When I started making my own modifications to the Quest mode, my guiding principle was "don't fix it if it ain't broken". Many players enjoyed the Quest mode as such, and there was no need to 'ruin' it for them just because
I wanted it to behave a little differently.
So basically everything I did was fully optional. You don't want to limit your cardbase or use any of the new worlds? Fine, that's fully supported. You can still play your Quest games exactly like you did before I got my hands on the Quest mode. But the new features
are there for players who
want to use them. They are an optional part of the game.
This is what I believe Sol, too, is trying to communicate, and when the proposed changes are as extensive as what you've listed, I feel that the best way to implement them could be a third Quest mode (call it "Epic mode", "Deep Fantasy mode", or whatever). Several of the features you suggest depend on each other (more or less), so it would make sense to take the complete baggage or none of it - not just parts.
Personally, though, I don't think I would appreciate the following features in my Quest games:
myk wrote:[*]Only cards from sets available in a world are allowed in decks played in that world. Reprints are not allowed. This will force players to get core booster/starter/fat packs in the main world or spell shop for a world they are planning on playing in.
While I understand the rationale for this rule, like everybody and their aunt, I really don't like this because it goes so much against how the cardgame legality rules work.
myk wrote:[*]Diminishing returns for using the same cards/colors all the time. Every time a card/color is in a winning deck, its "win count" increases. A deck with cards/colors with a lower win count produces more rewards. This will encourage players to try out new cards and different styles and not just play particular cards all the time. Rewards are greatest when the average win count for the currently used cards is less than avg win count (plus x -- we don't want to start penalizing them right away) for all owned cards overall.
I'm probably guilty of overusing my favorite archetypes and always gravitating towards them no matter what the environment is, but I'm not keen on the idea that the game (gently) penalizes me for playing my favorite decks.
When I want a situation where I
have to play cards and strategies I wouldn't normally try, there's (for me at least) an easier existing solution already: just start a new Sealed Deck game or a new Quest. I know when my Quest has gone on long enough, that's typically when I don't want to make any modifications to my 2 or 3 main playdecks anymore. And that's generally when I start a new Quest.
myk wrote:[*]All games played for ante at first to increase the stakes (and therefore the fun, hopefully); a bazaar item can be purchased that allows the player to opt to pay 10 times the cost of the card instead of losing the card if a duel is lost. Challenges don't require ante, but are only available periodically, as is the case now.
I don't like antes. Being forced to play for ante (or even a diluted ante, as in this case), would seriously hurt the fun for me.
As for the rest of the proposed changes, I genuinely like them - but would prefer to see them in the context of an alternative Quest mode rather than changing the current one too much.
Regarding unlimited traveling:
The key difficulty I encountered was in how to limit the traveling. If you put a limitation that was too severe (like having to win a big amount of duels and/or challenges in the current world before being allowed, or a considerable price tag), the player could be stranded in a world he/she didn't want to play for a
long time. And maybe the player couldn't realize that before traveling there. On the other hand, if the limitation was totally negligible (for example, pay 15 credits per travel), why have the limitation at all?
I tried to come up with a limitation that made sense and was doable in the game balance sense...and drew a blank.