This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles
I would keep everything in sections of the main page for now, and split them off into sub-pages as needed when they expand enough. It's easier to get people involved when they immediately see a main page of project details. Also helps keep discussions centralized. Equazcion•✗/C •02:56, 28 Feb 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, not bad at all. I like the idea of using article styles for the card design and a little legend that briefly describes the actual role at Wikipedia. ♠TomasBat19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I hope you guys get somewhere with this; I'm looking forward to templating me. And a note, even though I'm on here, the best way to contact me is still by posting in the thread for this at the MSE forums. Pichoro 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichoro (talk • contribs)
I prefer this design. YOWUZATalk 2 me!13:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned over there that we were still discussing rules systems, and he told me that it's best if the card frame represents the rules accurately (my guess is that it will then be easier to create the cards). He told me that it's best if we backburner the cardframe debate until rules are decided on. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to keep this page manageable and readable, I've moved each of the long rules proposals off to the subpages linked below. Feedback and discussions can (and probably should) continue here.Equazcion•✗/C •23:01, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Pretty good start, though it will obviously have to be expanded once the game has taken more shape. It seems to play a lot like Magic: The Gathering right now. You might want to deviate somewhat from that track. I'm assuming that we want this game to be unique and novel. -Kanogul(talk)17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that one of the goals should be to promote a collaborative spirit of gameplay, so that it doesn't send the wrong message (i.e. that Wikipedia's full of Snidely Whiplashes who'd slit their grandma's throat for a penny). Where does this fit in? -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bang! had several expansion, and I don't see any reason why this game couldn't likewise be expanded.
One of the great things in Bang! was that every place got (besides their role card) a special power card. Such as taking three cards at the start choosing two and then putting one back. Or getting the leftover cards of a killed player. Or being about to discard two cards for a health point. Or being able to hold up to 10 cards in your hand. Those with more powerful power got only three health point to start with. That could easily be added, and new powers can be at any time so long as they are not too powerful or too weak.
There was also an expansion that added different rules for every round. One round everyone got 3 cards to start, one round went around counter-clockwise, one round no one can play a "block", one round no one can play a "rfa" (increase health). One round the dead came back to life with three cards. There were many others and any amount could be added. In Bang! you could use any the amount of these card and the last one was always "players loose one life at the begining of their turn" this puts a time limit on the game.
There was also an expansion that added new types of cards. Some cards were very powerful but required the player to discard another card along with them to use them (give a health point to another player, block someone that require two unblocks to nullify, go up two health points ). There were also cards that stay in front of the players but took a round to activate. And there were also cards that did the same things as other cards but just had new names.
Also the game needn't be set in stone. If someone come up with a great card it can be added. If it is too powerful or upsets the "balance" of the game more filler cards can be added with it. Jon513 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that you want to creation of the game to be more cooperative.
Any game that has a winner is going to be competitive is some way. Though these rules are less competitive because there are teams (the founder and admins, the vandals; the rogue admin is always by himself) so you are more likely to win. In fact even if you are killed ("blocked") you can still win if your teammates win.
This is my favorite proposal so far. It will need to be developed more (like all the rest) before finaization. To me, they all still seem kind of stock- not too original. I haven't thought of anything spectacular to fix this yet, but any novelty will be an improvement as far as I'm concerned. -Kanogul(talk)18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor cards would be designed with three columns; a die of some sort (presumably 20-sided; they make them) goes on each column, and is rotated (easier to keep track of than counters). As for article points, you'd have tokens that match the color each article type, and replace the tokens when the article is promoted... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a really cool idea. Since this is a 52 card deck, we could also to the corner of the cards a suit and a number so the deck could be used regularly also. I have seen this done on professional games and it does not look weird and out of place. Jon513 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jon, and that is a good improvement. Custom cards are often printed in sheets of about 54, so I picked 52 to be flexible. My limited testing suggests that this size gives a reasonable duration and chance of winning. We can add extra link cards (Joker in corner) if the supplier's sheet is bigger than 52. Certes (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just a quick, undeveloped thought: editor cards (and/or article cards in the second version) could come color-coded, where each player has a color that he's trying to develop (the amount of articles of your color that get developed adds into your article score). some cards will have single colors (single purpose editors or specialty articles), some will have multiple colors (meaning you have to cooperate with others to get them developed) and some articles might have grey or black color tags, meaning that they need to be removed from play somehow, or they'll count against a player. --Ludwigs201:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, since multicolor cards force players to collaborate if they want more points (with single-color and grey/black colored cards both adding more spice to the game). Perhaps directly a whole new set of rules could be devised, being based mainly on this idea. ♠TomasBat21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. What is this game's resourse? For Magic, it is mana. Pokemon uses Engery cards. Bleach uses spiritral stuff, and Yugioh uses your actual monsters. Without a real resource, many high-powered cards can be played very early. My suggestion is this: a variation of build points used in one of the Star wars TCG. Every turn, you get one unit or "resourse". That's it. If we want to use chose User cards (in a way similar to Heroes in the Warcraft TCG), different users can generate different amounts of "resource". -Kingofsouls, 2:`8 PM, March 3rd.
Note that these proposed ideas are based off of the variant of the rules I've suggested; I can change them to suit if need be. No cards; I'm not that good with Photoshop and thus would need the MSE template.
Wikisloth
Editor
Requirements: None
~ cannot click for Actions.
Wikignome
Editor
Requirements: None
You may click ~ to prevent an opponent from deleting a rival's contribution.
Founder
Editor
Requirements: Steward, Bureaucrat
There may only be one Founder in play.
Click ~ to delete an Editor.
Broken Link
Edit
-200
Any rival beside you may click an Editor to negate this Edit.
Copyvio
Edit
-500
You cannot play Actions after you play ~.
Edit War
Action
Requirements: Click an Editor
Click one of a rival's Editors.
Featured Article
Edit
+500
All rivals beside you add 500 to their Contribution.
Off-Wiki Plot
Action
Requirements: Click two Editors
Divide your Contribution into two equal parts (edits-wise). Then, trade each half for half the Contributions of the rivals beside you.
Oversighter
Editor
Requirements: Administrator
Click ~ to remove a card in a Deletion Pile from the game.
Canvassing
Edit
-100
You can only use ~ on yourself.
You gain half the contributions earned from the next player's turn, to a maximum of 50 edits.
Wheel-Warring
Action
Requirements: Delete one of your Administrators
Rivals beside you cannot click Administrators on their next turns.
Administrative Rampage
Action
Requirements: Administrator
Delete all Editors. Founder and Bureaucrat are unaffected.
TOR Router
Editor
Requirements: None
When ~ comes into play, each rival puts an Editor named "~" into play.
What happened to banned user? Is it not being included because of WP:DENY? Also I think this is one step closer to this. What does this mean "You do realize that by creating this game you're dooming thousands of people to a life a celibacy"--DFS454 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha... I said that when this game was originally proposed at VPR, in case anyone was wondering. I don't really think it requires any explanation. It was just a side comment anyway, not important if you don't get it. Equazcion•✗/C •14:24, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I just remember voters saying that at arbcom elections. Incidentally, has anyone ever been elected without being a sysop? --DFS454 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the card suggestions in this section to make a table on the main page. Not being too familiar with these kinds of games, I'm not sure if I understood the details enough to put everything in the right places. Please feel free to correct my table as needed. Equazcion•✗/C •04:27, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
firstly a card suggestion
...error Main server down On next turn Roll a D6. On 6 play net turn, on 1 to 5 miss turn. (If missed turn roll again (this time the turn is playable on a 5 or 6 (or until its 2 or above))
2nd
Does the ~ mean [[1]] or an equivalent ? rdunnPLIB 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deal with the world of academia on a daily basis and agree with those in the Justification section et al that "Too many people already think of Wikipedia as some sort of MMORPG". But as a lighthearted intrawiki concept similar to "Wikiholics" it's hilarious. You should include debates like this one in the form of Consensus Building that makes the player lose a turn or two (cf. Flagged Revisions debate) while the community bickers amongst itself and can't make up its mind one way or the other. :) Recognizance (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if name brainstorming should be another task. "Wikipedia trading card game" is good for development purposes, but eventually you may want a more exciting, less generic name. Equazcion•✗/C •03:10, 28 Feb 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking something with the words "Arbiter" and/or "Cabal", as they're the most mystical/ominous Wikipedia words I can think of. :) Equazcion•✗/C •02:29, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Cabal's another good one; Arbiter not so much, especially given its incompatibility with some of the rulesets above. We need a name that is essentially one-size-fits-all. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about something simple? Something like "The official Wikipedia Trading Card Game". It's simple and straight forward.-Kingofsouls, 2:22 PM march 3rd.
Has the idea of connecting a commercial product to the non-profit wikipedia project been discussed somewhere?
My immediate reaction is that is is a bad idea. I generally dislike the concept of trading cards; the ones I know abaout are tasteless ways of getting money out of the pockets of kids (and indirectly their parents). I'm not saying they should be forbidden (after all, candy isn't!), but why involve Wikipedia in it? Will it attract or (as I believe) repluse editors?--Noe (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many people already think of Wikipedia as some sort of MMORPG. "Wikipedia is a serious project", we always warn vandals- this might seem to send mixed messages. If this idea is carried through with, it should stress the positive, collaborative elements of wikipedia, rather than vandals and drama. In any event it should avoid being dualistic, like MTG. In that game you can build an entire deck out of black creatures, etc- we should avoid scenarios where vandals become a key element of gameplay, or players can stress vandals in deck design... make them more like joker cards... Lithoderm21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the concern of the OP: To lump all trading card games together is a bit hasty. A Wikipedia trading card game would basically only be sold through the foundation's store, where they already sell other merchandise for fundraising purposes. Furthermore the game would really only appeal to hardcore Wikipedians (if anyone), and they're the only ones who would even know about it. We're not putting commercials for it in kids' Saturday-morning cartoons. Equazcion•✗/C •21:30, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Litho. The basic idea is interesting, but a perusal of the suggested rules appears to present contributing to Wikipedia as a competitive game where you attempt to out manoeuvre other editors (your "opponents") with, for instance, edit warring and skilful wiki-lawyering. This is exactly the kind of practices we don't want on Wikipedia. Presenting them as a fun game completely sends out the wrong message. --Escape Orbit(Talk)19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on Magic:The Gathering, "A patent was granted to Wizards of the Coast in 1997 for "a novel method of game play and game components that in one embodiment are in the form of trading cards" that includes claims covering games whose rules include many of Magic's elements in combination, including concepts such as changing orientation of a game component to indicate use (referred to in the Magic and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle rules as "tapping").... In 2003, the patent was an element of a larger legal dispute between Wizards of the Coast and Nintendo, regarding trade secrets related to Nintendo's Pokémon Trading Card Game. The legal action was settled out of court, and its terms were not disclosed."
The "click" mechanic seems to be identical to tapping, and Wizards has proven very willing to go to court over this.. I'm not sure how this will effect development issues, but just keep that in mind. Lithoderm21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon TCG never utilized tapping, however (I played it back in the Wizards days), and I recall the L5r CCG making references to "bowing" and "straightening", which I believe is simply the same thing. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker)03:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember in your Active Pokémon card gets rotated if it has a status issue, eg sleep, or paralysis? Would that count as "tapping"? PretzelsTalk!18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...that said, I am rather excited by this idea, as someone whose middle school years were entirely taken up by MTG... here are some suggestions, take them or leave them:
For the back of the cards, I think we could use the Wikipedia globe, only stretched flat into a puzzle board pattern... kind of like the patterned backs that playing card games use. Lithoderm22:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black cards, instead of being pure black, could be designed in a jarring, neon style somewhat like poor web design and pop-up adds, to contrast with the clean, white appearance of "white cards". Lithoderm22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the straight-up black cards, either, but I can't say I would go for neon. I think using varying shades of gray would be best (perhaps white for users, increasingly lighter gray for improving articles, dark gray for harmful cards, etc.). If you get too out of control, no one will play the game for lack of aesthetics. -Kanogul(talk)19:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too up for the full black, but I was thinking maybe we could, if we were using the "Article" style, that we could color-invert the background image so it looks black. Just an idea. G2sai (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I opt for the Wikipedia-globe-with-puzzle-board-pattern, this is an interesting idea... Perhaps a small text at the bottom could read something like "When it comes to Wikipedia, it's either black or white. Not grey" or something else by the lines of File:Banner whose side are you on.png. ♠TomasBat22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go overboard, but have people collect one series of cards for an FA article and another for a GA article...kinda poker-ish (straight, flush, etc.) Have an opposing set of cards for GA violations and FA violations. The opposing cards penalize you somehow, I dunno how; maybe you have to discard one of your series of FA or GA article cards? make the opposing cards real MOS violations BUT.. here's the main thing.. don't get penny-ante about the nature of the violation. make it a real writing problem like, I dunno, POV, poor organization or poor punctuation or run-on sentences or .. or I dunno what.
Introduce some aspects of !voting for the FA and GA
let players collaborate, either by simply collaborating, and/or via WikiProjects. But introduce some dangers to collaboration too (mmmmmmmmm forex you need say 7 particular cards for an FA, and without collaboration all 7 must be displayed face up, but via some collaboration process people can work to make some of the cards be kept face down, thus disguising the fact that they are not FA cards... the collaborators get points if they make FA... but then others can attempt to mount a challenge of the face-down cards of an FA via FAR; challenges get easier as the number of face-down cards gets higher..mmm everyone has to !vote on the FAR but if the FAR results in delisting you lose points if you supported or crap... whatever.. you guys are the gamers, not me;-) )
Include some real facts from real articles.. preferably real FAs and not slanted toward topics that interest the gaming community. Just cool things like.. uh.. the fish with the transparent head... etc.
Include some more of the well-meaning but problematic editors, like "researcher who uses only online sources when others are available" (library-phobic).
Sorry if I sound ignorant, but this whole idea seems a little farfetched - would it not be better just to have a standard deck of cards possibly emblazened with the Wikipedia logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.M.M. Dowd (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but people could just go to any old convenience store in their area and buy a standard pack of cards for ninety-nine cents, so we should probably stick to a design unique to Wikipedia to attract customers. G2sai (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't make WP rich but we could publish the rules for a game using a normal deck (see the end of this gratuitous ad). We could call it Wikipedia - the free card game that anyone can play. Certes (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could use a list of sites to gather ideas from. I'll start with Dvorak, which defines a basic framework for CCG-like card decks and provides plenty of examples using it. I'm not clear how GFDL-compliant the site is, but there seems to be plenty there we can use without breaching any copyrights it may claim. Certes (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is a wikicritic (who criticises Wikipedia) which results in a rise of vandalism, (the criticism gives some people "ideas"). --YOWUZATalk 2 me!17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this:
Good cards: Wikignome, Founder (+10000 or somthing, jimmy wales pic on it), evreything else on Special page: user group rights
Not only the founder, we can also put important users, like the one that made a very old edit and now at the archives it´s the first one, or the user with most awards, i think we can add important users it'll be really cool! And at bad users we can put really evil or known vandilizers, like Joan of Arc (i dont remember the name exactly), or others...--RatónBatTALK2ME!09:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was seeing the cards, when suddenly I thought: When people will get cards i'm sure they are gonna make some false ones, so what will we add to the cards so people dont make forgery?--RatónBatTalk2me[[User:RatónBat/What can i do?|!10:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the card proposals, and I felt like something was missing. I hope that I'm not repeating an idea anyone else came up with. I was thinking about an 'IP' card that was sort of like a wild. A few things could happen. For example the player could have the choice to make the IP vandalize a single article (though not effectively) or edit (again not effectively). There could also be a 'Create Account' card which could turn the IP into an Editor or a Vandal (Depending on the card). Just a suggestion. Marx01 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As their hasn't been much activity recently, which means that the project seems to be going nowhere... We seriously need to reach consensus on what ruleset to base the cardgame, so that we can start working on everything else and hopefully finish this game someday... Any chance of !voting or something...? (If anybody is watchlisting this page or sees this thread, please comment) ♠TomasBat23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody's commented yet, I think it may be time to put it to a discussion.
I suggest we keep working on this project so it doesn't fall down. I know that it's creator quited wikipedia, but we should still work in this project but I don't know how. I suggest advertising it but I don't know if that's sorta of an illegal thing or something which tries to be avoided. So can someone help me with this? Thanks!--RatónBatTalk 2 me!!21:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fewer than 30 of us watch this page[2]. Thre are plenty of great design ideas here, but is anyone willing and able to actually get the game into production? I can't help with that part myself. Certes (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presenting a third design prototype card. It was fairly simple to make using PowerPoint and three images off the Commons. If you'd like to see more like this, I can do that, just let me know. And for the record, I'm okay with the Wikipedia-style card design as well, so long as it has round corners like a normal playing card and is the same size :) Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am skilled in graphic design, and I will be glad to help with the designing of these cards. Just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any requests, or want to discuss a design proposal. writers-block-14♠(talk)23:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently wrapping up the ruleset construction, which everyone is welcome to contribute to. Please click the link above to review it and contribute. If there are no more suggestions within the next 7 days, we will move onto phase 2. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ruleset has been completely constructed approved by the committee. If you would like to propose an amendment to the rules, do so on the talk page for the rules.
There Should be about 9 cards a player, and there could be a Draw pile with a discard pile, with about 50 to 80 cards a deck. Ian (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...all proceeds will go to the Wikimedia Foundation" - This is fine, as long as Wikimedia is able to provide funding for the trading card game. We might be better off by saying that a certain percentage (50%, maybe more) goes to Wikimedia, and the rest goes toward production. After all, trading cards aren't free to print, cut, and distribute in foil wrappers. Unless, of course, someone wants to donate their card-cutting, printing, and wrapping services... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...all profits..." might be a better wording. It may be easier to beg the money needed for initial production if its sponsor can expect to be repaid. Once we've sold a standard deck, the rules don't specify whether to release new cards later. It might be wise to plan for a single manufacturing run and to milk it delight players with further variants if sales boom. Certes (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My choice for the card back would actually be a Wikipedia Globe with a White background, and there should be an "IP user" card, an Autoconfirmed, Admin, The whatever the B- part is, Rollbacker, and there should be the barnstars as some cards. Tell me if it's a good thing @ my talk. Ian.bjorn (talk·contribs) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea for the reverse face. The user access levels you've specified have been implemented, and we decided not to incorporate barnstars (rather hastily, I might say...I'd be willing to reconsider, and I'm sure if you pry you can either get it implemented or else find out why it isn't being used. If you've got proposals for the amending the current ruleset, head on over to WP:Trading card game/Rules and propose your changes to the rules. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the no barnstar card thing is a bad thing. IMHO. I.P. (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) We should do it. It increases the power possibilities. You guys can decide what they do, but I think it's a good idea. I mean, doesn't it make sense to play a game with stuff like that?[reply]
I've done a little research, and we'll need to figure out how to contact Miss Kessler in order to gain permission to use the Wikipedia logo in various places (i.e. the reverse face of the card, and most likely on the face of most cards). I'm not sure yet what other legal stuff will be involved. If we can find avoid using the Wikipedia logo as often as possible, that might reduce complications that might arise from using the logo.
I think that we should either just use it as if we could however much we want until we find out if there would be legal issues. We'll just need to wit on moving to the next phase, even if we have all of the cards that we want, until we find out how this will all work. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, there will be legal issues, no questions asked. All I'm saying is the earlier we get the rights secured, the less the impact of not getting them secured will be later down the road. Just think-- it'd be a shame to have to redo all the card designs with different images on them... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And his advice on the inside jokes is probably good advice...I've butted into the conversation to find out how we can get approval for the use of the Wikimedia-copyrighted images on the cards, just so we don't have to redesign everything down the road-- I'd like to clear that matter up as early as possible. And heh, what traitors we are, using Wikimedia's biggest competitor's services to host the images for this game... but Wikimedia really doesn't have a place where we're allowed to keep images of trading cards that we want to copyright. Also, I checked into the issue of cards not displaying on our repository wiki-- apparently, Wikia's image servers go down at least once a week, so we'll just have to bear with it. I attempted setting up several different types of wikis and Wikia was the only one that had enough storage space and actually let me register a wiki. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I haven't visited this project for ages, but checked out what you were up to after Bob left a message on my talk page - I designed the original article-style card layout.
I saw the hassle you've gone to with hosting card images on Wikia and suchlike, and have a solution! Wikipedia:Trading card game/Template:Card will enable you to set up a card preview to appear pretty much like your current design. There are a few concessions - the image cropping isn't configurable, no fades or backgrounds, and the text size is slightly off so as to fit on screen, but it's enough to give a rough clue.
Brilliant. I was just thinking about something like this, since I want to start designing cards. I have a few other concerns, mainly that all of the cards are built from the start at a minimum resolution of 300DPI, so they won't look crappy when printed, but by far, the ease of creating cards was by biggest concern. Thanks! Sven ManguardTalk07:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A flash card game for personalities of history, myth, literature, etc. Knowme may be easy for different cultures to pronounce. Eg.: "nume", "nome" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.237.22 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe so, too. I think because of inactivity, we should definitely restart the project, and make it faster. Any way to do this?Vinethemonkey (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey[reply]
I just joined this project. I notice there was an initial attempt to publish the game, which failed. However, we could still translate this project into the real world.
THE SUGGESTION:
We could make a PDF file with everything you need to play the game, paper-wise. For example, the first few pages could contain the rules. Then, we could have the cards arrayed on the rest of the pages. It would be in color, but the user could print it out on black and white if they wanted to/had limitations on printing capabilities. The cards could even be printed on card stock, to make them more like real trading cards.
Well, first we'd need to find a complete list of the cards and what they do, plus the rules. We'd also need any other tokens, such as centijimbos. We would use the cards in the following table as a base.
Front :: ::
Reverse ::
However, we'd need the cards to fit in with the Vector skin, not Monobook.
We'd have a rules printout, token printout, and a sheets of the good cards and bad cards. We'd give out a starter set (Which contains all cards needed to begin) and then eventually design "booster packs" which are sheets of 10 which the player can exchange with cards in their beginner deck.
.svg)
Urban Versis 32 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
