Hearthstone
The Best Deals Anywhere - Card Design Competition Discussion Thread
Submitted 3 years, 4 months ago by
ShadowsOfSense
Competition Theme: The Best Deals Anywhere
We're looking for some fantastic deals this week, so make sure your card has some resale value!
- You must create a card with Tradeable, or that synergises with the Tradeable mechanic
- We're looking for direct synergies like Auctioneer Jaxon, not something more tangential
This week, anchorm4n wants us to trade in Blizzard's designs for our own for the new expansion - what a deal!
As always, I can be reached through Discord or here on the site via PM if you have any issues to report.
Competition Phases
Here are the phases of this card design competition
- Submission Phase: Starts on Mon, Jul 26 17:00 EDT (GMT -0400). Runs until Sat, Jul 31 17:00 EDT (GMT -0400)
- Voting Phase: Starts on Sat, Jul 31 17:00 EDT (GMT -0400). Runs until Sun, Aug 1 16:00 EDT (GMT -0400)
- Finalist Phase: Starts on Sun, Aug 1 17:00 EDT (GMT -0400). Runs until Mon, Aug 2 17:00 EDT (GMT -0400)
- Winner Selected: After finalist voting concludes and we validate votes.
Discussion Thread Rules
No thread rules were added to this season. Please populate and manually edit this thread with them.
Leave a Comment
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.
Competition Theme: The Best Deals Anywhere
We're looking for some fantastic deals this week, so make sure your card has some resale value!
This week, anchorm4n wants us to trade in Blizzard's designs for our own for the new expansion - what a deal!
As always, I can be reached through Discord or here on the site via PM if you have any issues to report.
Competition Phases
Here are the phases of this card design competition
Discussion Thread Rules
No thread rules were added to this season. Please populate and manually edit this thread with them.
Welcome to the site!
I hope you like tinkering with new keywords as much as I do. We'll probably see what Blizzard has in store for us when it comes to Tradeable within the next 24 hours, so maybe someone will even predict an actual card :D
Here's what I've got in mind:
As it is, the card always deals as much damage as you have paid Mana for it (trades included). That makes it very versatile but also not overly strong. I wonder if I should make the buff it gets from trading a bit bigger. What do you think?
(I'll capitalize and embolden "Traded" in my next version, this card was created before Auctioneer Jaxon was revealed.)
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
I started at "Tradeable Hero card" and worked from there.
Unless you Trade it more than 5 times, you'll always pay 5 total mana for the Hero (the Cost of the card + the Cost of Trading). I wanted it to be more than just an Armor-bomb so I included a way to spend the Armor in the Hero Power.
First idea, purely by flavor.
I've been looking for a very specific artwork which features a dwarf with a weird parrot-like animal caged, but I coudn't find it. I think Cheese used that art a long while ago back in Hearthpwn.
First idea, more flavorful than anything but could lead to good combos. I might come up with something else after the rest of Stormwind is revealed and I know what I'm working with.
-Hordaki (rhymes with Mordecai)
Check out the Tactician custom class!
I've got a fairly simple idea for this one but hits a very nice flavor-spot:
Just need to get the balance right to make it unique enough from all the other bounce spells rogue has, and without overshadowing Sap or Shadowstep to much. Thoughts on these two iterations?
Aside from the 'Rogue/Trading' joke of "Undercut", this should be reminiscent of having someone undercut your auctions and having to put them back up for a cheaper price.
Feedback:
@anchorm4n - An interesting idea that i quite like. it takes some work to make it an effective option for damage that the opponent can play around by pressuring you to use it as removal. Very hard to judge balance without playtesting but it's possible it should start at 0 damage ie. "Deal 1 damage for each time you've traded this".
@linkblade91 - A tradeable hero is a neat idea. The amount of armor gain might be an issue in some classes (rogue and mage spring to mind since they can draw through their deck fairly easily), otherwise it strikes me as balanced.
@Wailor - Nice, simple, flavourful. not much more to say about that. You're good to go with this one.
@Hordaki - A nice callback that isnt too on the nose in my opinion. My only concern is about what would happen with a certain density of tradeable cards allowing you to play an infinite amount of cards per turn. It's probably fine, but worth considering.
Trying hard to make not Rogue card and fail every time :) Hordaki was ahead of me with Galliwyx, so I needed to find another idea. And I come with these small tricky guys.
A few ideas to push the new keyword.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Magical Seed. 1 mana summon 2/2 Treant is already exist. But you also added new Trade mechanic. Now it can swap with a random card from your deck by paying 1 mana and also summon two 2/2 treants? Insane!
Bloodshard Satyr. "Paying a soul" flavour is interesting, but IMO this card not clearly represents this flavour.
Tipsi Wobblerune is interesting idea, but it's limitating Tradeable cards desing. What if they print a big tradeable rush minion? Just throw them into your deck, play Tipsi and swap these guys with each other to clear the board.
I managed to find the artwork. Turns out the animal wasn't a parrot, but a chameleon.
However, I'm not sure which art is better. The new one is better for the flavor, but the style isn't as appropriate for Hearthstone.
Anyway, feedback:
Flavor is hard to get if it's not expained, however (at least for a non-native speaker like myself)
Bloodshard Satyr has the issue of not fitting the expansion very much neither mechanically nor flavor-wise, while Tipsi Woblerune's gimmick is a bit strange and dangerous.
@Wailor - nothing wrong with the second art, as the game still has cards with art from WoW TCG. And the "Jack and the Beanstalk" reference was purely a coincidence, I forgot that tale even existed. :>
@R - No, you do not summon two 2/2 Treants when trading this card. Rather, you only summon one until you trade this card, and after that, you summon two.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Here's my first Idea:
Not sure about the Balance right now ... maybe it should be 6 Mana? Or Attack/Health weaker?
Challenge me ... when you're ready to duel a god!
Here's my card, long time since I last participated in one of these so hopefully the card is alright.
Feedback
anchorm4n
that against the card considering there's enough tangible differences to make it feel new. Solid stuff.
linkblade91
Wailor
Hordaki
Arkasaur
R
Neoguli
Not sure about it (english is not my first language) but shouldn't it be "Third-Eyed Agnes"? or even Three-Eyed ?
Challenge me ... when you're ready to duel a god!
The "third-eye" usually references the ability to have supernatural sight, not just a literal third eye ball. In arcanum and fiction this eye can be a literal eye on the forehead, or just an ability someone has which allows them to see or feel things others can not.
Third-Eye on Wikipedia
K, will be going with this card. Just asking about this version of formatting the text to avoid people being confused because of them thinking you can summon two 2/2 Treants at turn 1.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
https://c4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpaper/320/996/884/dwarf-hd-wallpaper-preview.jpg
this?
Cloth Merchant: The idea is that you're trading in materials and a gold, and he's giving you cloth armor in return. I initially wanted to do a full set of these for leather/mail/plate with increasing stats and more armor gain. Balance-wise, 3 armor might be too much and could be lowered to 2 or even 1 if need be. 1 would be a better fit most likely with 2/3/4 armor for leather/mail/plate, respectively.
Shadoweave Trainer: Deal 2 damage to a random enemy minion doesn't really feel like a Priest mechanic, but was the best fit for this card. (Note: Should be "... deal 2 damage to an enemy minion" in the card text). Name is open to be changed, considering Trainer>Trader to better fit the mechanic.
Frostweave Trainer: We saw Frostweave make an appearance in the Barrens Miniset with Frostweave Dungeoneer. This card makes use of Tradeable cards to Freeze your opponents minions. (Note: Should be "... Freeze an enemy minion" in the card text). Name is open to be changed, considering Trainer>Trader to better fit the mechanic.
Yes, that one. Thanks :)
Oh you already found it. I didn’t see it because I was at work. Anyway are cards that generate tradeable cards allowed?
I hope the flavor text isn't too confusing.
[ EDIT: I fixed the text. This should be clearer: 'Once each turn, you can Trade a Fire, Frost or Arcane spell for ones of both other schools.' ]
At first I had effectively the same thing cydonianknight did for Priest. It didn't really work for Mage anyway because it didn't reward you for running all three different spell schools rather than just two of them. With these changes it doesn't allow you to keep cycling through your deck and triple-school Mage gets extra value out of the effect.
I particularly like that you have to strategically think about which card you need least and which schools you could most profit from drawing.
Also, I promise I will keep it to two drafts max this time.
It took forever, but I finally got a card design that I liked.
She's got an important letter and it's only for your eyes to read. And then she's gotta go back out to make another delivery.
Feedback
I really like the flavor of Magical Seed although now that all the cards are revealed, I think it has too much overlap with Sow the Soil.
Bloodshard Satyr is a fine card in a vacuum, but I don't like that it's a dual-class card in a set that doesn't have any. By the time Year of the Phoenix rotates, it'll also (likely) be the only card in Standard that uses Soul Fragments.
Tipsi Wobblerune seems very weird. I'm not entirely sure how you'd get it to work from a UI perspective.
The text is a little bit confusing to read at first. You just have to take multiple readthroughs of it before you comfortably grasp what the card does. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good way to simplify the wording and keep it doing what you want it to do.
I do quite like the idea of this "Triple-school Mage" or whatever you would call it, so the general idea gets a thumbs up from me.
New plan! What do you think?
I do agree with Demonxz that my card might have tons of flavor, but could overlap with Sow the Soil, so I opted for this card. Keeps the similar mechanic of benefiting from Trading, but it's now in a different way by purposely destroying your weapon for a bonus effect, which I do think it's cool mechanically.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Sorry for the late feedback, I'm having a busy week. I gotta say I love the overall flavor of your cards, super cool finish of season 3 :)
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
@anchorm4n - That's how it works. Once the Durability goes to 0, you immediately trigger both the Battlecry and Deathrattle. While there isn't much else to do afterwards, I do not reckon Warlock wants to have Attack on weapons even if for thematic and "practical" reasons.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Thanks for all the feedback and positivity everyone! But to be clear, the idea of the effect is that if you trade, for example, a Frost spell, you would draw both a Fire AND Arcane spell in return (granted your deck contains at least one of each).
Similarly if your deck doesn't contain any Fire spells, trading a Frost spell would only return an Arcane spell.
And I would Imagine if you have no Fire and no Arcane spells in your deck, the Frost spells in your hand wouldn't show up as Tradeable at all (because your deck has nothing to give you for them).
I think trading one card for two would be a bit overpowered, especially as this singlehandedly tutors 2/3 pieces for the questline steps. If you really want to stick to that idea, I'd make it an Epic and reconsider the whole statline.
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
Off of Anchorm4n's feedback (with very good points), I did make an adjustment to the card. Slightly different stats and now has Rush.
Link to a Discussion Thread about suggestions for WCDC Season 4.
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
The way I see it, the Cost goes down because the Mech is depreciating in value - like a car - while the increased Armor is from all the add-ons people have attached to him over time. A gun-arm here, a jetpack there, etc.
That's my excuse, anyway: it's really about the gameplay. The Armor goes up to offset its lack of a Battlecry and to encourage you to Trade; the Cost goes down so the investment remains the same, and I thought that would be neat.
I could keep tinkering with it, or drop it altogether if people aren't satisfied. Edit: Here it is in Warrior form:
Good luck redrawing it in Warrior, though, especially if you Trade multiple times :(
I assume the "instead" means you always deal 4 damage: if you have the Armor, the game will spend it. Should encourage you to Trade for more Armor :)
Wednesday is my first day off in the weekly cycle, so my feedback usually has to wait until now. Apologies if you've already submitted by this time:
Demonxz95 - I like it a lot. The flavor is very on-point, and it pairs well with the handbuffing we've seen from FitB and now the Paladin set in UiS.
Neoguli - The art is great with the name, and it's a very interesting design. Instantly breaking your "weapon" would feel weird, but I understand why it functions like that. One problem I have is playing it on turn-1: the Battlecry would go off, giving you an immediate board of two 1/1s. Putrid Chalice + Coin + Putrid Chalice #2 would be six Imps on turn 1. In my opinion, it cannot remain at 1-mana.
R - Looks good, although there is seemingly zero reason to ever play it (unless you're desperate or your deck has run out). The mana cheating just seems more preferable.
AeroJulwin - Seems cool, but maybe too powerful? You're going up a card overall for just one mana, and this could make the Questline very consistent.
Lundy - I think "Trainer" is fine: you're paying for their service in the form of Trade. Gives them a different aspect to Trading besides the more-obvious merchant angle. In terms of UiS sets, Shadoweave is more on-point with the intended archetype than Frostweave (which, Questline aside, seems to be Fire and more Fire).
cydonianknight - I like this a lot. She encourages something different than all-Shadow, bucking against the intended archetype a bit, but there's something cool about the flavor of switching between forms constantly.
FieselFitz - I think the stats are fine, to be honest. Not every Tradeable card in the game came with a lot of Tradeable flavor, but it's gonna hurt you regardless based on what I'm reading :(
Wailor - I definitely prefer the second art: the first one is rather messy. The card is fine; you should definitely play up its combination with Tavish Stormpike and Warsong Wrangler in your description, because those seem like the main reason to throw back a Beast.
Arkasaur - I would go with "(1) less". "(2) less" pushes you away from using it on an enemy minion, which halves the flexibility of the card. I think the card is cool and good-to-go otherwise.
Hordaki - He's expensive, but I understand why. Doesn't attach well with the SI:7 archetype, but who would have guessed that's where they were going with the Questline? Ultimately I think the card is good-to-go.
anchorm4n - This is Forbidden Flame with more steps, although you do get to cycle through your deck a bit. Not sure how I feel about it, but I think the fact that it can go face is what tips the scale for me in the negative. Also confused as-to how it would work with a second copy: do both copies keep track of the Trades together, or are they separate? The latter would make a mess of things, while the former might lead to 1-mana Pyroblasts.
@linkblade91 - the Durability loss part is not shared among copies of your cards. It was intended that you lose durability for the weapon you trade, not for all copies when you trade any of them.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Right, but that's not what I am saying. When you play the weapon the Battlecry triggers, and when you destroy the weapon (either via having no Durability, or by replacing it with another weapon), the Deathrattle goes off. One Battlecry + one Deathrattle + the second Battlecry = six Imps on turn 1 with the Coin. No Trading is required.
@anchorm4n
@linkblade91
@Wailor
@Hordaki
@Arkasaur
@R
@Neoguli
@FieselFitz
@cydonianknight
@Lundy
@AeroJulwin
@Demonxz95
Ok
That makes perfectly sense and adds a lot of flavor to the card. Make sure to point out these thoughts in the description box!
Regarding the class, I'm not sure if it is better in Warrior in order not to scare conservative voters or in Neutral where it's a better fit gameplay-wise, as you pointed out. When such difficulties arise, I usually say screw the voting results and go with the version I feel better with. Catering to your audience is one thing, but I'd never submit a card I don't like.
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
@linkblade - Ah, that way. Though, the way I see it is it being as much of a highroll like pre-nerf Gibberling was. Probably not fun to face and easier to pull off, but thanks for noting it out.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Whoops: I didn't think to do that, and I submitted the Warrior version because I got scared off of going Neutral. I'm always concerned when I start to talk a lot in the description box: is that hurting me somehow, because people don't want to read that? I don't know. I was probably overthinking it, as I am want to do.
Some very late feedback and opinion on some cards already submitted.
The new card is a bit weird and convoluted, especially considering the fact that it can't lose Durability once it has been equiped. It also sort of collides with Runed Mithril Rod, which is Warlock's profession tool (which again, is not a big deal IMO, but also defeats the whole point of not using Magical Seed.
That said, the main issue I have with this card is that its effect is not very clear at first glance. I think you would've benefited from explicitly referencing Arcane, Fire and Frost instead of wording it in a generic way. Finally, I would've probably made it an Epic, because the effect is quite complex (rarity is about complexity, not about power, except in the case of Legendaries who are allowed to be a bit OP sometimes).
@Wailor - thanks for your kind words, but I do like to stand out, so I was ready to discard Magical Seed itself, but not give up on the similar mechanic, as it was already standing out. I'll see if it will pan out, it will be up on me.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
Ok i guess i have to rework my card are little - overall it is fine but a few people said it has not enough Tradeable flavour.
I mean the OP said:
You must create a card with Tradeable, or that synergises with the Tradeable mechanic
I mean it is a Tradeable card - the OP said make this or that not both ... but i guess if it will hurt my rating im going to rework it.
Edit:
Here is my first rework:
Hopefully it now has enough Tradeable Flavour :) - even tough im not sure if it is not too strong now - maybe get rid of the Immune? ... also had the Idea that whenever this gets traded that the Attack will increase or something like that.
Challenge me ... when you're ready to duel a god!
Feedback for FieselFitz
The issue I see with the new version is the exact opposite: it doesn't have any value to play. Who would want a 5-cost 4/4 if you can get a different card AND Attack/Immunity for the turn for only 1 Mana instead?
I hope this explanation helps you with your final design. I think you're on to something!
That's not what I meant by "Tradeable flavor". What I mean by "Tradeable flavor" is that most cards with Tradeable represent some aspect of acquisition whether it be something that acquire (such as Heavy Plate, Fire Sale, or Imported Tarantula) or a person that you acquire the item from (such as Impatient Shopkeep, Persistent Peddler, or Shady Bartender). Some of these are a little bit more broad when it comes to their theme of acquisition like City Tax or Overdraft, but the flavor idea is still there. You can argue some exceptions may exist, but for the most part, Tradeable cards all share this style of flavor.
Your card lacks Tradeable flavor because it doesn't have the flavor of acquisition that existing Tradeable cards have. It's not an item or service to buy, or a person who would offer that item or service. It's just a big hulking demon. Is he going to trade his axe with you? Is that why your hero gets the +1 Attack from when you Trade him? I could reasonably buy that, but the general flavor of the card doesn't make this too apparent. It would do a better job if the card had different art or even just a different name to suggest that he's a demonic ally who can trade weapons with you.
And I also agree with AeroJulwin. Another problem with the card is that the only reason you'd ever use it is just to use its on-Trade effect since you would never want to play a 5 mana 4/4 with no other effect. I like Tradeable cards that have a bonus effect when Traded, but there should probably also be a reason to actually play the card as opposed to just using it for trading.
Ah ok, now i know what you mean - thanks for the clarification!
Made a new one because i couldn't think of a suitable rework right now.
I think this is way more flavourful for the Keyword Tradeable - and hopefully balanced :)
Challenge me ... when you're ready to duel a god!
Good luck to the finalists!
Congrats Lundy!
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
Congrats to Lundy !
Challenge me ... when you're ready to duel a god!
Thanks, good to finally win one. Looking forward to competing more next season!
And a very well deserved one, IMO.
Is there not going to be a prompt for this week?
Each season of these competitions has been 20 weeks long. Unfortunately this was the 20th week, therefore meaning we're gonna have to wait until season 4. I don't know when that will be, but I'm looking forward to it whenever it comes around.
EDIT: Forgot to say, congratulations Lundy! Well deserved winner.
A (late) congratulations to Lundy! Also yes, this was the end of Season 3. We'll be back eventually, so keep your eyes peeled for more details :)
If you would like to provide some feedback regarding how we operate the voting system or anything else, leave a comment in anchorm4n's thread.