DustenStein 9 months ago But I apologise for saying it was weird at 2 mana. Not saying it's not weird now but you got that right so good on you
DustenStein 9 months ago Prepaying the 2 mana adds the choice and difference between "two cards but you have to order them" that I was having trouble with getting cool with
MonkeDrip#1456 9 months ago Woah, this!
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago You are making my kind of sense :)
Caesar (4.1)2 years ago Yes, but also no...this removes card order but introduces a different kind of card order that I find very interesting...if I'm making sense xD :thinking:
DustenStein 2 years ago But that's the thing, isn't it? Removing card order removes an interesting aspect of the game. It's not always relevant but I feel like I'd miss its absence for sure
Caesar (4.1)2 years ago (*99% better I guess, if you don't want the AoE from Scorcher)
Oh and also, 2 mana totally makes sense to me: exactly for the very valid reasons already mentioned, but also because it's exactly a normal hero power of difference, which makes it more controllable and mana efficent
Caesar (4.1)2 years ago I mean, the card with Hustle is 100% better than the card without it, so giving you the choice if you have the mana feels more like the game mocking the player.
If you want the non-Hustle card, just spend your mana beforehand (if you can't spend the mana, then you'd better be happy with the "good" version of the card); the only undesirable plays are ones in which you need very specific ordering, which I can see only in fringe cases of removal or draw :thinking:
DustenStein 2 years ago I guess
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago But that's just a personal thing
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago Ah undesirable plays. You do have a point there. I still think you have a choice though, even in its current form. Really the reason I didn't like the choice idea was that I didn't want every single hustle card to feel like a choose one card but weird. I wanted something that could be easily played without constant choice boxes
DustenStein 2 years ago Let's say you have 6 mana, an enemy Teacher's Pet and a Flame Bolt and Second Flame in hand. You want to Hero Power, Flame Bolt on the 4/5 and deal 2 to whatever comes out of it but you can't
DustenStein 2 years ago I know you probably didn't see my comment before but Sneak is the least I'm concerned about. Stuff that has immediate impact like Flame Bolt or Mystery Box
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago I think making it chooseable would make it a more successful keyword for sure. I'm not sure if its unavoidable though?
For example, for spirited sneak, say you have that and a 2 mana card in your hand on turn 3. You can either just play sneak for 3 mana, or play the 2 mana card first and play the 1 mana 1/2.
DustenStein 2 years ago *when I say unavoidable, I mean that you could theoretically play around it but risk undesirable plays while doing so
DustenStein 2 years ago I'll be honest, keyword-wise, I'm not a fan of twinspell. While reborn is cool for Deathrattles and works well with the expansion theme, Twinspell is kind of neither here nor there. That said, Choose One is very cool. You give the player the choice to play either one or the other card for the same Cost and just running one card. Here, you do not have a choice. It's not even a soft deckbuilding condition as much as it is an unavoidable obstacle. I am leaning hard towards this being good if it was choosable
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago I was also considering whether there should be a choice or not. On the one hand, giving a choice is cool to make a keyword succeed. On the other hand, I feel that you CAN affect which version of the card you want to play by spending mana in other ways. For example, if you don't like Khan's hustle effect, you need to play a 2 or 3 mana card once you get to 10 mana.
This in my eyes make Hustle cards flexible, but impose a soft deckbuilding requirement. And I disagree with the idea that the keyword is bland. Choose One for example tries to work with undertuned effects with the upside of flexibility, and I think the variety of ways the keyword has been used don't make bland cards. Tradeable cards also can be seen as having '1 mana draw a card' stuck onto them, and they could also be seen as samey, but that doesn't make tradeable a bad keyword.
I'm trying to figure out why this keyword isn't interesting to you compared to say twinspell, reborn or Choose One, none of which are bad.
DustenStein 2 years ago It would be cool if you could choose not to spend the 2 extra mana though because I think I have identified my problem with this: Since this doesn't add a lot of interactivity and since both stages of the card need to be about equally powerful and fair, this feels kinda bland. Hustle cards are just 2 different cards in 1 which is maybe useful but not as interesting as a keyword should be
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago I know you aren't. I'm just giving my reasoning on why I think it being specifically 2 is defensible.
DustenStein 2 years ago I'm not saying it should be 1. 2 is just weird
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago 1 mana vs 2 mana cards*
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago Hustle costing 1 more also makes the unhustled and the hustled designs feel pretty samey. 2 gives the changes a chance for some more oomph. For example, the air around 1 mana and 3 mana cards are way different. 4 mana vs 6 mana? 7 mana vs 9 mana? Compare that with 1 mana vs 1 mana cards. 2 mana is the smallest mana change needed to make completely different feeling for cards without needing to make two different designs in one.
DustenStein 2 years ago I think 3 mana gain a full one would be balanced
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago I mean its wild growth.. And this is more flexible, so yes it powercreeps a bad card. But I don't think it derserves hate.
DustenStein 2 years ago 3 mana gain one empty one sucks
Spacetime04192 years ago Hustle being 2 makes more sense than people in here are making it seem. If it were just one, you’d have to increase the mana cost of the base card by 1 so that the hustle effect isn’t too strong. For example. 3 mana gain a mana crystal is fine, 4 mana gain 1 is horrible.
CakeIsGood 2 years ago @TheArcanist yes :snake:
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago @Dusten 1 is still a specific mana cost. It was Blizzards choice to make tradeable 1 mana. They could have made it 2, or 3 or whatever. I think other keywords inspired by tradeable won't be limited by the 1 mana rule.
I made hustle 2 is there because I feel like its the most interesting mana cost difference. Too high a difference between the initial card and the hustled version makes the card not feel cohesive. Too little a difference makes the keyword too difficult to use. That's why I like 2 as a cost for hustle.
DustenStein 2 years ago @sunbird Tradeable because 1 is the lowest amount of Mana possible
TheArcanist (4.4)2 years ago @CakeIsGood is that because of one of my cards?
biscoitao05052 years ago correction: why would you play overgrowth when gardening exists?
CakeIsGood 2 years ago am i the only one who cant see the barrack leader kahn art without getting sad?
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago Overgrowth will rotate, and it was a ridiculously powerful card. Gardening is less powerful, but it is more flexible.
TheNamelessTwo2 years ago Also, why would you play gardening when overgrowth exists?
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago Tradeable?
DustenStein 2 years ago afaik no other keyword has such a specific number
DustenStein 2 years ago 2 is oddly specific
sunbird1002 (creator)2 years ago Hustle(X) was another design I was thinking about, but I stuck with 2 because it simplifies the keyword, and there is still a variety of designs that can be explored with a difference of 2 mana.
I considered it like another custom keyword on this forum which was a 1 time effect when X is triggered. X could be playing a minion, or casting a spell, or controlling a minion with 7 health. Blizzard then released Spellburst, a far simpler version of the same effect.
Overall, the increase of cost by (2) is arbritary, but it simplifies the keyword, and I feel that a variety of card designs can still be explored.
biscoitao05052 years ago it is like a offert, buy 3 for the price of 2
TheNamelessTwo2 years ago I feel like this could be a very interesting effect if it was Hustle (x), with x being the amount more that it costs, because 2 mana seems somewhat arbitrary.
But I apologise for saying it was weird at 2 mana. Not saying it's not weird now but you got that right so good on you
Prepaying the 2 mana adds the choice and difference between "two cards but you have to order them" that I was having trouble with getting cool with
Woah, this!
You are making my kind of sense :)
Yes, but also no...this removes card order but introduces a different kind of card order that I find very interesting...if I'm making sense xD :thinking:
But that's the thing, isn't it? Removing card order removes an interesting aspect of the game. It's not always relevant but I feel like I'd miss its absence for sure
(*99% better I guess, if you don't want the AoE from Scorcher)
Oh and also, 2 mana totally makes sense to me: exactly for the very valid reasons already mentioned, but also because it's exactly a normal hero power of difference, which makes it more controllable and mana efficent
I mean, the card with Hustle is 100% better than the card without it, so giving you the choice if you have the mana feels more like the game mocking the player.
If you want the non-Hustle card, just spend your mana beforehand (if you can't spend the mana, then you'd better be happy with the "good" version of the card); the only undesirable plays are ones in which you need very specific ordering, which I can see only in fringe cases of removal or draw :thinking:
I guess
But that's just a personal thing
Ah undesirable plays. You do have a point there. I still think you have a choice though, even in its current form. Really the reason I didn't like the choice idea was that I didn't want every single hustle card to feel like a choose one card but weird. I wanted something that could be easily played without constant choice boxes
Let's say you have 6 mana, an enemy Teacher's Pet and a Flame Bolt and Second Flame in hand. You want to Hero Power, Flame Bolt on the 4/5 and deal 2 to whatever comes out of it but you can't
I know you probably didn't see my comment before but Sneak is the least I'm concerned about. Stuff that has immediate impact like Flame Bolt or Mystery Box
I think making it chooseable would make it a more successful keyword for sure. I'm not sure if its unavoidable though?
For example, for spirited sneak, say you have that and a 2 mana card in your hand on turn 3. You can either just play sneak for 3 mana, or play the 2 mana card first and play the 1 mana 1/2.
*when I say unavoidable, I mean that you could theoretically play around it but risk undesirable plays while doing so
I'll be honest, keyword-wise, I'm not a fan of twinspell. While reborn is cool for Deathrattles and works well with the expansion theme, Twinspell is kind of neither here nor there. That said, Choose One is very cool. You give the player the choice to play either one or the other card for the same Cost and just running one card. Here, you do not have a choice. It's not even a soft deckbuilding condition as much as it is an unavoidable obstacle. I am leaning hard towards this being good if it was choosable
I was also considering whether there should be a choice or not. On the one hand, giving a choice is cool to make a keyword succeed. On the other hand, I feel that you CAN affect which version of the card you want to play by spending mana in other ways. For example, if you don't like Khan's hustle effect, you need to play a 2 or 3 mana card once you get to 10 mana.
This in my eyes make Hustle cards flexible, but impose a soft deckbuilding requirement. And I disagree with the idea that the keyword is bland. Choose One for example tries to work with undertuned effects with the upside of flexibility, and I think the variety of ways the keyword has been used don't make bland cards. Tradeable cards also can be seen as having '1 mana draw a card' stuck onto them, and they could also be seen as samey, but that doesn't make tradeable a bad keyword.
I'm trying to figure out why this keyword isn't interesting to you compared to say twinspell, reborn or Choose One, none of which are bad.
It would be cool if you could choose not to spend the 2 extra mana though because I think I have identified my problem with this: Since this doesn't add a lot of interactivity and since both stages of the card need to be about equally powerful and fair, this feels kinda bland. Hustle cards are just 2 different cards in 1 which is maybe useful but not as interesting as a keyword should be
I know you aren't. I'm just giving my reasoning on why I think it being specifically 2 is defensible.
I'm not saying it should be 1. 2 is just weird
1 mana vs 2 mana cards*
Hustle costing 1 more also makes the unhustled and the hustled designs feel pretty samey. 2 gives the changes a chance for some more oomph. For example, the air around 1 mana and 3 mana cards are way different. 4 mana vs 6 mana? 7 mana vs 9 mana? Compare that with 1 mana vs 1 mana cards. 2 mana is the smallest mana change needed to make completely different feeling for cards without needing to make two different designs in one.
I think 3 mana gain a full one would be balanced
I mean its wild growth.. And this is more flexible, so yes it powercreeps a bad card. But I don't think it derserves hate.
3 mana gain one empty one sucks
Hustle being 2 makes more sense than people in here are making it seem. If it were just one, you’d have to increase the mana cost of the base card by 1 so that the hustle effect isn’t too strong. For example. 3 mana gain a mana crystal is fine, 4 mana gain 1 is horrible.
@TheArcanist yes :snake:
@Dusten 1 is still a specific mana cost. It was Blizzards choice to make tradeable 1 mana. They could have made it 2, or 3 or whatever. I think other keywords inspired by tradeable won't be limited by the 1 mana rule.
I made hustle 2 is there because I feel like its the most interesting mana cost difference. Too high a difference between the initial card and the hustled version makes the card not feel cohesive. Too little a difference makes the keyword too difficult to use. That's why I like 2 as a cost for hustle.
@sunbird Tradeable because 1 is the lowest amount of Mana possible
@CakeIsGood is that because of one of my cards?
correction: why would you play overgrowth when gardening exists?
am i the only one who cant see the barrack leader kahn art without getting sad?
Overgrowth will rotate, and it was a ridiculously powerful card. Gardening is less powerful, but it is more flexible.
Also, why would you play gardening when overgrowth exists?
Tradeable?
afaik no other keyword has such a specific number
2 is oddly specific
Hustle(X) was another design I was thinking about, but I stuck with 2 because it simplifies the keyword, and there is still a variety of designs that can be explored with a difference of 2 mana.
I considered it like another custom keyword on this forum which was a 1 time effect when X is triggered. X could be playing a minion, or casting a spell, or controlling a minion with 7 health. Blizzard then released Spellburst, a far simpler version of the same effect.
Overall, the increase of cost by (2) is arbritary, but it simplifies the keyword, and I feel that a variety of card designs can still be explored.
it is like a offert, buy 3 for the price of 2
I feel like this could be a very interesting effect if it was Hustle (x), with x being the amount more that it costs, because 2 mana seems somewhat arbitrary.
why 2?
nice