Missing ingredient: Balance

[OldTrees]

Well, I'm glad the initial string of rude comments were followed by more thoughtful ones that understand what I was getting at. Unfortunately, I need to vent first.

There seems to be some incorrect assumptions about my original point, so let me clear the air:

The Tactic Vs Strategy discussion:
This is a great distinction. Again, I would like to clearly state that I am not advocating this game be more like Magic. However, the strategy aspect of this game is clearly behind the potential I see in it, whereas the tactics (or lack thereof) does play a role in the predetermined results of games.

However, tactics is still second to the notion of hay-makers vs jabs. If the power of cards could be refined so that the placement of one was not so decisive in many scenarios, that would allow a greater flexibility in building decks, along with more potential for competitive matches (note: this doesn't necessarily mean slower matches). In some scenarios, changing the rules of the game may be more appropriate. For example, the limit of 6 per card. By allowing this many cards, you allow people to chain the use of them (e.g., Sundial, Phase Shield, Reverse Time) exacerbating the effects of those cards. By decreasing the limit, this helps increase the value of timing in playing those cards. Another example is the accumulation of quantum taking place at the end of a turn in combination with the effects of Black Hole. By changing it so that quantum is accumulated at the beginning of a turn, you would prevent a complete shutdown of that persons ability to play a card. I'm not necessarily proposing these changes; merely providing an example of some approaches to resolving these problems, which do not necessarily involve highly complex decisions within the course of the game. 

In the end, the only thing I am stressing is the increase in competitive matches.

I missed the hay-maker vs jabs comment. For this I deeply apologize and thank you for the revelation of yet another solution.

Reducing the limit per card would reduce overall deck variety. This cost might or might not be worth the added benefit depending on the limit and reduction in question. This deserves more thought and discussion. (It has been discussed before but it is probably due for another go)

Normal Accumulation of quanta probably should stay at the end of the turn to enable the denial alternate win condition. However more irregular instantaneous quanta generation would be an alternative solution and should be expanded. Specifically these measures would allow the quanta denied player to transform other resources instantaneously into quanta thus rewarding both players with a more interactive battle without forbidding a competitive denial archetype.

These are creative solutions. I am glad you have joined the forums.
Some sections where your skills might be useful
Theory: The Design Theory section of the Card Idea and Art
Solutions in the form of Card Ideas: main Card Idea and Art section
Game Suggestions and Feedback and the Buff/Nerf subsections

[Post]

Oldtrees:

"Reducing the limit per card would reduce overall deck variety."

I'm inclined to believe that this would increase, not decrease, overall deck variety.

"Normal Accumulation of quanta probably should stay at the end of the turn to enable the denial alternate win condition. However more irregular instantaneous quanta generation would be an alternative solution and should be expanded. Specifically these measures would allow the quanta denied player to transform other resources instantaneously into quanta thus rewarding both players with a more interactive battle without forbidding a competitive denial archetype."

There are many aspects of end-turn quantum generation that I like, particularly having a more concrete picture as to what your opponent will be able to do on their next turn (sans nova, etc). As I mentioned, I wasn't necessarily proposing any of these changes. However, quanta denial should not reach a point where the player has stopped participating in the game and has become a spectator. Or, at the very least, this should be a very difficult feat to achieve, resulting only after both players have had plenty of opportunities to establish control in the game. I do like the line of thought you are pursuing at the end of that statement, though I don't have any preference myself, other than seeing a reduction to hopeless encounters.

[Post]

Oh, and thank you for the welcome. Good discussion.

[OldTrees]

Oldtrees:

"Reducing the limit per card would reduce overall deck variety."

I'm inclined to believe that this would increase, not decrease, overall deck variety.

"Normal Accumulation of quanta probably should stay at the end of the turn to enable the denial alternate win condition. However more irregular instantaneous quanta generation would be an alternative solution and should be expanded. Specifically these measures would allow the quanta denied player to transform other resources instantaneously into quanta thus rewarding both players with a more interactive battle without forbidding a competitive denial archetype."

There are many aspects of end-turn quantum generation that I like, particularly having a more concrete picture as to what your opponent will be able to do on their next turn (sans nova, etc). As I mentioned, I wasn't necessarily proposing any of these changes. However, quanta denial should not reach a point where the player has stopped participating in the game and has become a spectator. Or, at the very least, this should be a very difficult feat to achieve, resulting only after both players have had plenty of opportunities to establish control in the game. I do like the line of thought you are pursuing at the end of that statement, though I don't have any preference myself, other than seeing a reduction to hopeless encounters.

By deck variety I meant decks that can be competitive in the metagame not the subset of decks that are used in the metagame. The first kind will see some reduction while the second might see some increase. I put more value on the first because it is the limit of the game while the second is the limit of the players.

[Post]

Oldtrees:

"Reducing the limit per card would reduce overall deck variety."

I'm inclined to believe that this would increase, not decrease, overall deck variety.

"Normal Accumulation of quanta probably should stay at the end of the turn to enable the denial alternate win condition. However more irregular instantaneous quanta generation would be an alternative solution and should be expanded. Specifically these measures would allow the quanta denied player to transform other resources instantaneously into quanta thus rewarding both players with a more interactive battle without forbidding a competitive denial archetype."

There are many aspects of end-turn quantum generation that I like, particularly having a more concrete picture as to what your opponent will be able to do on their next turn (sans nova, etc). As I mentioned, I wasn't necessarily proposing any of these changes. However, quanta denial should not reach a point where the player has stopped participating in the game and has become a spectator. Or, at the very least, this should be a very difficult feat to achieve, resulting only after both players have had plenty of opportunities to establish control in the game. I do like the line of thought you are pursuing at the end of that statement, though I don't have any preference myself, other than seeing a reduction to hopeless encounters.

By deck variety I meant decks that can be competitive in the metagame not the subset of decks that are used in the metagame. The first kind will see some reduction while the second might see some increase. I put more value on the first because it is the limit of the game while the second is the limit of the players.

By forcing more variety in the creation of decks, you are also increasing the viability of opposing decks, thereby increasing overall competitiveness. A deck that once had 4 different cards is now forced to use 6. The two additional cards will likely have counter cards/scenarios distinct from those that counter the original 4. Hence, the increase in deck variety. If you are purely talking about potential decks that can be made then, yes, it would result in less decks. But, if this measurement holds that much value, then why have a limit at all? Or, more concisely, why 6?

[Scaredgirl]

This is beside the point of this topic, but after reading about your "annoyance" of people who didn't understand your first post, I feel I need to respond on principle.

There seems to be some incorrect assumptions about my original point, so let me clear the air: I am FULLY aware of the auto-mulligan system. I am also aware that an auto-mulligan system is not remotely similar to a user-driven mulligan system. The only rule that the auto-mulligan system takes into account is whether or not you have 0-cost cards in the first hand you are dealt (hey, I actually did my homework before writing something!). By giving that option to the player, you allow them to mulligan if they have 1 pillar/tower, and 6 Fractals in their opening hand, to use one easy example of many. Mulligan doesn't just address the lack of quantum; it addresses all clumps or unlucky draws within your initial hand....unless you automate the process with an overly simplified rule. The notion that this very brief and often easy decision is somehow counterproductive boggles my mind when thinking of how much time is wasted as a result of bad opening draws. Now, if you would like to discuss these differences, I am all ears. But, if you just want to chastise me when, in reality, it is you that should be researching this more, I'll pass.

Ok, now that my annoyance has been vented, there were a lot of other thoughtful comments that I appreciate. In order of appearance:

Everyone who reads your first post can clearly see that you did not know the existence of auto-Mulligan. We are not morons here. See the quote from your original post:

Of course, you still have the other half of your other matches remaining. Sadly, another 3rd of those can probably be chucked out the window based on your draw and the fact that, for some unknown reason, the mulligan game mechanic is completely absent. We know (I hope), that in a CCG environment with random card drawing and limitations on cards, that the cards you need to execute your strategy will regularly appear in clumps. When this happens you have very few playing options available, and clicking "Done" repeatedly is a boring way to spend your time. By allowing a mulligan, you can drastically increase the number of playable hands, and provide the player with an interesting decision (assuming the common mulligan trade-off of -1 card) instead of a frustrated sigh. Better yet, they have more fun, which I believe is a big aspect of playing a game.

You first say that "the mulligan game mechanic is completely absent", followed by an explanation of what Mulligan does. People who know Elements has Mulligan, would not do that.

Lets see the two comments again.
the mulligan game mechanic is completely absent
I am FULLY aware of the auto-mulligan system

I honestly don't know how you could be any more contradictory.

Your later spin on how you actually meant "user-driven mulligan system" is one of the weakest effort of damage-control I have ever seen. Had you known about the auto-Mulligan, you would have compared it to a user-driven system that you think is superior. But you did not do that. Instead you only said that Elements needs Mulligan because it's "completely absent".

There is nothing wrong with not knowing auto-Mulligan exists after only a month of play, but trying to spin it like that and accuse others for not understanding, is really lame. Being truthful and admitting failure is something people actually respect. But if you resort to bending the truth in order to be "always right", people will quickly lose respect and stop taking what you say seriously.


Like I said this is totally off-topic and I won't continue this discussion any more. Sorry about disrupting the discussion. I just felt I should defend the users who "misunderstood" the point in the original topic.

[agentflare]

Well, I'm glad the initial string of rude comments were followed by more thoughtful ones that understand what I was getting at. Unfortunately, I need to vent first.

There seems to be some incorrect assumptions about my original point, so let me clear the air: I am FULLY aware of the auto-mulligan system. I am also aware that an auto-mulligan system is not remotely similar to a user-driven mulligan system. The only rule that the auto-mulligan system takes into account is whether or not you have 0-cost cards in the first hand you are dealt (hey, I actually did my homework before writing something!). By giving that option to the player, you allow them to mulligan if they have 1 pillar/tower, and 6 Fractals in their opening hand, to use one easy example of many. Mulligan doesn't just address the lack of quantum; it addresses all clumps or unlucky draws within your initial hand....unless you automate the process with an overly simplified rule. The notion that this very brief and often easy decision is somehow counterproductive boggles my mind when thinking of how much time is wasted as a result of bad opening draws. Now, if you would like to discuss these differences, I am all ears. But, if you just want to chastise me when, in reality, it is you that should be researching this more, I'll pass.

Ok, now that my annoyance has been vented, there were a lot of other thoughtful comments that I appreciate. In order of appearance:

Fast-paced Advocacy:
Fast-paced action is well and good. It's also not in any way exclusive from balance. For the record, I am not looking for an MtG port, which is why I went through great lengths to avoid comparing the two games in my original post. What EVERY CCG does need, though, is balance, and it's the most challenging part of building a CCG. Unfortunately, the way this game is designed, the "fast-paced" action is really closer to grinding than actual gameplay. The reason I am proposing these changes is so that the spirit of the game (if fast-paced matches are the goal of the developers) can coexist with competitive matches. For the most part, you are dropping cards down and, when you know that the match is decided (which often happens well in advance of actually losing) you resign from the game. The number of matches that come down to critical moves in the waning moments of a contest are a very low percentage, and that is indicative of a larger problem in the game. But, since you would like to compare the game with Magic, let's recall what the first editions of Magic were like compared to the game now. They clearly learned from mistakes early on, especially with game-breaking cards, refined their game, and turned it into the masterpiece it is today. The lesson for us? It's ok to change things.

The Tactic Vs Strategy discussion:
This is a great distinction. Again, I would like to clearly state that I am not advocating this game be more like Magic. However, the strategy aspect of this game is clearly behind the potential I see in it, whereas the tactics (or lack thereof) does play a role in the predetermined results of games.

However, tactics is still second to the notion of hay-makers vs jabs. If the power of cards could be refined so that the placement of one was not so decisive in many scenarios, that would allow a greater flexibility in building decks, along with more potential for competitive matches (note: this doesn't necessarily mean slower matches). In some scenarios, changing the rules of the game may be more appropriate. For example, the limit of 6 per card. By allowing this many cards, you allow people to chain the use of them (e.g., Sundial, Phase Shield, Reverse Time) exacerbating the effects of those cards. By decreasing the limit, this helps increase the value of timing in playing those cards. Another example is the accumulation of quantum taking place at the end of a turn in combination with the effects of Black Hole. By changing it so that quantum is accumulated at the beginning of a turn, you would prevent a complete shutdown of that persons ability to play a card. I'm not necessarily proposing these changes; merely providing an example of some approaches to resolving these problems, which do not necessarily involve highly complex decisions within the course of the game. 


In the end, the only thing I am stressing is the increase in competitive matches.

Decreasing card limit does not create more "unique" decks, but rather destroys more unique decks. If you look at Fallen Empire (Pvp event) the rebels were limited to only 4 max. This resulted in most of us playing grabbows or counters. Unfortunately as of now, the meta-game is much more important than the in-game tactics. This will be solved by introducing more cards, not by creating more restrictions.

[The_Mormegil]

Unfortunately as of now, the meta-game is much more important than the in-game tactics. This will be solved by introducing more cards, not by creating more restrictions.

QFT.

[OldTrees]

Oldtrees:

"Reducing the limit per card would reduce overall deck variety."

I'm inclined to believe that this would increase, not decrease, overall deck variety.

"Normal Accumulation of quanta probably should stay at the end of the turn to enable the denial alternate win condition. However more irregular instantaneous quanta generation would be an alternative solution and should be expanded. Specifically these measures would allow the quanta denied player to transform other resources instantaneously into quanta thus rewarding both players with a more interactive battle without forbidding a competitive denial archetype."

There are many aspects of end-turn quantum generation that I like, particularly having a more concrete picture as to what your opponent will be able to do on their next turn (sans nova, etc). As I mentioned, I wasn't necessarily proposing any of these changes. However, quanta denial should not reach a point where the player has stopped participating in the game and has become a spectator. Or, at the very least, this should be a very difficult feat to achieve, resulting only after both players have had plenty of opportunities to establish control in the game. I do like the line of thought you are pursuing at the end of that statement, though I don't have any preference myself, other than seeing a reduction to hopeless encounters.

By deck variety I meant decks that can be competitive in the metagame not the subset of decks that are used in the metagame. The first kind will see some reduction while the second might see some increase. I put more value on the first because it is the limit of the game while the second is the limit of the players.

By forcing more variety in the creation of decks, you are also increasing the viability of opposing decks, thereby increasing overall competitiveness. A deck that once had 4 different cards is now forced to use 6. The two additional cards will likely have counter cards/scenarios distinct from those that counter the original 4. Hence, the increase in deck variety. If you are purely talking about potential decks that can be made then, yes, it would result in less decks. But, if this measurement holds that much value, then why have a limit at all? Or, more concisely, why 6?

The number of potential decks is valuable in that it increases the potential audience of the game both with more diverse gameplay and more options making it take longer to get bored. The longer the period the more people will not have a chance to get bored as Zanz continues to update.

However the diversity of gameplay is also affected by other factors. These other factors contribute to their being ideal card limits. Those ideal values are unknown. "Why or why not 6?" is a question that I feel should be discussed more indepth with a goal of achieving a more accurate guess at the ideal value.

Unfortunately as of now, the meta-game is much more important than the in-game tactics. This will be solved by introducing more cards, not by creating more restrictions.

We can solve both problems with the same solution. Increasing in game tactics is a powerful tool to increasing negative feedback balancing effects into the metagame. New cards are one of the best ways to increase tactics.

New cards might be able to mitigate the haymaker vs jabs concern too. It would be a more difficult challenge.

[Post]

This is beside the point of this topic, but after reading about your "annoyance" of people who didn't understand your first post, I feel I need to respond on principle.

Like I said this is totally off-topic and I won't continue this discussion any more. Sorry about disrupting the discussion. I just felt I should defend the users who "misunderstood" the point in the original topic.

You're right. It couldn't just be that I accidentally overstated on that sentiment. It MUST be that I am a liar. Goodbye, I won't miss your 'contribution', though I would suggest trying to trust people a bit more. But, good job avoiding my actual distinction of the Mulligan systems in place and being proposed.

Decreasing card limit does not create more "unique" decks, but rather destroys more unique decks. If you look at Fallen Empire (Pvp event) the rebels were limited to only 4 max. This resulted in most of us playing grabbows or counters. Unfortunately as of now, the meta-game is much more important than the in-game tactics. This will be solved by introducing more cards, not by creating more restrictions.

I definitely agree that there would be a need for more cards before any change to the card limit. With any change, especially in a CCG, there will be other changes that are required to support it. These are mostly just initial thoughts on ways to improve overall balance within games, but none of them actually need to happen in order to resolve the issue; I'm sure many different possibilities could have the same effect.


Oldtrees: I think for the most part we are in agreement. I don't believe the hay-maker-issue could be completely resolve with the addition of cards, but it certainly could help towards alleviating it.

[Higurashi]

@OP: I wouldn't say there's a terrible lack of balance, but there is some alright. In the metagame, there will always be counters in card games. You mention one: Black Hole. The problem I see with cards like that is that they counter entire deck concepts instead of just one strategy. That's truly a hay-maker , as you put it. Of course, resource denial has always been the one type of strategy that works against the highest number of other strategies in card games, but that's a different story.

Your estimated percentages look like they're based on an unupped FG killer like Liquid Antimatter. With decks like I've GotP Time, you'll find a winrate of 67% is realistic, with only one FG to skip. There are also FG decks that don't skip any FG, such as the highly customisable classic Timebow. A big part of this game is the strife to reach that upped status, of course. That grind to improve your account is often what gamers keep coming back for, since we're addicts. :>

The cards I find the most unbalancing in the metagame right now are Nova, Immolation and Fractal. The former two enable rush decks of a different class than the normal ones, as well as unparalleled versatility. Both of those factors are priceless, as card game matches are often about getting set up faster than the other player. Fractal is a bit of a special case, as it grants more card advantage than any other card I've seen in a card game, and it does it instantly (!) (Mindgate can give even more advantage, but it's slow). It also limits card creation, which is a big problem.

This card game is free, and is being slowly developed. People like me who have stayed with it for a long time and won't leave for a very long time have accepted the unbalanced aspects and take advantage of it in PvP. You can also always take advantage of the people taking advantage of it and make counter strategies to the most popular ones. Faithful players like us have seen the game becoming more and more balanced, and we believe the developer will continue this trend. Especially encouraging is the fact that he listens to his players and can even incorporate their card ideas into the game.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Post. It's always nice to see people caring. btw, I edited your triple post into one. Hope you don't mind.

[Post]

Np on editing the posts, Higurashi. Much appreciated.

"I wouldn't say there's a terrible lack of balance, but there is some alright. In the metagame, there will always be counters in card games. You mention one: Black Hole. The problem I see with cards like that is that they counter entire deck concepts instead of just one strategy. That's truly a hay-maker , as you put it. Of course, resource denial has always been the one type of strategy that works against the highest number of other strategies in card games, but that's a different story."

The potential range of balance in a CCG is massive, and I would definitely say that this game is certainly within an acceptable limit. I think the areas where balance is off is exacerbated by the fact that many cards/abilities are extremely powerful. Eternity is one of the biggest examples of this. A card that only costs 4 more than Rewind, can use the ability of Rewind for only 1/2 more quanta, and it's an ability that can both stall the ability of your opponent to draw cards, remove creatures from play (along with any buffs, that are permanently lost), and prevent you from decking out. Quite frankly, of all the CCGs I've played, I'm not sure I've seen a more unbalanced card. Now, there are counters. But, if you don't have that counter, or have the ability to use the counter at that time, this can easily seal the game.

Now, there are many cards like this. Because of this, the game is, in a sense, balanced. However, this balance doesn't translate as well in gameplay, where it results in the predetermined matches I mentioned earlier.

By changing Eternity to a jab, say, by changing is so that it puts a creature out of play, whereby they return to play automatically the next turn, you allow it to stay within the interesting theme for Time without creating a lot of scenarios where the game has been decided by a broken game mechanic (the ability to stop your opponent from drawing cards). The Rewind card doesn't need this change because, in that case, you are trading off a card yourself for preventing them from drawing a card. And, as always, this is just an example, not necessarily a change I am proposing (though I do kinda like that idea). Also, this sort of adjustment is something that would ideally happen across all cards, to maintain the balance that already exists within the game.

"Your estimated percentages look like they're based on an unupped FG killer like Liquid Antimatter. With decks like I've GotP Time, you'll find a winrate of 67% is realistic, with only one FG to skip. There are also FG decks that don't skip any FG, such as the highly customisable classic Timebow. A big part of this game is the strife to reach that upped status, of course. That grind to improve your account is often what gamers keep coming back for, since we're addicts. :>"

The problem with those numbers is that you are generally looking at a small number of decks. At least, that is my impression from what I have read so far. The 40% win rate wouldn't apply to even the best unupped FG deck, which I believe was at 32%, and it only declines from there as you include other unupped decks. The game isn't very forgiving due to the hay-maker style, and this eliminates a lot of potential decks. Some of this could be due to the fact that the card catalog is a little small. And, of course, the attributes that are assigned to the False Gods. But, I'm more inclined to believe that it is due to the constant danger of a game-ending card. As it stands, I'm not even close to building a single upped deck for FG's, so you would probably have a better vision of this matter.

"The cards I find the most unbalancing in the metagame right now are Nova, Immolation and Fractal. The former two enable rush decks of a different class than the normal ones, as well as unparalleled versatility. Both of those factors are priceless, as card game matches are often about getting set up faster than the other player. Fractal is a bit of a special case, as it grants more card advantage than any other card I've seen in a card game, and it does it instantly (!) (Mindgate can give even more advantage, but it's slow). It also limits card creation, which is a big problem."

I agree with all of this.

"This card game is free, and is being slowly developed. People like me who have stayed with it for a long time and won't leave for a very long time have accepted the unbalanced aspects and take advantage of it in PvP. You can also always take advantage of the people taking advantage of it and make counter strategies to the most popular ones. Faithful players like us have seen the game becoming more and more balanced, and we believe the developer will continue this trend. Especially encouraging is the fact that he listens to his players and can even incorporate their card ideas into the game."

I could take advantage of that, but I don't find that very fulfilling. Could just be a personal thing. I much prefer strategic contest, something that challenges the mind and is fun while you're doing it. This game definitely captures that to some extent. I'm just offering some suggestions from my initial observations to take it to the next level.

I think some of these changes are actually quite simple and easy to incorporate, especially the mulligan system, which on it's own could probably increase playable matches by ~10% (there is a reason that almost every CCG has this mechanic). Others I don't expect to see any time soon, as I understand how difficult it is to balance a CCG.