Yu-Gi-Oh has a lot of this But I dont think any Magic cards have it unless they refer to a very specific card (legendary creatures or planeswalkers.) I want to see cards that reference the single words that appear in the names of multiple other cards.

Magic explicitly forbids this. You can refer to the whole name of a card only; because when translated they may not be the same ordering, or eve the same number of words. So it's been an explicit decision to not support this.

The equivalent of referring to parts of a card name is referring to a subtype. "Goblins you control gain +1/+1"

Un-sets, of course, get to break this rule.

So if you were to do this, the 'right' way would probably be to add a lot of subtypes to everything. But as MaRo has often bemoaned the fact that Fireball isn't a "Fire Sorcery" makes it very hard for them to do this retroactively.

There's also a good question of what this would actually gain you, which tribal and colour don't already give you. Is another dimension to consider spells through useful enough for the added complexity?

(The closest equivalent of what yugioh calls subtype is probably colour)

Well that was very dismissive. Magic may have explicitly forbid this but Magic also changes it's mind about a lot of shit and I've predicted the future before. What if we only did it with proper nouns like "Llanowar"?? Yu-Gi-Oh has Monster types like warrior, fiend or dragon but it also has a thing called Archetypes. The cards Archetype is always first in the name of the card like "Elemental HERO", "Red Eyes" or "Ancient Gear"

''Well that was very dismissive''

I didn't read Vitenka's comment like that. I mean no offense, but I think you should consider reading comments on this site as if they were written with good intentions. I think you might not have liked my comment on (((Frank, Max & Ian, Gourmet Chefs ♂️))) for this reason, which is why you said I 'made a fool out of myself'. Though, you've deleted that card and it's comments now.

You've mentioned getting headaches from making cards quite a few times, though that might have been metaphorical. If it's not, maybe you should consider taking things easier on yourself and others, we're all here to have fun, not get hostile.

Yeah sorry I just get tired of hearing everything I say is wrong all the time I guess I'm just too stupid

I don't think you're stupid. I understand that feeling though, when I started making cards what felt like all of them either got no comments, or someone saying I made a mistake.

I took the advice and kept going, because I wanted to learn more about design and to make high quality cards. If you feel that way too, then it's important that you recognize criticism on this site is very rarely ever against a card's creator, it's almost always about the card design.

If your goal isn't to learn more about Magic design, and you just want to make cards you enjoy (which is okay, too), then you could consider making your cardsets private (it's in the cardsets option page). Of course, only administrators would be able to see them, but it does give you a place to make cards 'in peace'.

Now, perhaps your comment was more about how you feel in real life, in which case, I can't offer any advice to you. I'm a 17 year old mess who knows nothing about anything (except Magic the Gathering and a few other games), but from what I've heard, talking to people is a good start.

Best wishes :)

Nah fuck that. I'm just gonna give up. Easier than trying to drill an original thought into these peoples heads. Goodbye.

Did I ever interact with this person? Who the heck are they?

Sounds like the site is better off without them.

@Froggy

I think feeling like you only get negative comments is a result of human nature. People are most likely to comment if 1) a design has glaring mistakes that they know how to "correct," or 2) a design is interesting, but has a slight issue they have advice about, or 3) a design is very cool and eye-catching. Cards that are fine, but not interesting, don't tend to draw comments.

Then there's the fact that we tend to remember negative things more prominently than positive, so all of the negative comments we receive tend to stand out more in our minds, in addition to being easier for commentators to make.

I say "negative comments," but I don't think most comments on this site are negative. In fact, such comments are very rare, though there's a few posters that come across that way for me. I think most people think of their criticism as positive, constructive, and informative. When I say something, at least, that's the intent.

Yeah. It seems like they took any critical response as a personal attack. A forum build around critiquing things is the absolute wrong place for them to be

@Link

I agree with everything you said. None of those things bother anymore now that I understand their purpose, and I don't really remember to what extent they used to bother me, probably not a lot (considering I stayed), but surprisingly, some old responses to criticism I left are borderline rude, which I strongly regret and apologize for.

(Admins feel free to remove any information on the user from this post if you don't want it here): The user who left the site was called James Goat (maybe was their real name). IIRC, he was pretty new to Multiverse. He made fairly decent cards and had good ideas, generally. He did have a few edgy/gross or dysfunctional cards, but seemed pretty nice in comments. I commented on a lot of his cards, because I was happy to see a new and prominent user join the site. I think dude1818's right about his response to criticism, but I also think he might have had some anxiety issues, from reading some of his comments (I have anxiety but I'm not a psychologist, so I just told him to take care, which is good advice for anyone).

In my comment above I was going to suggest downloading MSE instead of making his cardsets private, but I decided against saying that, as I didn't want him to leave the site, and I definitely didn't want him to feel pressured to quit by another user, in any way. But, I agree that if he didn't want critique, he was probably in the wrong place. Private cardsets on this site offer less features than MSE, while public cardsets still have fewer features but allow for more-rapid interaction and critiquing, which is their big plus. (Alex is awesome for coding/running this, I'm not putting down his work at all)

I love this site and plan on using it as long as it's running. It's very free of hostility, which is great for a creative environment. I think that user was slowly becoming hostile, so I'm grateful he decided to leave (though he could have as easily just taken a break) rather than drag anyone else down with him.

A bit of a shame, but there's not much that could have gone differently, let alone better. (besides him taking a deep breath, metaphorically).

Ironically, his idea about only using proper nouns for words mattering wasn't half bad, and I would have said so, too.

I do not beleive invoking the name-based archetypes of Yu-Gi-Oh would be good for Magic. Inspired designs based on creature types, sure, even choosing to diversify and create new creature types to do so. I personally don't like the name-based archetype of Yu-Gi-Oh. Perhaps it's my general disdain for the game, but it seems the archetypes of YGO exist to differentiate the decks, since there's no resource system like Magic. Also, the archetypes seem to get emphasis for a few sets, then disappear, only getting a new card or two if they're popular every few years to spice them up. Since Magic (currently) is constantly changing planes, a name-based archetype seems to make little sense to me.

Hm... I think you're right, actually.

I guess it's possible to do so, but there's no real benefit to the game for doing it, either.

I don't know much about yugioh (except that I had a really big collection when I was a wee one) but it's not very appealing, to me personally. I do have some fondness for a few cards (even though I don't know what they do), just because I used to watch them on the TV.

I really hate this idea (except for silver-bordered cards).

Card names should be mathematically only values that can be compared for equality and nothing else. (This also means changing the rules for implicit names of tokens; my own custom set has such a rule.)