2. My point is that games like chess and MtG, although both games, are so fundamentally different that you cannot really compare them when talking about things like new cards. Chess is a game that is polished and ready. The rules will never change because they are perfect already. It would be pretty ridiculous to suddenly change how Horses move or something.
True ... changing or even nerfing the Knight would probably cause some serious worldwide mayhem.
I am not all that well informed on the history of chess but my guess is that the Knight (and other pieces) actually did get changed quite a bit before chess entered the phase of being a perfect and ready game: Chess as we play it today is the result of historical game-development.
Only because this was done so well, did chess neither dissappear nor got changed and updated over and over again. As such, I view chess as an example for a truly awesome game-concept, which could withstand the troubles of economic dependency and timely fashion.
MtG on the other hand will never be ready. As long as MtG is around, they will produce new cards. They will never say: "Ok, guys that's enough. We will now stop making new cards." (unless people stop buying them). Why would they do that because selling cards is how they make their money. Sure, people get fed up with buying new cards all the time but that's the nature of CCG business, and new players will replace those that quit.
It's a matter of (re)defining "collectible card game" really.
The MtG-people and many others have defined it as an economic enterprise, thus subjected the actual game and it's development to the rules of market and profit. From what you are saying, constant new card-editions are not in place because they actually make the game better but above all because they generate cash.
Elements is free, so it has a unique shot at not having to bow to the money.
Instead, Elements (Zanzarino) can fully concentrate on what is really best for the game.
In an act of defining "CCG" this could be
- a game that has a set of cards which doesn't change and doesn't get additions,
simply because it is considered perfect and ready the way it is.
- a game, that has a set of cards which changes and grows slowly and carefully,
simply because it is fun to have new cards every now and then and because the game can still be improved.
- a game, that has a set of cards which changes and grows very frequently,
simply because a bunch of people thought "more is always good", got creative and highjacked the development process.
Now I was not very well informed on how the community and it's card-idea-section works for Zanz and the final development of the game.
I simply wouldn't like the game to fall into a phase of rapid, possibly uncontrolled and unprofessional, growth because something went wrong with the developer-community-intersection, e.g. Zanz felt pressured to implement a ton of new cards, some MtG-followers thought that Elements must have a card-universe as vast as MtG and managed to form a lobby ... you name it.
I don't know, whether Zanz is in favour of none, slow or rapid growth himself. Personally, I would prefer slow growth.
Either way, hearing that Zanzarino remains in absolute control over what is actually going to happen with the game and that the community is about to establish mechanisms to carefully orchestrate and professionalize it's impact on the designer makes me happy.
