Classic Card Game - Page 18

Cetellic · #**256** 05-08-2009, 04:15 AM

Guess I can agree to that

BlackSolider · #**257** 05-08-2009, 04:22 AM

A 5 point booster might still be needed once the game is changed(would need to test it first,) but we certainly don't need an all lvl 0 booster at 5 points.

Cetellic · #**258** 05-08-2009, 04:24 AM

I know, but people were like 10 point booster is FINE DONT CHANGE IT OMG!!! well, add a 5 point at lv0 (so it'd be worse then the 10), and call it a night, it'd be better then no 5 point at all. Making the 10 point into 5 points saves the day though.

BlackSolider · #**259** 05-08-2009, 04:28 AM

Wouldn't we have to drop the price of the 25 point if we changed the 5 to 10...

Cetellic · #**260** 05-08-2009, 07:32 AM

5 to 10? You must've meant 10 to 5. While I'd suggest lowering the others aswell just cause you change the price to one doesn't mean you have to do anything with the others.

TheDae · #**261** 05-08-2009, 08:13 AM

Why dont yov change the system so that if you want to buy a booster you must have a certain amount of gralats,tickets and points?

Luda · #**262** 05-08-2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDae

Why dont yov change the system so that if you want to buy a booster you must have a certain amount of gralats,tickets and points?

Night doesn't want it related to GC stuff

BlackSolider · #**263** 05-08-2009, 02:51 PM

@ clel.

Yeah ment 10 to 5, my bad. Well the gap between 5 and 25 is huge, so the plan of 'getting more cards into peoples hands quicker' would only work with the **** cards since all the others are still far away.

If we did bring it down to 5, we'd probably have to drop the 25 to 15 and the 40 to 30, or something along those lines, if the plan was to try to give players access to cards faster.

Cetellic · #**264** 05-09-2009, 10:52 AM

Ya it'd make more sense to do that which is why I suggested it...

BlackSolider · #**265** 05-09-2009, 02:41 PM

Cheaper boosters = maybe.

Cheaper 1st booster w/ all level 0s = no.

Cetellic · #**266** 05-09-2009, 10:08 PM

I dont care either way, if you guys dont see the point or logic then it would make sense not to do it, however a level 0 pack would be stupid compared to just a cheaper version of the 10 point pack. It's DC's project though not mine.

acaremon02 · #**267** 05-10-2009, 06:19 AM

Best solution imo is to have a single booster with 4 commons, 1 uncommon, 1 rare..
That way, EVERY player is given a chance.

Maybe add another, expensive booster with 3 commons, 2 uncommon, 1 rare for the advance players with more points. That way, we don't have to reset the card points already given out.

It's proven to work by every card game ever made. Why ditch a fail-safe method?

BlackSolider · #**268** 05-10-2009, 07:05 AM

I suggested that a while back, though I don't recall what DC or night thought about it.

Cetellic · #**269** 05-10-2009, 08:45 AM

Ya, I was under the impression that they couldnt force a random rare card into the booster for whatever reason. But that is a very obvious way to go.

Shadow87 · #**270** 05-10-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acaremon02

Best solution imo is to have a single booster with 4 commons, 1 uncommon, 1 rare..
That way, EVERY player is given a chance.

Maybe add another, expensive booster with 3 commons, 2 uncommon, 1 rare for the advance players with more points. That way, we don't have to reset the card points already given out.

It's proven to work by every card game ever made. Why ditch a fail-safe method?

Thats what it should have been, thats what all trading card games do usually. DC and Night were stubborn though and didn't want to do this i think i recall hearing. Either that or they had absolutely no idea how a trading card game of any sort works, because it kinda shows.