LackeyCCG

Guys, I have a problem here about the number of cards in a deck.

Do you guys prefer a CCG with a fixed number of cards in a deck (For example, exactly 40 cards and no more no less) or with a minimum number and no limit (For example, minimum 60 cards and can have more cards than 60) ? Tell your reasons and ideas.

Personally, when I play MTG or Duel masters or Yugioh, where the number of cards in a deck only has a minimum but no maximum, I always feel that when I get another copy of a good card, I usually do not need to think munch and I'll just add it into my deck. Of course when I play MTG, I have to consider the mana curve and such, but, lets say I am playing  a red deck that emphasise on rushing, when I found a red creature card with only one mana  cost and has haste, I will just put it into my deck without thinking.

However, the situation is different when it comes to playing Pokemon TCG. In Pokemon, only an exactly 60 cards deck is allowed. In this game, I have to consider every single card seriously before putting it into my deck. For example, are you sure you will need 4 Charizard? Maybe 3 will be enough and you'll have one more space for a tech or something. Or perhaps something like, do you really need 2 Warp point? 2 should be alright. Or maybe, do you really need a Switch? Most of your Pokemon has only 1 retreat cost. Yes I know it is not zero, but 1 retreat is really quite manageable and you should save some space for other cards.

What I am trying to say is that it seems that when you are playing a CCG where deck size is fixed with exact number of cards, deck building becomes very much more challenging and you will be much more particular about little details.
Compared to the MTG way, my opinion is that in MTG, aside from the manacurve thing, deck building is actually rather simple. After deciding on what deck you want to make and looking for suitable cards, just chunk in every card you find and put in the appropriate number of lands and make sure that your deck size isn't too huge. In tournaments, MTG allows sideboarding, which makes your job easier too.

In Pokemon, we do consider our energy-curve in our deck. But thanks to the draw and search power of Pokemon TCG, resource screw is not so common like in MTG, but still it doesn't mean that we can take energy-curve for granted. This game does not allow sideboarding, and combine with the exactly 60 cards per deck mechanic, designing a deck to fight well and have techs against metagame is much more challenging.

One more thing is that, when I play Pokemon, I always have to change my deck completely every new season. (A new season happens after the world tournament)
I am not sure wether is it because of this exactly 60 cards per deck rule or is it because of its other game mechanics. I prefer a game where even after a new season, your old deck can still be competitive. All you need to do is to tweak it to fight the new metagame and make only small changes with new cards, thus about 60% of your deck can still remain the same. This means that you don't always need to buy tons of new cards and waste lots of money to stay competitive. Just reasonable amount of spendings or maybe slightly more for hard core players will do.

So, how do you guys think about this?

The thing I like about being able to go over is it let's me playtest a 61 card deck and eventually remove the card that I keep getting and not caring about.

deck sizes are for the large part really arbitrary if you want. but you need to make sure the game can support it. like you implied, a game that digs deeper into the deck can get away with alot more. in such a case, you might not want the deck to be so small because then, the effects would be alot greater. for example, because of probability reasons, drawing three cards for one in a 40 card deck is just more powerful than 3 from 60. once you have an idea of general deck speed, you can do pretty much your own thing

fixed deck sizes alwys make me sad lol. i always have the urge to go over and then find i cant :(

The thing about minimum sizes vs maximum sizes is this: There's no advantage for going over (most of the time, in the rare cases when 61+ cards is actually better the advantage is tiny and the mastery to use it is massive). There's only advantages for going under.

There's no reason to block people from doing something that doesn't give them an unfair advantage.

And it depends on the game's mechanics whether having a larger deck is an advantage. If the game doesn;t end unless your decked having a larger deck certainly can gain advantages - this is the case when there is a limit on a deck size - say 60 cards - but there may be ways to alter that (pre game cards etc...)

I like both ways so long as the game performs well within that perameter.

minority ftw...? meep?

I prefer it a fixed number deck. Why? I don't know about tourneys since I've never actually attended one. I'd assume that they have rules about deck size and what not.

But if I'm playing casual and I only have say the minimum while my opponent has 20 more than I do, it just seems unfair. Seems, not actually is; I remember not knowing the rules to one game and I had a gazillion cards in my deck while the other guy had the min. Kicked me arse good. Oi!

When I say unfair I mean when it's someone who is as good or better than me. *shrug* Plus I like my rules in games to be a lil' more rigid, so there.

What if the game is similar to Pokemon TCG? Meaning that it has supporter like cards which help you draw cards, search cards and other stuff? In that case, will it be better to have a fixed number of cards in a deck?

I'm probably going to implement a set deck size for my ccg, because the game ends when one deck runs out (but it's not an automatic loss like in magic). I want to get the timing just right, rather than having games end in three turns or drag on all night.

Quote from: europeanmatt on January 13, 2010, 12:29:52 PM
I'm probably going to implement a set deck size for my ccg, because the game ends when one deck runs out (but it's not an automatic loss like in magic). I want to get the timing just right, rather than having games end in three turns or drag on all night.

What happens when a deck dies then? Are points tallied or something?
Timing is good. While I don't mind winning a game in three turns, I definitely don't like losing in three. :P And any game that drags on foooooorever, loses flavor like bubblegum.

the idea is to kill the opponents leader. if neither player does this, then when the deck runs out, the player who controls the most characters wins. actually now that i've written that here I believe it needs a bit of a rethink and another win condition...

if you play magic at all seriously, even not in tournaments but just with a group of friends who prefer winning over building goofy decks, then you can pretty much assume magic has a 60 card deck limit if you want any chance of winning. i'm not going to rag on your too hard or anything as you obviously play magic casually, but besides the random oddball 61 card deck here and there, it is a game of 60 card decks.

i prefer fixed, honestly. if anything like aardvark said it evens the playing field a bit so new players aren't tempted to just throw all there cards that sort of match what they want to do together. it encourages better deck building habits in the future as well.

To think wether fixed is better or not, why don't we recall the experience when we build a Pokemon deck?
After that, compared it with the experience when we create decks in MTG or Yugioh.
Now which is more challenging? Which is more fun?

I honestly feel that creating a Pokemon deck is very challenging but as for fun, I'm not sure. In fact, I feel that there will be times where there are optimum deck builds in Pokemon. For example, a Gyarados deck must consist of 3 card A and 4 card B. An attempt to tweak it such as having 3 card A and 3 card B to put in one more card C might affect the decks performance for various reasons.

So, how do you guys think?

Quote from: CCGer on January 16, 2010, 11:14:02 PM
To think wether fixed is better or not, why don't we recall the experience when we build a Pokemon deck?
After that, compared it with the experience when we create decks in MTG or Yugioh.
Now which is more challenging? Which is more fun?

I honestly feel that creating a Pokemon deck is very challenging but as for fun, I'm not sure. In fact, I feel that there will be times where there are optimum deck builds in Pokemon. For example, a Gyarados deck must consist of 3 card A and 4 card B. An attempt to tweak it such as having 3 card A and 3 card B to put in one more card C might affect the decks performance for various reasons.

So, how do you guys think?

the way i think is challenging = fun, so maybe i'm not the right person to ask

i suck at deck building. :S its taken me over 3 to 4 days to make A deck in m:tg and it still sucks :S i make decks by looking at a deck type and then for a theme and then checking in every card i can think of thatd fit by throwing in 4 of the cards i feel would make it. if the total number of unique cards isnt like 20, then i start pruning. if it is, then i start again but manually checking each cards as i add it to the deck. i have a bad habit of auto-putting 4 in of every card and setting my land count to 22 ~ 24 regardless of the cards in my deck. as well as making it 61 total

but mostly my failure to make a decent deck stems from my desire to make a pro tour worthy tournament deck. even if I suck too much to play it properly, i really want to be the one to come up with a winning deck idea, and as such, get too hung up on what the theme of my deck will be. currently im experimenting mentally with ways to make magosi, the waterveil playable and i only have one idea right now (cripple their field then lose a turn. when you have the slight chance of winning later, take back your turn and crush them). so yeah, i personaly am too unstable to make good decks :P

It really depends on the mechanics and flavor of the game as a whole. Doomtown has a set deck limit of 52 cards exactly (although you're allowed 2 joker cards in the deck) plus your outfit (card you start the came out in play with) and 24 has a set size of 24 cards. Both of these are for flavor reason. 52 cards in a standard deck of playing cards and 24 is  based on all one day.

However, if the game is based on milling your opponent (or decking them out) then a set deck is used, examples of this include  wars, megaman, and gundam war. This is to stop imbalance of decks. Dragonball z is a bit different because it has a deck min and max so players don't have a strict limit.

So it all depends on the game but personaly, I like games where the deck minimum is 50(or around it) and has a limit of 3 copies of each card instead of 60/4.

I prefer minimums but dont care about a cap so much.  I am likely to play 40-44 cards in Yugioh for instance.  Why? Math.

40 cards in a deck
6 cards in hand
1 per turn
3 of a given card (for things I have alot of use for)

What are the odds I draw any of the card i have 3 of? Decent.  I dont have a calculator on me so I cant calculate it but the more turns pass the more and more likely it is.  If I can control deck size I can choose to have optimum chance of drawing a card or have some leeway to add in some extra cards I just dont want to lose.

I will sugest  to play 40-44 cards in Yu -gi-uh for   Why? Math.

40 cards in a deck
6 cards in hand
1 per turn
3 of a given card (for things I have alot of use for)

I've played quite a few TCGs, both online and in 'paper', and it's my general opinion that fixed-card decks are better in the long run, strategically.

For starters, your opponent running out of cards has always been a win condition. It could be a direct win condition, such as is the case in Pok?mon or M:tG, or it could merely be an indirect one, in the sense that an opponent that has stagnated is much less of a threat. Fixed sizes are required to keep this part of the game relevant, since if it's ever not, it reduces potential strategy, and thus pigeonholes players.

Secondly, and possibly my major point, it's good for people, not just in a game but in general, to be trained in the sense of prioritizing.
  Many times when dealing with a game with unbounded sizes, there will be players who have never learned about the idea of making sacrifices. They will simply add cards to their deck as they get them, which makes their deck more unwieldy, less consistent, and, in paper formats, more difficult and time-consuming to shuffle and play from. And this is a self-propagating problem, as if a player feels their deck is untuned and loses far too often, they will feel compelled to strengthen it by adding new, stronger cards, which serve only to weaken it further in the long run!
  On the flip side, players who have to deal with fixed size decks are forced to gradually learn and develop skills for prioritizing, optimizing, and sacrificing. This helps them out, not just on a game level, but can also serve in life itself on prioritizing resources and making critical decisions. By constantly shaping a deck and knowing what to cut and what to keep, they intuitively begin to learn which cards support their deck and which cards do not, and become better players as a result.
  Most TCGs also deal with a system of resource management as well (whether it's lands, energy, quests, sacrifical monsters, or what have you), and dealing with leaner deck sizes makes this more important to the average player.


Though I understand the merits of, and would otherwise advocate, decks that go 'just a little bit' over the top to give a better idea what works and what doesn't, unfortunately there is no system that would permit decks to become only slightly inflated. Impose no limit, and many people will take advantage of that and create unwieldy behemoths of decks that are no fun to either play or play against. Impose a maximum slightly different than the minimum, and it would create a false sense that playing at the maximum should be just as acceptable as playing at the minimum. And if that happens, eventually people's decks will want to balloon over the maximum as well...

Perhaps some system with a designated fixed deck size, but rules permit going over this limit... at some sort of in-game cost (such as, hypothetically, starting the game with less health/life for each card over) could work, but such things would need to be carefully tuned; Too weak, and there may as well be no penalty. Too strong, and why ever be allowed to go over maximum at all.

Excellent post Saethori, I agree completely. I feel pretty lucky that as a kid (around 9 or so) I learned how to play the Decipher Star Wars game BEFORE learning how to play Magic. Star Wars has a strict 60 card limit that, like you said, helped me develop skills to make replacements earlier on than my friends that only played Magic. Deck building has always been a huge draw for me in terms of CCGs, and having a limit really fuels it rather than otherwise.

to me it depends on the game and both styles have a strategy to them, both ups and downs. in the card game i am working i have a minimum but then have a maximum "build point" system

Why isn't there an option "have both minimum and maximum deck size" in the poll? Elements CCG has 30 cards as minimum and 60 cards as maximum.