Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vagrant

Is there a way that Locations/Battlegrounds could ever have worked?

15 posts in this topic

So we all know that in the old Score game the Battlegrounds/Locations introduced in the Androids set were problematic at best. Generally only City in Turmoil or Winter Countryside were ever used and you always had to keep them in mind when building. I think there's been enough former discussion that a loose concensus was that the card type didn't integrate well.

 

Had PanZ tried to introduce them, or if a theoretical 3rd revival ever does, is there any way they would work and be an engaging mechanic within the game instead of just being a handful of polarizing cards or was the idea mostly unworkable from the start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a fine card type and added a lot of interaction.  If they are added to Fan Z then the deck limit has to increase as you introduce new card types IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I kind of like the idea of putting it in there as an extension of Styles. So rather than have them be card types in the main deck, just make everyone put their arena to the side of the board at the start of the match, and then have conditions to "move the battle" to that location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar thought. It might be cool to do something like both players have 3 locations each (duplication probably allowed) and at the beginning of the game one (of the 6) is placed into play at random. The remaining locations would have their order randomized (but public knowledge since sleeving would probably ruin trying to keep it hidden anyways) and card effects could trigger a move to the next location. If you run out of locations then you're now in a null location (it would be cool to include card effects that trigger off the null location). Also the locations would be more like mp/mastery in that they wouldn't go towards deck count.

 

To be balanced the location effects would have to be not overtly powerful and effect both players equally. Otherwise this would introduce too much randomization to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be fine with adding Locations, but only as Planning Step cards like Setups, Drills, etc. Increase deck size to 70 with adding a new card type.

How could you interact with locations in Score? I'd rather they not be added as outside-your-deck cards. Expand normal card interactions to include Locations, you could just add discarding them to the crit damage effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually thinking about that with the idea of like "how to insert your location into the current game", and if you significantly weakened them compared to how they were before, you could probably do something like making a critical effect bringing in your own location (going with the idea of "out of main deck" cards).

I'm a bit iffy on putting them in the main deck just because it DOES require changing the deck size, and I feel like 60 is a really nice number. Games already can take hours, and get overly complicated, adding in too many extra layers would probably just serve to further kill the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. But maybe they're outside your deck, limit 1, but you get to select a few, like 3-4 different locations before the game, and card effects or crit effects allow you to make one of yours the "active" location, discarding any others that were in play, or switch a location you control with another one from your stack, etc. They'd have to be banished, though instead of discarded as putting them in your discard pile would allow you to rejuvenate them, which would defeat the purpose.

Denithan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I kind of think this is something that could be really easily tested by just taking some of the locations from Score's game and putting them to the side in their own area (like the Sensei deck). Obviously you'd be dodging the stronger ones, but the ease of access might actually buff the weaker ones to the point of being as useful.

So, idk, someone with access to the cards, or the Score Z image packs, go and test the idea and see if it works in principle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have had to think up new abilities. The only worthwhile ones got remade as Allies, Gohan and Nappa.

Also from my memory the problem with the card type is that it needed specific hate and didn't get enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Artificial Human said:

They would have had to think up new abilities. The only worthwhile ones got remade as Allies, Gohan and Nappa.

Also from my memory the problem with the card type is that it needed specific hate and didn't get enough.

 

This is why I say add them to the critical damage effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

 

This is why I say add them to the critical damage effects.

In that case how would they be different from allies with constant effects at all?

Artificial Human likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction, in my mind, is in how it interacts.

Just kind of looking at it from a board stand-point, I'd like to see locations implemented (if they must be) as singular cards that sit to the side of your Mastery facedown. Then, upon getting a Critical effect, you can flip it face-up. Make it so only one Location can be face-up at a time, so when your opponent flips theirs up, yours goes facedown.

And honestly, as I'm typing this, I have this ominous feeling already that this would be way too complicated for the game and would make things needlessly convoluted. But it gives you an idea of where my head is at with these. Especially if you set it up so the Critical Effect was just the final step in a collection of conditions for each given Location. So, you could have Locations that literally do nothing, but ONLY need a Critical Effect to go live, where you might have another that needs you to hit Critical Damage in life card damage, or that needs a certain number of cards to be banished for Endurance when you're hitting that critical. This way, you'd be able to spread out and decide if you want to counter other locations, or focus on a location yourself. It'd also give a bit more of a reason to use a Critical Effect when the opponent has no allies, dragon balls, or anger.

We could also make certain locations be Style specific (though, I'd rather that be an exception than a rule). So, it would differ from allies in that it gets brought onto the board differently, never goes to discard/banished, and is heavily limited to encourage more thorough decision making. You could also an Event or something that just turns Locations facedown (but removes your ability to flip up your own Location for a brief period).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, there's definitely some interesting ideas being bounced around here, having them as "side of game" cards like Masteries never occured to me. 

I think I'd like to have seen some ideas tested for PanZ or FanZ certainly, I'm less concerned with it making things convoluted than some, since I think this game is often a little too basic at times anyway.

Making sure that they differ enough from Allies/Drills to be justified is the sticking point I see. Invoking movement of some form would definitely make them stand apart, it's just whether the ideas would work cleanly I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlegrounds do not count against a deck limit. Each player can start the game with one battleground. Battlegrounds have effects not as powerful as old z but universal effects. At the start of the game, players randomly determine who gets to decide to either go first. The player that goes second gets to choose to either use their battleground or the opponent's. If your battleground is not chosen, its banished. Whenever a player deals critical damage, the battleground is destroyed (placed into the banished zone). If a battleground ends up in a life deck from a card effect, it's immediately banished. Card effects can play a battleground from a banished zone or swap the battlegrounds with an opponents. Battlegrounds constant effects are for both players.  Each player may use a battleground power once per turn.

Example Battlegrounds:

Gravity Chamber - Constant - Physical attacks cost +1 power stage. Your physical attacks do +1 Power stage of damage.

Hyperbolic Time Chamber - Constant: Whenever you are dealt life card damage, rejuvenate 1. If you do, your attacks do +1 power stage of damage for the remainder of combat.

Kami's Lookout - Constant: When entering combat as the defender, you may look at the top two cards of your life deck. If you do, choose one of those cards and place it on the bottom of your life deck.

City in Turmoil - Constant: To play a setup or drill, MPs must either pay 1 power stage or banish a card in their discard pile.

Cell's Arena - Power: Destroy the top 2 cards of your life deck to draw a card.

Namek in Ruins - Constant: You only need to deal 4 or more damage to deal critical damage. Players cannot rejuvenate.

Babadi's Spaceship - Constant: Whenever a player passes declaring combat, they destroy the top 2 cards of their life deck.

World Tournament - Ally powers cannot be used.

v3rse likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jarrett said:

Battlegrounds do not count against a deck limit. Each player can start the game with one battleground. Battlegrounds have effects not as powerful as old z but universal effects. At the start of the game, players randomly determine who gets to decide to either go first. The player that goes second gets to choose to either use their battleground or the opponent's. If your battleground is not chosen, its banished. Whenever a player deals critical damage, the battleground is destroyed (placed into the banished zone). If a battleground ends up in a life deck from a card effect, it's immediately banished. Card effects can play a battleground from a banished zone or swap the battlegrounds with an opponents. Battlegrounds constant effects are for both players.  Each player may use a battleground power once per turn.


Honestly, that strikes me as needlessly complex and giving way too much of an advantage to the player going second who can straight up decide which battleground to use. That would very easily, and very quickly, create just as much imbalance as was present in the old game (but at least they'd get used though, I suppose). Using your examples with the World Tournament, that could straight up kill a large number of decks (like Namekian Restored Gohan), and so long as you go second, your opponent has no chance to stop it. A card that can potentially give such a huge advantage in the early and late games shouldn't be just dropped into play without response, and I don't think there's a good balance where Battlegrounds are relevant and not unfair with that system in tow.

Honestly, with how you're working it there (with Battlegrounds not counting towards deck limit), just make them side of game cards. It's simpler, and then it becomes straight up impossible for them to be returned to your deck regardless and you don't need to explain that ruling of being banished when going to deck to newcomers. They'll learn about using Battlegrounds as they learn about MPs and Masteries, and you can use the exact same system only with flipping the card face-down instead of putting it into a banished zone (which also saves time digging through banished to get it out in the build up to the next game). With that proposed system, you'd need to create specific battleground support to grab them back from Banished anyway, so legitimately just make it flip up your or your opponent's battleground (with the ruling that face-down Battlegrounds are basically treated as "not on the field" and that only one can be face-up regardless). While you didn't really clarify, if you're intending it so that you can have multiple battlegrounds in your deck, then it would probably be better to go with ManOfTomorrow's idea where you have a collection of 3 (max) and put 1 forward for the current match at the start.

It should also be noted that it'd be best to make Battlegrounds optional to keep the current game state intact. Make it so if you rocked up without a Battleground, you can just use Critical Effects to knock out the opponent's and you're not forced to play to their advantage from the start (since people would 100% play Battlegrounds that just support their present strategy). Ultimately, I really do think that Battlegrounds should have conditions under which they can be used/brought into play, and make it something people need to work towards instead of just drop to the board. This would also make them distinct from drills, setups and allies; something you actually need to try and bring out. This would also give a mechanic through which you can balance battlegrounds; really overpowered ones could come with more extensive costs to play, and simpler ones like your Cell's Arena or Kami's Lookout could be on the simpler side (also, this means that you could just make it so if your opponent criticals your battleground out of play, you just need to meet the conditions of activation a second time to bring it back. Saves us making a LOT of support).

Vagrant likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0