Separating Permanents from Weapons/Shields to balance Permanent Control

[OldTrees]

Wow, long post.

I did not express concern about the number of cards needed under your proposal. I was suggesting the proposal that required fewer cards would solve the problem sooner and delay other features less. I think leaving PC as PC and working on other adjustments and additions to other elements would solve more problems sooner with less cards.

You seem not to be fully understanding what I was talking about with respect to costs. Perhaps this exercise would help demonstrate the core of the theory.
1) Convert all the costs of SoG and Druidic staff into  quanta. [did you understand that I use this step when I speak about total cost and benefit/cost ratios?]
2) Find the Regen/ ratio. [you seem to understand this part]
While all permanents seems to share the same standard of balance to measure their ratios against, the most expensive Item/Artifact total converted cost is 14 /9 [Hope vs Unstable Gas]. See the exercise if you are startled by the numbers.
As a side note: Nightfall also has the non stacking/dead draw cost. I only call it "Weapon Slot cost" since I usually am using the formula on weapons.

I know you want to increase variance of the metagame but I would hazard a guess that when building your deck you desire to render Murphy powerless by reducing the variance in your matches. I was explaining that risk costs like dead draws are not always bad. People who prefer risking dead draws recognize that it is a two sided gamble. It can result (depending on draws) to be better or worse than non dead draw cards. Some people like risk costs over resource costs.

You were suggesting splitting existing PC into IC and AC with the result that some PC elements would lack AC and be more dependent on the AC elements and vice versa.

Well, this exists right now, so what's the problem?

It would make the effort needed to solve this other problem take longer. Remember I believe every element should have a defense against every offense and a counter defense against every defense. However, personally I am board of removal (PC) as suggestions for new defenses and counter defenses. The difference between defense and removal is key. Defense simply means you have the ability to fight. removal is a type of defense. Not all elements need to be able to remove permanents but they all need ways to be able to defeat the opponent that uses the permanents even after the permanents hit the field.

Thank you for explaining your focus on range again. I think I understand this time. You were pointing out how small ranges of value stabilizes the average in a similar way to large groups of cards stabilizes the average. In this you are absolutely correct. While I find the adjustments involved to be small that does not mean that they do not eat away at valuable time and effort.

You have mostly convinced me however I think the best way to transition the game that direction while maintaining a large metagame in the meantime would be to keep existing PC as PC but make it more expensive and add much more Artifacts and defenses against Items and Artifacts. I would hope that the majority were non removal focused so they would feel newer.

[Post]

Wow, long post.

That's what she said. (hyuk)

More seriously, I was trying to cover all the points, and decided on a different writing approach. Plus, it is a very interesting discussion.

As for costs, I'm pretty sure I have a general idea of all the factors and relative weights being taken into account. I don't know the exact weighting nor measurements you are using. However, I have been playing CCG's since Net...err...something, forgot the full name, that's how long ago it was, lol. Anyway, I feel my experience allows me to more quickly understand relative value within a CCG, and while I'm sure your Elements experience will give you a more precise understanding, I think we are close enough to see each others views. We'll likely disagree on some weighting, but that's not overly important at this moment. So, while my quanta cost example doesn't line up with your converted cost, it wasn't as if we were speaking two completely different languages. I also forgot about Unstable Gas since I so rarely come across that card.

As for dead draws, again, I understand they will exist in almost every CCG (Spectromancer has an interesting approach to eliminating them). My point, which also is the core of this thread, is that the need to fill your deck with multiple copies of weapons/shields (and Nightfalls, and others) is excessive in this game, and that there were some ways to mitigate this. As I also mentioned, even with these changes it is likely that people would include more than one copy, so dead draws would still occur, but at a lower frequency. I do not believe dead draws are a justifiable mechanic, and it has long been a bane of MtG with regards to land. Other successful CCG's have sought ways to mitigate this notorious issue; for example, the Warcraft CCG allowed you to use any card to generate resources, thereby reducing the need to overstack your deck with lands, while also rewarding you for using the land cards in play by including additional effects on them. This attitude that a bad playing experience is just part of the game is self-defeating, and extremely counter-productive when it exists within those involved in the design of the game. Dead draws are a design challenge, not a mechanic.

It would make the effort needed to solve this other problem take longer. Remember I believe every element should have a defense against every offense and a counter defense against every defense. However, personally I am board of removal (PC) as suggestions for new defenses and counter defenses. The difference between defense and removal is key. Defense simply means you have the ability to fight. removal is a type of defense. Not all elements need to be able to remove permanents but they all need ways to be able to defeat the opponent that uses the permanents even after the permanents hit the field.

Ok, so:

1) We continue to disagree on the effect of design time, and this goes back to my argument that, by splitting the two, you ease the burden of card design, even if more cards are created overall. This is related to the range discussion.

2) We mostly agree that every element should have a defense against items and artifacts. I have some concern about homogenization, but I'm guessing we have a similar vision of thematic, varied defenses. In my case, it just involves removing a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. We then return to our disagreement in (1), card burden.

Thank you for explaining your focus on range again. I think I understand this time. You were pointing out how small ranges of value stabilizes the average in a similar way to large groups of cards stabilizes the average.

Large groups of card do not stabilize the average, other than in a purely mathematical sense. An average is not very important when it comes to actual gameplay. In the game, a very direct relationship exists. Because of this specific relationship, a wide range will lead to a wide disparity in card value. To some extent this is fine and expected, but there is a glaring opportunity in this game to improve upon this in a way that will increase balance and provide interesting thematic potential.

You have mostly convinced me however I think the best way to transition the game that direction while maintaining a large metagame in the meantime would be to keep existing PC as PC but make it more expensive and add much more Artifacts and defenses against Items and Artifacts. I would hope that the majority were non removal focused so they would feel newer.

My proposal really doesn't change the size of the metagame very much, if at all. In fact, it may increase it, due to the natural result of more cards, more card relationships, and therefore more decisions, for an equal amount of design time.

At the very least, we do agree that existing PC should be more costly. I made some points about this recently in the Explosion thread on the Nerf forum. Essentially, the idea being to make its cost dependent on the card being destroyed. This helps alleviate the problems with the current range. However, it can only account for quanta cost, and not with the other intrinsic costs that we agree exist with uniqueness, a cost that is always present with items, but very rarely present with artifacts.

Just as a warning, which I touched on earlier: if you begin adding more PC, it will be more difficult to make a change like the one I am proposing down the line. It's a sensible time to implement this distinction. But, I've tried to present this as best I can, and I'm not sure what else I can say to further clarify my stance.

[OldTrees]

I do not believe dead draws are a justifiable mechanic, and it has long been a bane of MtG with regards to land. Other successful CCG's have sought ways to mitigate this notorious issue; for example, the Warcraft CCG allowed you to use any card to generate resources, thereby reducing the need to overstack your deck with lands, while also rewarding you for using the land cards in play by including additional effects on them. This attitude that a bad playing experience is just part of the game is self-defeating, and extremely counter-productive when it exists within those involved in the design of the game. Dead draws are a design challenge, not a mechanic.

You are confusing resource drought (lands are fixed in EtG with accumulation, QI and the auto mulligan) with variable value draws. Not having the resources necessary to play does create a negative play experience for the vast majority of players. However we were talking about cards that have a lower quanta cost on the assumption you will on average get 1 dead draw. Player that like using these cards like the uncertainty and variability of whether it will cost 0, 1 or 2 dead draws this game. Think of it as an unstable gas that could cost 3 , 6 or 9 with an average of 6 . Some players would choose the variable cost and others would choose the static cost. Providing both options panders to both player types. Creating the balanced continuum for the Risk adverse to the Risk loving players is a metagame design challenge.

Large groups of card do not stabilize the average, other than in a purely mathematical sense. An average is not very important when it comes to actual gameplay. In the game, a very direct relationship exists. Because of this specific relationship, a wide range will lead to a wide disparity in card value. To some extent this is fine and expected, but there is a glaring opportunity in this game to improve upon this in a way that will increase balance and provide interesting thematic potential.

Take 2 groups with the same range (3-7) and an average of 5 but one group has 1000 cards and the other only 10 cards. The addition of a new card that costs 7 would have a larger effect on the average of the smaller group (.182 vs .002 vs ) and thus more likely to disrupt the balance of the Removal card.

Just as a warning, which I touched on earlier: if you begin adding more PC, it will be more difficult to make a change like the one I am proposing down the line. It's a sensible time to implement this distinction. But, I've tried to present this as best I can, and I'm not sure what else I can say to further clarify my stance.

I agree that now would be a good time to make card suggestions that target subsets of permanents.

[Post]

You are confusing resource drought (lands are fixed in EtG with accumulation, QI and the auto mulligan) with variable value draws.

No, I'm not. Resource drought is the flip-side of the land mechanic example that I used. In order to minimize resource drought, people include more land cards than necessary. The result is often dead draws, once you have the mana that you need.

Since you focused on that, the rest of your response isn't really relevant. However, since you revisited the notion that dead draws is a game mechanic, I will once again say that there are a myriad of other risk options available that do not involve reducing the players control over a game. The defeatist attitude is disheartening. As are statements like this:

Not having the resources necessary to play does create a negative play experience for the vast majority of players.

This is ridiculous. Vast majority? Please. Even a small minority wouldn't support your statement.

Why is the mulligan issue brought up so frequently on these forums? Why is mana-screwed acknowledged as the worst game element of MtG? Why do so many CCG's explore ways of getting around this challenge? Why does Elements have a Mark that provides you quanta, and include an auto-mulligan mechanic? All for the same reason: being unable to play the cards in your hand sucks, and it is not an enjoyable playing experience.

I don't know, I'm starting to find it difficult to take some of your statements seriously. You have argued that people prefer dead draws, and now you are arguing that people are fine with not being able to play their hand (because that's what inadequate resources translates into). Maybe you are fine with these things, but no group of players would support these statements, and the game is hopefully being designed for the players, and not some inner circle.

Take 2 groups with the same range (3-7) and an average of 5 but one group has 1000 cards and the other only 10 cards. The addition of a new card that costs 7 would have a larger effect on the average of the smaller group (.182 vs .002 vs ) and thus more likely to disrupt the balance of the Removal card.

Right, except you have now skipped over the process of domain exploration. What's easier: reviewing 1000 relationships, or 10? What's easier in a thematic sense: making a card that interacts with 1000 other cards, or 10?

That was my point about a "purely mathematical sense". Yes, you can use mathematical representations based on weighting to determine a relative value, but it is clear that even with a mere ~200 cards that these weights are off (drawing cards being a stark, easy example). Introducing new cards requires a review of the relationships, a cursory one at the very least. Mathematics is an extremely valuable tool when it comes to CCGs, but weights are still arbitrary measurements in many cases, and human intervention is necessary during the design process.

I agree that now would be a good time to make card suggestions that target subsets of permanents.

Any time would be a good time for that.

Alternative response: what subsets? The entire reason for my proposal is that there is currently no subset system for permanents. You could say that a weapon is a subset, but I think a good subset system would be exhaustive and exclusive, meaning that all permanents should fall within a subset, as opposed to some just be considered a permanent. Otherwise, targeting them means targeting every other permanent as well, as there is no succinct way of isolating them.

Taking a part of my proposal and categorizing non-weapons and non-shields as "artifacts" would meet that requirement. However, I would say it makes an equal amount of sense to then place weapons and shields in an "item" subset, and then consider each of those a subset of item. This gives a tremendous amount of flexibility during card design with hardly any development investment. But, just creating artifacts would be a good enough step for me at this time.

Cards could then target a permanent, an artifact, an item (if included), a weapon, or a shield. It's an extremely simple solution that provides a tremendous amount of versatility and thematic potential. I'm failing to see a valid objection.

[OldTrees]

I guessed incorrectly on your land example. Thanks for clairifying

Not having the resources necessary to play does create a negative play experience for the vast majority of players.

This is ridiculous. Vast majority? Please. Even a small minority wouldn't support your statement.

Please reread the quoted statement. I believe you will find it says the opposite of what you read it to say. See how it agrees with your later statement. I only said "vast majority" instead of "all" because there might be an exception that you and I have not met.

being unable to play the cards in your hand sucks, and it is not an enjoyable playing experience.

I tend to speak in a manner that takes careful reading. For this I apologize. Another thing you might want to remember about me is that I rarely imply.

Take 2 groups with the same range (3-7) and an average of 5 but one group has 1000 cards and the other only 10 cards. The addition of a new card that costs 7 would have a larger effect on the average of the smaller group (.182 vs .002 vs ) and thus more likely to disrupt the balance of the Removal card.

Right, except you have now skipped over the process of domain exploration. What's easier: reviewing 1000 relationships, or 10? What's easier in a thematic sense: making a card that interacts with 1000 other cards, or 10?

That was my point about a "purely mathematical sense". Yes, you can use mathematical representations based on weighting to determine a relative value, but it is clear that even with a mere ~200 cards that these weights are off (drawing cards being a stark, easy example). Introducing new cards requires a review of the relationships, a cursory one at the very least. Mathematics is an extremely valuable tool when it comes to CCGs, but weights are still arbitrary measurements in many cases, and human intervention is necessary during the design process.

That is another good point however most defenses to permanents would be based on the card type/subtype and not on the card effect. This makes the relationship evaluation easily abstracted. However defenses to effects would suffer greatly from this effect. All in all I think there still is a good case for adding more cards to the game while at the same time reducing the ranges.

I agree that now would be a good time to make card suggestions that target subsets of permanents.

Any time would be a good time for that.

-snip-

I'm failing to see a valid objection.

I am not objecting anymore? I think your categorization idea has great merit.

[Lord_Jadem]

I am somewhat hesitant to come into this discussion as some of it is frankly beyond me.  And yet...

I believe the existing PC cards should continue to exist in their currrent form except with a higher cost as they does seem to be undervalued.  A card for 1 or 2 quanta (I am looking at you Explosion) negating any one of a large group of cards costing many times that?   Over powered.  Very few cards are as game changing as Steal and Explosion for their price, if any.  While there are other forms of PC, namely Pulverizer, Butterfly Effect, Mutants through Mutation and Mutants through Fallen Druid, Pulverizer require 2 different elemental quanta and cannot be used until second round (which it may not reach), Mutation has only small chance of granting Steal/Destroy, Fallen Druid has issues of both Pulverizer and Mutantion and BE is more expensive since it can be reused, but may not survive long enough to do so.

I think creating a sub-category of Artifact for permanents that are not Tower/pillar/pendulum, weapon or shield would be a great idea.  It will allow additional types of permanent control than currently exist.  More narrowly defined.  There are existing narrow permanent affecting items such as momentum (shields), flying weapon (weapon), icebolt and voodoo doll not to mention pillar only ones.  This would allow greater flexibility in card creation.  There should be some full-perm control items, I think Steal is about the best thing Darkness has going for it for instance, but I don't think that would not necessarily be appropriated to all Elements.  Gravity for instance might have a card that simply makes a weapon or shield too heavy to use, but would make no sense being applied to Empathic Bond for instance.  I believe I have seen a card suggestion for Air (?) that would pierce and shatter a shield, which would be another example of narrow PC. 

I could even see a possible distinction between Artifacts (shards, hourglass, catapult etc) and Active Spell (Enchantment?) (empathic bond, nightfall, flood etc).  Thinking behind this is a spell called Crumble might affect Artifacts while Dispel might remove Enchantments.

As to adding sub-category of Item, it seems to me it would be just as easy to have card affect 'weapon or shield' than create that distinction.  In same vein card could be made to affect 'Artifact or Enchantment'.

If change is made before a lot more cards are created it would not really have to be retro-active, it would just give more options for new cards.  More narrowly-affecting PC cards would should be cheaper than more broadly-affecting, which would allow balance to be more easily acheived without harming the balance of play anymore than when BE was added.

[Post]

This is ridiculous. Vast majority? Please. Even a small minority wouldn't support your statement.

Please reread the quoted statement. I believe you will find it says the opposite of what you read it to say. See how it agrees with your later statement. I only said "vast majority" instead of "all" because there might be an exception that you and I have not met.

Woops! My sincerest apologies. I thought that was an odd statement when I first read it. Turns out the reason was simple...me,  lol. No need to apologize for your writing; for the most part, I think we've had a lot of clear communication about complex discussion points. Unfortunately, my mistake clouded the entirety of my last response.

That is another good point however most defenses to permanents would be based on the card type/subtype and not on the card effect.

(My emphasis.) Saying "most" doesn't follow. In actuality, it will be exactly as many as the developer wants. This is because the cards can still target all permanents. Now, I imagine that most cards would target sub-types, but that would be my design choice, not necessarily yours nor the developers. Therefore, I don't see why the following statement is true:

However defenses to effects would suffer greatly from this effect.

Lastly...

I am not objecting anymore? I think your categorization idea has great merit.

Hmm, perhaps my impression was carried over from earlier in our discussion.

I believe the existing PC cards should continue to exist in their currrent form except with a higher cost as they does seem to be undervalued.  A card for 1 or 2 quanta (I am looking at you Explosion) negating any one of a large group of cards costing many times that?   Over powered.  Very few cards are as game changing as Steal and Explosion for their price, if any. 

I agree with most of this. Even though I wouldn't be against changing the valid targets for those two spells, as long as the cost is increased by a significant amount, or (ideally) relative to the targeted card, I could see them being fairly balanced. They certainly fit in well with their respective elements. However, I think the uniqueness factor of items, which OldTrees and I talked about in depth, provides a strong incentive against their removal.

I think creating a sub-category of Artifact for permanents that are not Tower/pillar/pendulum, weapon or shield would be a great idea.

Awesome. I should have touched on Towers as well well categorizing permanents.
 

I could even see a possible distinction between Artifacts (shards, hourglass, catapult etc) and Active Spell (Enchantment?) (empathic bond, nightfall, flood etc).  Thinking behind this is a spell called Crumble might affect Artifacts while Dispel might remove Enchantments.

That's certainly possible. I guess my first concern is that it's starting to sound a bit too much like the categorization for MtG. There is a lot of thematic potential, but less balance concern, since I find artifacts to share a lot of the same traits that items do not.

As to adding sub-category of Item, it seems to me it would be just as easy to have card affect 'weapon or shield' than create that distinction.

 

This is true. Well, except it would be slightly easier to say item, heh. It's minor, but it does add to the feel of the game IMO. From a technical standpoint, there would be few concerns, the biggest being efficient use of card space.


I guess, to summarize my position after all of this, my proposal would be the following categorization:

Permanents (parent class)
Towers
Artifacts
Items (sub: Weapons, Shields).

[OldTrees]

That is another good point however most defenses to permanents would be based on the card type/subtype and not on the card effect.

(My emphasis.) Saying "most" doesn't follow. In actuality, it will be exactly as many as the developer wants. This is because the cards can still target all permanents. Now, I imagine that most cards would target sub-types, but that would be my design choice, not necessarily yours nor the developers. Therefore, I don't see why the following statement is true:

However defenses to effects would suffer greatly from this effect.

Defenses tend to be based off what they defend against. Most defenses to Type will be based on Type. Most defenses to Effect will be based on Effect. Does this follow? Healing is a defense against the effect of damage. While one can defend against Gavel with Healing, healing by itself is not a defense against permanents. Does this follow? Therefore defenses against permanents will care very little about the varying effects of the permanent and will care about the value (average and range) of permanents. However defenses against damage will care about the varying damage it will defend against. Therefore defenses against effects will take longer to balance based on the number of things they defend against while defenses against types will not to the same extent.

[Post]

Those follow. ) Where I begin to disagree with you is:

Therefore defenses against permanents will care very little about the varying effects of the permanent and will care about the value (average and range) of permanents.

For the sake of efficiency and consistency, there is a strong desire to use the value. For the sake of balance, you need to consider the range of effects that will be impacted by targeting that type. How much weight you put on those two is another question, but probably best left for another thread. ;o)

On the example of damage, I feel this is one of the easiest effects to balance in a game as it is very precisely measured. Damage, along with its healing counterpart, are such basic game elements that I really don't consider them effects, but a mechanic (which I say only to give you an idea of my perspective, not to counter you, since the difference isn't consequential). The remaining effects are far more limited in range, and generally more abstract in use, thereby justifying further human intervention over mathematical representations.

Therefore defenses against effects will take longer to balance based on the number of things they defend against while defenses against types will not to the same extent.

So, following what I said above, I see the range of permanents being a significant problem during design. Determining which takes longer will depend on the cards/effects being considered. Right now, due to the small number of cards per effect in this game, I think defenses against effects would be easier to design than anything that targets a type other than a pillar, weapon, or shield, which is why the additional subdivisions will ease design burden (if we are following the rule of human intervention).  Explosion essentially nullifies a wide range of effects, but the value of this impact was clearly not taken into account during design. This is related to why I favor removing the destruction of weapons/shields, as they have the most powerful effects in the game, and instead focusing on controlling their use/effect.

By the way, I forgot to ask: what is the CIA?

[OldTrees]

CIA: Card Ideas and Art: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/board,6.0.html

We were not talking about Range anymore nor am I talking about Versatility of targets. I am merely commenting that the cards that defenses against EFFECTs target cannot be as easily abstracted to a single Range and Average Value. (versatility of targets is calculated by combining the value of defending against each category of effect the targets have and the fraction of that category the defense can target)

For defense against TYPE you would only need to evaluate Average Value and the Range of Value. You would not need to know the effects of the targets beyond their value for the Average and Range calculations.

The effectiveness of defense against EFFECT can vary with the method of the effect and thus looking at the relationship between each source of EFFECT and the defense is needed for accurate value measurements for the Average and Range calculations.

This is why balancing defense against TYPE is less impeded by large groups of cards than defense against EFFECTs would be for the same Average and Range of Value. This is not a reason not to have both.

[Post]

For defense against TYPE you would only need to evaluate Average Value and the Range of Value. You would not need to know the effects of the targets beyond their value for the Average and Range calculations.

We are pretty much on the exact same page, except for this statement. We may just permanently disagree here, lol. But, I think you need to know the effects, understand which will be hindered or negated, and take that into account during design/balance, which (ideally) requires both mathematical comparisons and human analysis. I believe the notion you presented could possibly be the reason why Steal and Explosion are so imbalanced, if this was the method used.

But, as we have both pointed out, this is more of a side point in the current discussion. It is food for thought, and as I peruse the forum it will definitely be something I consider. I thank you for that, and for the rest of this discussion.

[OldTrees]

For defense against TYPE you would only need to evaluate Average Value and the Range of Value. You would not need to know the effects of the targets beyond their value for the Average and Range calculations.

We are pretty much on the exact same page, except for this statement. We may just permanently disagree here, lol. But, I think you need to know the effects, understand which will be hindered or negated, and take that into account during design/balance, which (ideally) requires both mathematical comparisons and human analysis. I believe the notion you presented could possibly be the reason why Steal and Explosion are so imbalanced, if this was the method used.

But, as we have both pointed out, this is more of a side point in the current discussion. It is food for thought, and as I peruse the forum it will definitely be something I consider. I thank you for that, and for the rest of this discussion.

That was a great theoretical discussion. You taught me a lot. [+52rep for the lesson ] The Design Theory subsection of the Card Idea and Art board is another place you might find useful in the future.

Sidenote: The distinction I use/used between a defense against type and defense against effect is that defenses against type have a uniform affect on the effect of the target. (Destroy is a good example. Steal is a defense against one sided effects) Hence why I would only see something like the underlined segment when discussing a defense against effect.