Multiverse: Pyrulea: Recent Activity

2016-10-20 07:42:04: Gustostückerl commented on the cardset Pyrulea

It could actually be even more specific with regards to creature sizes, since there is a certain amount of creatures in every colour which we should keep in mind. A separate list where all possible creatures are kept could be made too for reference, but that's a lot of work.

2016-10-20 07:36:00: Gustostückerl edited Forgotten Foliage

2016-10-20 07:35:05: Gustostückerl edited Seeing Pool

2016-10-20 07:34:02: Gustostückerl edited Bank Entrance

2016-10-20 07:33:52: Gustostückerl commented on Bank Entrance

Enemy colours could be good too, maybe give them different triggers then? Right now they are kept generic, maybe a more specific trigger?

2016-10-20 07:32:02: TRicher commented on the cardset Pyrulea

The skeleton is there to give the set some form of structure. Ofc we could just make a number of commons and put them into the set based on what we feel is appropriate but that is just a mash of commons, slightly refined. If we know what we're looking for, we can get an idea of what else we need.

In the design process they usually start with just the skeleton and the make cards from there. We've kind of jumped then gun and just started designing them, which is fine to get ideas onto paper.

When designing cards lots of them wont make the final cut, and very few will go unchanged.

2016-10-20 07:31:02: Gustostückerl edited Plant Sanctuary:

added again "enters the battlefield tapped" and "untap", each end step

2016-10-20 07:28:59: Gustostückerl edited Temple Stairway

2016-10-20 07:27:41: Gustostückerl edited Seeing Pool

2016-10-20 07:27:29: Brainpolice commented on the cardset Pyrulea

Fair enough, if the skeleton is open to being altered a bit here and there.

2016-10-20 07:26:08: Gustostückerl edited Bank Entrance

2016-10-20 07:25:59: TRicher commented on the cardset Pyrulea

@Brainpolice Of course there is room for variance, the skeleton is just framework, if we feel like there should be another card in that slot then we can change it to what we feel it should be. Having a strict structure like that is something that is especailly true at common.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/nuts-bolts-design-skeleton-2010-02-15

Here MaRo talks about how wizards uses the design skeleton. The article is over 4 years old but that is the way that the commons are still designed as far as I'm aware. The spread of CMC that I used is something that I picked up from another set designer, and that is the gernal spread of creatures in white at common (treating the DFC as creatures as well).

2016-10-20 07:24:02: Gustostückerl edited Forgotten Foliage :

added again "enters the battlefield tapped" and "untap", removed 2nd "at the", "the endstep"-->each endstep

2016-10-20 07:21:21: TRicher deleted a comment on Pyrulea

2016-10-20 07:20:52: Gustostückerl edited Seeing Pool:

added again "enters the battlefield tapped" and "untap"

2016-10-20 07:20:21: DJK3654 commented on the cardset Pyrulea

@Brainpolice

Set skeletons usually do feature that much description. The thing is that it's just used to map out the spread of colors, mechanics and staple effects across the set regardless of the individual cards. The point being to provide an easy way of making decisions when filling out the file and a way of deciding what cards to design as the set progresses.

Which is to say that it's all flexible.

2016-10-20 07:18:57: TRicher commented on the cardset Pyrulea

2016-10-20 07:18:54: Gustostückerl edited Bank Entrance

2016-10-20 07:18:06: Gustostückerl edited Bank Entrance:

added again "enters the battlefield tapped" and "untap"

2016-10-20 07:04:38: Brainpolice commented on the cardset Pyrulea

Now that I'm seeing that the white common slots have all been filled in with an exact description for each slot, of an exact mana cost, an exact card type, an exact mechanic, and so on, I might have an objection or feel confused. Do we really need to fill in every single slot with exact requirements to that level of detail? I certainly see some need for balance and to logically lay things out, but I'm not sure things should be quite that prescribed in advance. Is that how it's inherently done? Since this is my very first time being involved in set design, I feel I don't know the answer to that but it is a bit counter-intuitive to me. The natural flow of card ideas we've been coming up with clashes with it. And while I understand that it's not all going to be "let the cards fall where they may", I'd think there should be room for flexibility and variance. The idea of every single slot in the skeleton having a detailed prescribed requirement feels a little confining to me, like it will rigidly dictate what cards we design.

2016-10-20 06:46:04: TRicher edited the details page Skeleton

2016-10-20 06:38:56: TRicher edited Chittering Outpost

2016-10-20 06:38:51: TRicher edited Foreboding Outpost

2016-10-20 06:38:41: TRicher edited Drizzling Outpost

2016-10-20 06:38:32: TRicher edited Drizzling Outpost

2016-10-20 06:38:19: TRicher edited Menacing Outpost

2016-10-20 06:38:07: TRicher edited Windswept Outpost

2016-10-20 06:36:51: TRicher edited the details page Skeleton

2016-10-20 06:32:55: TRicher edited Plant Sanctuary

2016-10-20 06:32:46: TRicher edited Temple Stairway