that the nodes were built to compensate for the set mechanics. They’re functional, but underwhelming. Even foretell, which I enjoy playing, requires you to bring in other cards to facilitate the mechanic.

Anyway, regarding node effects:

We’ve often made the joke that “Oktagon” should be a keyword where X is the number of sentences it takes to explain the card or effect.

Since match-3 is, at its heart, extremely simplistic, I understand why they try to introduce such complexity. They’re trying to create novelty and challenge. However, because of the state of gameplay, most of the time you can completely ignore the node effects, so it seems somewhat counterproductive, and I’d posit that most people don’t bother to build around node effects. Objectives are what drive deck design (in both good and bad ways.)

DC was somewhat unique in that there seemed to be a lot more synergy between nodes and objectives, which made it overall very enjoyable.

6

@madwren - I totally agree that match-3 is simplistic at its core! What I find so engaging and brilliant about MTGPQ is the joining of that simple mechanism with the huge complexity of the cards.

I suspect that if the secondaries hadn’t been included in events/matches, then the appeal would quickly fade, because the game would degenerate to a few power cards (as we have seen numerous times over the years). Standard/Legacy have similarly contributed to this variety.

You might have a point that with DC Oktagon have succeeded in creating better synergy between secondaries and node supports. I don’t know for sure. What I do know is my immediate reaction upon completion DC was “Done! Not an event they have to repeat anytime soon.”

I wrote my post (which will probably lead nowhere) out of frustration that Oktagon can’t seem to make even a single simple new event for every 4 super complex events (I would think they could easily swap these numbers, I.e. 4 simple for every one complex event). This is the feeling I’m left with, though the numbers might not be completely accurate.