I am really liking a lot of the improvements I've seen in the game since I've gotten into the beta, except this one. I think that the new art style of the tokens doesn't really fit with the art style of the rest of the game, and the new name sounds too generic to me. I liked that they were called talents I think that made sense and the way the tokens looked was good too (if anything they could have been recolored to make the progression more distinct).
I posted elsewhere that I liked this change - and I do like the artwork change. But I hadn't at that point noticed the name change - and I agree with you on that point emphatically. Tokens is very bland and flavourless - talents was a better name. Gray
Yeah, I definitely agree. The old style fit seamlessly in with the general theme; the new style seems like it would be a better fit for, say, a supers game
I would like to ask any of the the developers as to why they thought the name and art needed to be changed? I didn't see any polls asking if we the players wanted something different, so I assume it was an internal thing. There was one thread I saw about the talents that talked about wanting to change the shapes, that was the the most relevant one I could find, but it didn't really say much.
There were some occasional feedback about people not understanding the talent system, even missing items had talent req et c. I imagine this is in response to this.
I am all for visual and textual clarification of the game systems (it only makes the game more accessible). But I don't think the name change was necessary, and I don't think that using a style that clashes with the whole rest of the game just to make people notice it more should be the answer either. The artists for Blue Manchu rock! The the number one reason I wanted to play this game was the strong visual style, so this development really seems out of place to me.
For the "why rename" question: http://www.cardhunter.com/2012/03/borgo-the-talented Feedback since they first announced "talents" has been "Um, nice system, but since when is it a 'talent' system?" It sounds cool and all (and I like it too!), but most people think of talents as "skills and abilities you use" not "a cache of points that you invest." It requires a logical leap to get in there: "So I understand that my characters 'are talented,' and as they go up in level they become 'more talented,' and I can equip a certain amount of items within the limit of their 'talents.'" People don't automatically think that, and so "talent" could be misconstrued as just about anything. Did you see this thread, confusing "talents" for "types of equipment"? However, don't think for a minute that I like the name "power tokens." Ever played BioShock? During development, they created a machine and named it the "Plasmi-Quik": a thematically-appropriate name that fit within the game world. They then renamed it to "Gene Bank." The developers agreed that "Plasmi-Quik" was the better name, but it didn't matter: new gamers needed to understand what the thing DID, which "Gene Bank" told them. A big pile of complaints later, everyone played the game anyway. So, "power tokens." Easy to understand: "So these are tokens that I, what, exchange for powers or something? Oh, I spend them on weapons and skills and things that are powerful. Okay." Yes, I agree that the visuals look more like superhero symbols and could use revision. I also believe that they should indicate their power progression better: perhaps reinstating the shape variation, but basing power more directly on image complexity. (Hey, crabbadon, that was your thread: you seem to have a taste for visual communication.) I'm sure that the "superhero lightning bolt" on them is because they needed an immediate symbol for "power," and it probably won't change much. I mean, if they left the tokens blank, then there'd be no communication; if they used a fist or something, the visual wouldn't be as general-purpose. And, lastly, the vibrant colors are only as out-of-place as the title bars on cards: don't forget this is a game where we'll see vibrant green and purple title bars. I'd say revision is still needed, but revision within context.
Sir Knight: you make a lot of good points, so in order: 1) Naming. Okay, I can get behind power tokens instead of talents. I like talents and personally found them understandable, but you make a good point about communication and I feel like this is a basic matter of fact where what you really want is a focus group. (Actually I think 'power tokens' has exactly the same problem. I take it I trade these in for special powers, which are somehow different from the equipment? No? I think just plain 'equip tokens' might work best of all.) 2) I'm not at all sold that you need a symbol at all. Even if you do, because of the super connotations I'd steer clear of a lightning bolt; a star would seem more neutral to me. 3) Aha the vibrant colours though. I have two problems with the vibrant colours! One is that these vibrant colours are more intrusive - you see them much more often (whereas the vibrant colours set apart exceptionally high-power cards), and they're right there on your character sheet all the time. They also have that glass-gem-shine effect which again is at odds with the general design of the sheet. FINALLY the update has made them *less informative* - shape madness aside, the clear>bronze>silver>gold progression made sense. Now I have to check "wait, is blue or yellow better?" In general the renaming I am ambivalent about but the new symbols seem like a pure step back. I would go for something a little like one of the rows in the attachment> Row 1 is straight-up colour coding; row 2 uses splits to count level (I considered stars but 17x17 pixels is not enough to draw 3 stars in!) and row 3 uses shapes like the old system except obviously far more useful. All three rows replace clear with black, which is coherent with the card ratings. And thank you for the compliment on my taste
Thank you Sir Knight (I'm sure you get that all the time ) for your very informative post! I agree with your logic that this is a step in the direction of clarity, especially for new players, and I agree that there is room for revision (this is a beta after all). And the way we let the devs know what we think needs revision are these forums here! So I guess all I'm really saying is: "Give the tokens another revision, please!" edit: crabbadon, those are more good points! I hope that the devs put you suggestions under consideration.
I'd also like to chime in and say that I, too, am not a fan of the change. The new symbols are (imo) really ugly, and clash with CH's visual style. I don't really get how this is supposed to make it easier to understand their function, either. I mean, people who've played any sort of RPG before have a general idea of what the term "talent" means. They know that it's something that characters earn and can be used to improve their abilites. "Power Token", however, sounds like some sort of currency. I mean, yeah, some players didn't "get it", and there's been a handful of confused forum posts. But I don't understand how this change makes the talent system any more intuitive. If anything it makes it more confusing! If anything's to blame for players being confused about how talents work, it's the fact that it's explained through a dialogue prompt you only see once. Didn't understand it, or clicked through it impatiently/accidentally? Well, now you're doomed to never understand how the system works. If they wanted to eliminate confusion, they could put a box with reminder text on the screen where you equip your characters (below, or to the side, or w/e). It could have a picture of the talent progression (circle < square < triangle, etc) along with a few sentences on how talents work. I really hope this gets changed back - I really, really dislike the way the power tokens look.
actually I can definitely put in another word for being able to read back over dialogues because the NUMBER OF TIMES I have impatiently clicked my first card and missed a dialogue box, I mean, I'm crying here. ALSO I had the thought of possibly modelling the talents on those aquarium beads which tabletoppers seem to be getting super into using as tokens and markers now (and certain companies are putting into boxes, branding for tabletoppers and selling at a three trillion percent markup). That would be another nice tie back to the hobby.
So, yeah, the reason we have been mucking around with this system is that new players were having trouble grasping what the system was about. It's a fairly tough concept to sell visually as it doesn't have a direct parallel in traditional pen-and-paper RPGs. The old system we had was based around two concepts visually: 1. There was a progression that mirrored the card quality colouring, i.e. paper, bronze, silver and gold (though you guys were only seeing the first two of these so far). 2. There was an additional shape progression based around a progression from circles to stars. What we were trying to focus on with this redesign was the notion of increasing power as the token get better. The idea we have is to have the colours of the tokens get hotter as they improve in power. To give you some context, here's the full range: Minor power token: Major power token: Great power token: Ultimate power token: I think one problem might be that the blue token and yellow tokens together doesn't convey any sense of this progression. We might try shifting the range a bit and not using the blue one at all. As for the talent/power token name issue, it's a hotly debated topic . I was a big fan of the "talent" name, but I'm hoping the notion of "power" will convey some aspects of how these things work better (i.e. that they get better, that you use them up to equip things and possibly even that you can use a better one in place of a worse one). We do want to hear what you think and this system may keep changing in response to your feedback and also what new players think.
The problem with "talent," Neofalcon, is the very fact that gamers DO have expectations for the word, little of which connects to the thing in question. As Jon says, these . . . things do not fit into common gaming parlance. As far as I can tell, it's a "meta plane" above normal systems. It's not a "level restriction system": if we took a normal level system and applied it to "talent" parlance, then you personally would be "silver level" or "gold level" and could therefore equip all "silver" or "gold" equipment. Instead, it's a sort of "malleable level restriction system," where you have a stockpile of "silver" or "gold" and may choose to be, say, "gold level" in weapons but "silver level" in armor. It's like . . . "level tokens," or "level chits," or "equip levels," or "equip power," or something. There are a bunch of options, but some of those phrases are too abstract to work: c'mon, how do you hand somebody a "level" to "equip"?
I'm not sure about the name, but I can make some suggestions about the visual communication. Right now, you mouse-over an item in your inventory, and it's got a couple of the power symbols attached to it, and then you drop it into place, and the power symbols fly off from under your character next to the item. Visually, it's pretty close to the opposite of what's actually happening. Equipment doesn't "have" power symbols, it has a requirement for them. It would seem a lot more natural if the equipment had slots or gaps, and these are filled by the power symbols. There are also empty slots next to everything - 2 next to weapons, and 1 next to everything else. I get why there are 2 and 1, but all those gaps are misleading. You can see those empty slots literally where you don't need to put a gem. I don't know what they should be called, but the system would be a lot easier to understand if the gear had some affordance that the tokens filled.
I actually like 'power token' better than the old 'talent'. But yeah, visually they don't currently work as well the old ones.
I was always under the impression that talents were shaped for the color-blind. Personally, I don't agree with the whole 'tough concept to sell visually' thingy or the 'malleable level restriction system'. Its more of re-inventing the wheel, imo. There are already games out there that use identical resource restriction systems. My suggestion is to do away with the whole animation of pips flying around the screen and revert to old-fashion radio-button indicators. Example of using simple radiobuttons to show items equipped The question is whether there is available on-screen real-estate to fit these in.
I have to say the low-level powers are visually confusing. The lightning bolts look a lot better with that full progression, I'll admit, but I literally did not see that there was a difference between the logo for blue and yellow until I saw the full progression. I think the lightning bolt progression overall is a nice clear representation of increasing power; the problem is you want any visual confusion to happen at the top of the scale, not the bottom! The blue looks poor in context, being the only cool colour. Unfortunately our cultural perception of colour has yellow, orange and red categories so a fourth colour is tricky and I do not envy your graphics design choices.
Oh? Can you name one? Because, of course, there are tons of games that use "resource restriction systems," but I went through all that essay to explain how very different this one is. After years of gamers getting used to "level restrictions," this game doesn't have any, and that startles new players (e.g., here). This particular resource is kinda weird, being an alternate take on level restrictions, and it doesn't have a standard system for expressing it in the gaming world. As far as I know. You could prove me wrong in an instant. But if you do, then that would be very helpful for figuring out how best to represent the resource here.
Alright, I spent a lot of time last night mulling this thing over and I have two main points to add to this discussion. One is a suggestion and the other is a comment on game design in general. My suggestion is to call them 'Proficiency Tokens (or Badges?) There would be four different ranks and as you level up your adventurer you become more proficient and gain more or higher ranks of the Tokens. The ranks would be called : Novice Apprentice Expert Master This is the best idea that I could come up with but I still think that using the word 'Talent' was better. My second point on game design has to do with the games Card hunter pays homage to. That is namely Dungeons & Dragons and Magic the Gathering. These are complicated games and when I was learning them I read, or had the rules explained to me many, many times before I felt like I understood them. And I still go over the rules again every once in a while to refresh my memory. I think this bares repeating: If I forget some of the rules in card hunter I should be able to look them up in a rule book that is part of the game or maybe I would be able to ask Gary a question and he could explain it to me again.
