I've seen some work on rules you've done.
I'm curious... This is an outcome of any tests? How did it went?
My problem is to design the game cycle in the way, that when it's
being played, how good player is may determine how fast he develops,
but in the first place skill should determine how well he can develop
the table at all,
and the difference between table of weak and strong
player in the end should be really not big - visible, but not obvious.
First mechanism makes a kind of resource suffocating - basically "you
have feel weak to play strong cards".
My proposal is a rule that says
something like "you need not only pay gold cost when playing a
creature, but also shuffle faction-matching cards from RP back to the deck in the amount equal to creature's threshold" (or to a separate pile that will replace the deck once there will be no cards in it).
Making threshold "a second cost" paid in
cards taken from the table to the deck should really do not only one
trick - it also makes reusing RPs content easier, this way more cards
will finally meet the table, good deck will be even more important,
and players will be able to decrease randomness that shuffled deck
introduces - with time there will be more and more cards they know of
in the deck.
It may also reduce overall deck size by 20% or more.
Second is - maybe we could have creatures immortal, but being defeated
make them being moved to something like "regroup zone", where to get a
creature back, you need to mark a leader (or just wait a turn, making
regroup zone basically a double-mark technique)? This will pretty much
eliminate the technique that makes quick growth the most efficient way
of dominating the table, so it will help in early game balancing and
allow shorter games to be played without any serious issues.
Finally third - paying threshold cost in gold every time a creature
attacks - this, combined with the above, will eliminate further
domination by gradual overpowering. Basically if a player wants to
play a creature onto his table, so removing some cards from a resource
pile, he will have his attacking power temporarily lowered. This, on
the other hand, helps with designing good winning strategies that will
actually take some time - no mass spawning can be done safely, no
quick winning, no big tables or big battles. You grow resources, or
you grow in power, or you figh
> a) The problem in for example MtG with those abilities are that you have to
> mark to use them, and that the card becomes unmarked the turn after, and
> then you have to mark it again, and round and round it goes. In MtG it is
> partially solved by custom text like "You don't have to untap x during your
> untap phasa if you don't want to", but I'd rather see it more systemized and
> built upon, which I think we do in:
> This I know that we have mentioned before, without resolution. I get the
> feeling that you imagine that a deck building game can be created where two
> players, almost no matter how they construct their decks, will play a
> so-and-so even game. You believe that the better player will still win, but
> you don't think that there should be a night-and-day difference between the
> two players battling it out. At least that is your preference, if I
> understand you correct(?)
> We fully agree that it is preferable for us to create a game where the
> outcome of the game isn't decided the first 5 minutes. We do of course want
> to avoid creating a game where it is determined the frist 5 - 10 min who
> wins and who loses, and where the rest of the following hour is just some
> strange and needless ritual of how to win/lose a game and, even worse, one
> seeing all that happening in front of your eyes pre-determined without
> giving you any chance at all to change the tides.
> We agree that a game where the leader is exponentially rewarded and/or where
> the loser is exponentially punished is a very bad thing as it really makes
> it impossible to change the tide and also meaning less to play, depriving
> the game of any excitement. We agree on that we don't want a game where the
> gap just grows and grows and can never be catched up.
> What we don't seem to agree/understand each other in is what we believe
> causes such (as described above just now) situation and perhaps also if it
> can get a perfect fix, or if it could, if it should. I really think we need
> to discuss this "live" for me to understand what you're suggesting, and then
> try to put it into relation of deck building creativity, broadness/possible
> combos in the game, future faction development, etc etc. There is a vast
> majority of topics that all relate to all of this in various ways.
>> First mechanism makes a kind of resource suffocating - basically "you
>> have feel weak to play strong cards".
> I don't understand that part.
> Quick growth always comes at a price. It does so in MtG, and here as well.
> If it doesnt, then the design is flawed and needs to be changed ofc.
> Better yet: You can never create a system where the player doesn't mass the
> cheapest shit around and gives it a try. Even if you had a rule that said
> "no attacks the first 10 turns" you would still end up with rushes even then
> - they would just be 10 turns delayed, but still be same in logic. The way
> to solve the rush problem is to create cards that are faction sdpecific and
> that are designed to allow that faction to deal with early rushes in their
> own way.
I think we can talk at just about every moment, but I think we may
want to make a meeting devoted solely to rule development, as I'm not
only to actually have some input.
I can fill my thoughts into forums if that's the case, and we can
announce a single meeting, or whole series of meetings if needed.
...(vertical axis is "power", you may want to scientificize it
with something like smoothed sigma of A and D values of all the
creatures able to attack)
As I see now our model, game cycle (I call this a time from a start to
an end "a game cycle") consists of three parts: development, when
players don't attack each other, middle part where one player
dominates the other, and endgame - boring cutting down other's
creatures and hitting influence. This is fig. 1.
For example, if I build my deck around 3 different key cards that cost 4 each, and have 4 copies of each of thes 3 key cards, one might suggest that I won't be able to put my deck in full motion until turn 6, but may start rolling the wheel at turn 4. (Turn 4 = 4 resources in my one and only RP)
Fig. 2. is a real-life cycle - once one of the players dominates the
table, there is very little both can do to change anything. We've seen
this while testing - basically hitting an opponent makes him weaker.
This may be a kind
of behavior 100% logical from reasoning point of view - winners are
getting better, losers are weaker and weaker, but it's a design flaw -
simply because makes winner lazy, loser - bored, and whole game -
unimportant. Pretty much the  issue.
 What I see instead is that the game should be solved by applying a
wining strategy in the endgame, or slowly increasing advantage through
whole middle part of the game.
Finally there is this third thing - paying for attack, that comes in
hand with two following.
You have only one source of resources, this are resource piles.
Big creature comes into play - first, second, third... All those not
only "cost gold", but also take some resources for good and trash it.
And in the end, while you played the third one, you can block attacks,
but you can attack with one of those only (you have to wait for more
Lack of such rash is a serious design flaw we have - simply there will
be no chances of spawning many creatures, because you draw one card
per turn (or two), period. You have too many weak creatures - you will
run out of events needed to eliminate serious monsters.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest