LackeyCCG

Hi guys. I wanted to know about your opinions about interrupt cards. Interrupt cards are basically cards like the Instants in MTG, where you can play them anytime during the game, including your opponent's turn. I am actually trying to create a CCG that is competitive, meaning that it involves a lot of deep strategic decission makings, but not too technical that it becomes too boring and not fun. It is mainly a one on one game but with possible multiplayer variant. Then I came across this problem, which is wether to include interrupt cards or not.

I think most people will agree that interrupt cards actually increases the interactions between the players, which makes the game fun. However, I realised that too much of interrupts can sometimes turn the game into a guessing game. The game will depend on a lot of bluffs and tells which are in my opinion not really a strategic feature. I consider bluffs and tells more of a social skill, which we try to study body language and the psychology of our opponents. I mean, social skills is good and all but I do not want it to overwhelm the strategic and tactical parts of the game. I wanted to create a game with more emphasize on strategic decission makings like chess.
Duel Masters does not have any interrupt cards in it (minus the shield trigers) and yet I find it very simple and mind challenging, which is quite elegant for a CCG. I really want to make a CCG like that.

However, I did consider a game without interrupt cards and found another problem. Sometimes the out come of games without any interrupt cards can be very predictable. Both players can just play a few turns and the winner of the game will be so obvious that there is little meaning to continue. Imagine a Yugioh game without any trap cards or quick spell. In the first 2 or 3 turns, once a player gets a firm grip on field presence (meaning the number of monsters on his field, no spell or traps in this case) it is all over. He can easily tribute summon, synchro summon or sacrifice monsters for big effects and mow you down when all you can do is put a monster in defence position. There will be no mirror force or torrential tribute or whatever to save you. Your opponent  can just easily go all out, summoning more monsters and keep attacking until you fall, without the need to worry about a nasty surprise from no where. I tried out something similar and find myself surrendering easily whenever the outcome of the game is clear, since there is no need to continue. I'll prefer a game where a catch up is possible even when one player is about to lose. Another words, if you are already winning and you started to be careless, your opponent can surprise you with an unexpected play to even out the situation. In this case, there'll be a need to play till the end even when you are clearly losing since there is a chance where you might still catch up with the winning player and even eventually become victorious.

For those you you that check out the Battle Spirits TCG, you will realise that it has a rather unique interrupting system called the Flash step. A flash step happens only when a player declares an attack and the defender always gets the priority. First the defender can play a spell and then priority is passed to the attacker and then to the defender against until both players pass.
And by the way, effects are resolved as soon as the spell is played, so there is no chains or on the stack. To give a clearer image, it looks like this:

Attacker Declare Attack------ Flash Step 1 (Defender gets priority)-------Defender Choses the Blocker---------Flash Step 2 (Defender still gets priority)----------Showdown (Results of battle, life loss if attack went through)

This Flash Step system actually makes the game less technical like in MTG where you need to wait for a respond each time you play something. It also makes the game flow smoother and faster. Another good feature is that, if you are unsure of what your opponent has and want to avoid risks, you can choose not to attack. In that case, they won't be any Flash Step and there will be no nasty surprises for you. Compared to MTG and Yugioh where every single thing you do isn't safe and can be countered with a sudden instant or trap card, I think the Flash Step looks better.

So, what do you guys think? By the way, I still haven't stabilize any rules in my game yet so I can't post them. However, I still want to know how you guys think about interrupts, wether you guys like them or not and which system you guys prefer.

QuoteHowever, I realised that too much of interrupts can sometimes turn the game into a guessing game.

Too much or too little of anything can always be a problem. Why do you have to have "too much" interrupts? ;) Properly balancing is done via playtesting. It will show when something happens too often/too seldom and will allow you to adjust numbers, effects etc.

QuoteThe game will depend on a lot of bluffs and tells which are in my opinion not really a strategic feature. I consider bluffs and tells more of a social skill, which we try to study body language and the psychology of our opponents.

Not a necessity: It can depend on resource handling as well. For example, in MTG you know that when the opponent has few lands untapped he can usually not play a powerful interrupt. You can also deduct something along the line with that from the fact that he has only has 1 or 2 cards in hand - then it's less likely that he has the perfect interrupt than if he held 7 cards in hand.

Yes, the bluff is possible in games like MTG, but players probably seldom win by utilizing it. Just look at the champioships and you'll realize it's not very relevant for game play, compared with say poker.

Interrupt cards and bluffs are completely useless in Yu-Gi-Oh! now. Simply because of the new cards they made that negate this or destroy that. Yu-Gi-Oh! is no fun anymore because everyone runs the same cards. Always Blackwings, Gladiator Beasts, Lightsworn, Synchros or Assault. The game is broken now.

I think that if adding interrupts increases interactions between the players, it is naturally going to add bluffing and tells. When people are competing, and have hidden information, there will always be mind games. If you don't want them, you cannot have hidden information. However, I don't think this is a bad thing. The solution would be to add a controlled amount, similar, I think, to the Battle Spirits game you talked about. Also, you could make interrupts more strategic. Instead of having tactical instants, such as "Negate an attack", you could have more strategic ones. eg. "Deal 1 damage to attacking creature for every 'Dark' unit you control." These kind of cards mean that there is still quick action, but it is tempered by your strategic decisions, and could be guessed through the metagame.

Magic got rid of "interupts" and just made them instants but that's besides the point.

there's two major systems  a card game uses, unfortunately people only know of the magic style where there's a "priority system" and instants and all that. The problem I have with these is that they hinder interactivity than they promote. This system is about playing counters, cards that get rid or nerf the card as soon as it's played (not always counterspell counter.) SOrry but sitting on a card until it's best to screw over my opponent is not fun nor exciting nor all that strategic.

What's the other system? Pass/Play. This is more like chess. You make a move and then your opponent does, each going back and forth taking an action until all players pass. I like this in games since they have what I really call "battles", you do things during an attack instead of just chosing someone to attack with , wait for blockers, and see if your opponent has maybe a card to play. You have to pick your targets carefully and your priorities. You can't just sit on an action and pull it out as a safety. Do that in games with pass/play and you'll just pay for it with losing the battle and a ton of guys. There are things called reacts/reactions that more like triggers though since they say when you play them but you can play them while your opponent is taking an action. In some regards it's sort of like an "interrupt" but not really since they are not that many and they all have a specified condition to play them under.

Quote from: Turonik on March 24, 2010, 07:10:56 PM
Magic got rid of "interupts" and just made them instants but that's besides the point.

there's two major systems  a card game uses, unfortunately people only know of the magic style where there's a "priority system" and instants and all that. The problem I have with these is that they hinder interactivity than they promote. This system is about playing counters, cards that get rid or nerf the card as soon as it's played (not always counterspell counter.) SOrry but sitting on a card until it's best to screw over my opponent is not fun nor exciting nor all that strategic.

What's the other system? Pass/Play. This is more like chess. You make a move and then your opponent does, each going back and forth taking an action until all players pass. I like this in games since they have what I really call "battles", you do things during an attack instead of just chosing someone to attack with , wait for blockers, and see if your opponent has maybe a card to play. You have to pick your targets carefully and your priorities. You can't just sit on an action and pull it out as a safety. Do that in games with pass/play and you'll just pay for it with losing the battle and a ton of guys. There are things called reacts/reactions that more like triggers though since they say when you play them but you can play them while your opponent is taking an action. In some regards it's sort of like an "interrupt" but not really since they are not that many and they all have a specified condition to play them under.

By pass/play, I think you mean VS system, right? I haven't play much VS System, but I heard that it is overly complicated in terms of game depth (not the rules of course) and intimidiating. They said that the game needs too much of thinking, with all the formations and choosing attacks and they even have interrupts to worry about too. (I think is Plot Twist or something) Well, I personally have not mastered VS System enough to even become average. But I think if I were to use that pass/play thing, I would have get rid of formations. What are your view about this?

And by the way, do you guys seriously not consider the Battle Spirits TCG Flash Step method? I think it is quite interesting and simple since it has no chains or stack but spells resolves immediately after they are played. In this case, they will be no counterspells, which I think is a huge plus for most of you who hates it. In fact a Flash Step only occurs when an attack is issued and will not exist if you do not want to attack, so you can escape a potential interrupt from your opponent if you don't feel safe. How do you guys think about this?

No, VS would have been much better if it was pass play but it still used a chain system to resolve actions and cards. In pass play, a card/ability on a card fully resolves before your opponent has the opportunity to play a card. This is actually a lot cleaner way to handle things if you design your game around them since you get many of the rules questions people tend to have with a chain system- really all the timing questions of when you can do what and how all the actions resolve.

AN example of pass/play in action would be Legend of the Five Rings, City of Heroes, Warlord, Spycraft, Doomtown, Full Metal Alchemist, Megaman, and inital -D.

As far as VS overly complicated? I Disagree. The basic game is easy to get into, the only real complicated thing is all the keywords it got over the many sets it had but by that same token so is magic. THe whole formation thing isn't too complex either and is rather simplified.  I give it 3 out of five as far as complexity goes (rules wise). And.... shouldn't you have to think in order to be good at a game? Strategy in game should be a big part of winning a game instead of winning by playing the best cards.

Now if you want a really complex/complicated game check out WARS.

ANd I can't comment of battle spirits since I have yet to play it.

QuoteIn this case, they will be no counterspells,

The only reason a game ever has counters is because the design team for the cards made them, that's it. I have a personal distaste for them since they one of the trademarks of lazy card design. But that's a rant for another day. I say go with whatever system YOU like and work from there designing cards to go along with it. In it self, the rules aren't the biggest factor in a game in it's fun ratting, it's the cards themselves.

actually, that would be an interesting point to talk about and relatively relevant to the topic. why do you consider counterspells as a mark of lazy design?

Alright then. Counterspells have always came off as too cheap and too powerful for what they do. There are other ways to have "control" in a game, ones that are more interactive for both players. Counters in essence, is the ultimate kill card but it works on pretty much anything. Which is way too good,  more often than not your turn is wasted due to your opponent using one. And, you can't play around them. Either you have a card that says "uncounterable" or makes things you play un counterable or Played a counter yourself. If you had neither, you just hope you can run your opponent out of counters first which could work but it's not fun to do.

I've played other games where there's ways to play around control or any other deck for that matter without needing a "hoser" card against that deck unlike in wow or Magic where if you don't have them it's pretty much GG for your opponent. I mean even l5r had a "counter", fall on your knees which canceled a reaction, everyone hated it but everyone had to play it because everyone did.

It's my own opinion, so your well inline to disagree with me. But  NOBODY I know of, loves to play against a counter deck or  a true blue old school permission deck in magic. So where does the laziness come in? There's other ways to do control in a game, and ways that aren't a negative play experience to play against. But when they just make a card that reads "Stop a card." just seems lazy to me.  If they made it as a choice like "Counter target card UNLESS they discard a card." then I'd be fine with that since it's not a sure thing. Sure still annoying but if you needed the card to hit the table to still be able to be a threat then you still have a shot.

what are the other ways to have control in a game? i play mostly mtg so i mightnt know what you mean, sorry

Quote from: Ripplez on March 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
what are the other ways to have control in a game? i play mostly mtg so i mightnt know what you mean, sorry

Other types of control include (but are not limited to) adding or removing cards from a discard pile (like if they have zombies they could bring back, and you get rid of them), or making them discard lots of cards, or looking and their hand and making them discard their key cards, or being able to get rid of lots of cards that are already in play.

Or you can weaken the stats on cards in play, redirect actions to new targets (not always to the opponent), making things cost more, making cards either attack or not attack certain things, hand control (not just discarding but also  looking at their deck and "stacking" it), preventing damage/wounds, tapping things, stealing cards from your opponent, various other ways.

The way control is handled varies from game to game. Magic or magic like ones, will have "control" that's mostly based upon what Mathman said however  some of the things he said like spot removal and mass removal, I don't like either. Spot removal needs to be handled a certain way in order for me to get behind it. Playing card that kills anything regardless I never liked in ccgs. I preffer ones with conditions and even better ones that play off cards you have in play but it depends on how the game is played and designed.

Quote from: Turonik on March 26, 2010, 02:26:21 AM
No, VS would have been much better if it was pass play but it still used a chain system to resolve actions and cards. In pass play, a card/ability on a card fully resolves before your opponent has the opportunity to play a card. This is actually a lot cleaner way to handle things if you design your game around them since you get many of the rules questions people tend to have with a chain system- really all the timing questions of when you can do what and how all the actions resolve.

AN example of pass/play in action would be Legend of the Five Rings, City of Heroes, Warlord, Spycraft, Doomtown, Full Metal Alchemist, Megaman, and inital -D.

In that case, it will be similar to Battle Spirits TCG Flash Step then. The only thing is that they do not give the defender a priority.

By the way, do you guys think that having a lot of interrupt cards will make the game depend a lot on the knowledge of cards? I mean, you'll need to know how much a card costs and its effects so that you'll know your opponent is trying to use it. Will that take away the core of my game, which is more to tactics rather than knowledge of cards? I understand that the knowledge of the card pool is important for almost all CCGs, but I don't want it to be too influential, thus making the tactical parts seem not important. 

Quote from: CCGer on March 28, 2010, 09:20:22 PM
By the way, do you guys think that having a lot of interrupt cards will make the game depend a lot on the knowledge of cards? I mean, you'll need to know how much a card costs and its effects so that you'll know your opponent is trying to use it. Will that take away the core of my game, which is more to tactics rather than knowledge of cards? I understand that the knowledge of the card pool is important for almost all CCGs, but I don't want it to be too influential, thus making the tactical parts seem not important.

Then you might want to look at the costing system of the game. Games like magic that have a "hard" costing system where you pay for the cards leaves that wide open. I can't tell you how many times I looked down at my opponent's resources and was like "ah so he has that." sure some times it's a bluff but 95% of the time they have it and play. And going "Oh, you're all tapped out"  and feeling safe isn't a good thing.

Personaly, I like more tactical games like L5R, spycraft, blah blah ect. where most of the actions(or instants) are free and most are played during an attack. So you can't just attack and feel safer just because they don't have anything open. But agian that's my opinion, besiees every game says that attacking is where the real action takes place but most attacks in games are just eventless motions you go through. If you're really looking at other options there's a few "tactical" games I'd reccomend to you  to checking out.

Quote from: Turonik on March 28, 2010, 10:27:32 PM


Then you might want to look at the costing system of the game. Games like magic that have a "hard" costing system where you pay for the cards leaves that wide open. I can't tell you how many times I looked down at my opponent's resources and was like "ah so he has that." sure some times it's a bluff but 95% of the time they have it and play. And going "Oh, you're all tapped out"  and feeling safe isn't a good thing.

Personaly, I like more tactical games like L5R, spycraft, blah blah ect. where most of the actions(or instants) are free and most are played during an attack. So you can't just attack and feel safer just because they don't have anything open. But agian that's my opinion, besiees every game says that attacking is where the real action takes place but most attacks in games are just eventless motions you go through. If you're really looking at other options there's a few "tactical" games I'd reccomend to you  to checking out.

Well, I always thought that not having a way to know what your opponent might have will make the game depend on guessing instead of strategic planning. So, if the actions are free, will the game become a guessing game instead of a tactical one?

By the way, you said that every game says that attacking is where the real action takes place but most attacks in games are just eventless motions you go through. Can you explain this a bit? And what is your opinion about real action?

Anyway, what are the few tactical games that you'd recommend? I would also want their rules so that I can compare them. Thanks.

Quote from: CCGer on March 30, 2010, 12:23:39 AM

Well, I always thought that not having a way to know what your opponent might have will make the game depend on guessing instead of strategic planning. So, if the actions are free, will the game become a guessing game instead of a tactical one?

Not really. That's one of the things that keeps it exciting and even nail biting at times. But it still remains tactical since you can still DO things, and just because you can doesn't mean you should (because in l5r you can split attacks so if you go all out in one battle you can still lose all the rest of the battles that turn or just leave your self open  in other attacks since your hand is gone.

A thing to keep in mind about the games that have "free" actions is that they trigger off  the cards you have in play and are not like "Destory target creature." they are like "target a creature you control in battle,  destroy a target attacking creature if they have less attack." And the "creautres" tend to have actions you can use in attacks too. But I'm getting ahead of myself

Quote from: CCGer on March 30, 2010, 12:23:39 AM
By the way, you said that every game says that attacking is where the real action takes place but most attacks in games are just eventless motions you go through. Can you explain this a bit? And what is your opinion about real action?

Magic, you just assign attackers, your oppnent assigns blockers, and then maybe somebody plays a spell. And that's the attack. Wow, bleach, duel masters, yugioh, are all like that with countless others. Don't get me wrong, some of those games I have enjoyed. like Bleach but that also had a "boosting system"  so you can discard a card to increase your character's attack or your blocker's.

However in these games, nothing really happens during them except for your opponent  reacting to the attack by playing a card.

But take Legend of the five rings for example. Many of the cards you have in play, have actions you use during battle(the attack phase) ANd I can only use actions from those cards and ones in my hand if I send people into battle. SO I can't just have all my people tapped at home and just play actions on my opponent's stuff while he can't really use any of his actions since I don't have any guys in the battle. You and your opponent take turns taking actions one at a time so you have to plan out your actions carefully since you can't rely on  being able to use all of your actions.

This wasn't always the case, it used to be not a lot of cards had battle actions so attacks weren't as exciting as they are now. Now practically everything has an action so you have plenty of options to use in battle even if your hand is empty since there is no "chump blocking" attacking armies sort of have trample (hard to explain quickly)  having the action on the character means you can do something  with him to either stop the attacker from doing serious damage.

Now the whole tactical thing is mainly seen in games that have "group attacks" but Warlord is still tactical with the use of the rank and file system. I know some don't care for warlord because it uses d20 for attacks, but it's still a fun game based sort of on D&D but is it's own thing.

Quote from: CCGer on March 30, 2010, 12:23:39 AM
Anyway, what are the few tactical games that you'd recommend? I would also want their rules so that I can compare them. Thanks.

Legend of the five rings first and foremost. http://rules.l5r.com/Main_Page (http://rules.l5r.com/Main_Page)

7th seas, it's a strange little beast, many of the cards have built in counters but it works since of how you play cards. http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/7thSea_ccg_rules.pdf (http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/7thSea_ccg_rules.pdf)

Legend of the burning sands. Sadly this game ended before it really was allowed to mature like l5r did, but it's still nice. http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/LBS-Awakening-Rules.pdf (http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/LBS-Awakening-Rules.pdf)

Doom town. Great game. http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/DTrules.pdf (http://www.chirographum.com/tolenmar/pdfs/DTrules.pdf)

and spycraft and full metal alchemist (both are pretty much the same game except for spycraft being the more advanced of the two. I can't find a rule book online for either of them but send me your email and I'll send them in an email if you'd like.

and for warlord since I'd still consider it tactical but doesn't work in the same sense as do the ones above due. http://www.warlordccg.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/4e-rules.pdf (http://www.warlordccg.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/4e-rules.pdf)

Interrupts/Instants are cards created to fix broken issues in either the game rules or cards created. I dislike them.

they take away a lot of the strategic element of a game, and create in a lot of cases, a negative "taste" in the mouth of the receiving end.

I prefer to see all the elements in play, and find a way through cards in play to get around that obstacle/problem, instead of simply playing an interrupt card and twarthing my opponent's plans/or help mine.

Not only do you have to be VERY careful not to create too powerful interrupts, just having them will open up a whole can of extra rules discussions, which I personally prefer not to have in a game. (priority, stack, chain, what resolves first, etc..etc..)

Having said that, I do feel that some interrupts, based on Deciphers "Response:" system can be done. They enrich the game, and if a player is good enough, can be anticipated, while general interrupts cannot.

What do you guys think about Duel Masters? It has no interrupt cards at all (minus shield trigers). Is it fun and strategic? Why?

actually... it's be so much better if you could. because otherwise it's just pure luck to stop an attack that turn or what not. Not really a bad game but it's a little TOO simplistic and not terribly startegic . it's just really a game for kids that can be a little mindless fun.

As with other people in this forum, I am designing my own ccg.  I have read a lot of the post thus far and finally decided to start my own thread.

For those of you who know magic deck-archetypes:  I am a aggro player while my partner is a control player and we are designing a ccg.  Would love to get another "combo" player on the team but for now I will poll the community.

I wanted to see how people felt about different play styles and game functions.  A buddy and I have been hashing out ideas to focus the game mechanics.

We started with turn sequence.  What can you do in a turn and when. I voted for a simpler turn with fewer steps, he wants a larger turn sequence broken down with phases, and further broken down into steps.  Similar to magic: the gather has a lot of phases and steps in a single turn.

For example one of the steps we were discussing was drawing a card.  Does this action happen automatically, or is their a particular step/phase of the turn when a player draws a card.  Please comment on the complexity and breakdown of the turn sequence.  Not too much, and not to little.

Another discussion we had was whether or not to allow counter spells.  Yep a spell that stops your opponent from doing an action.  Perhaps ones with limited ability or a way the opponent can stop your spell from resolving would be countered unless they pay 1. 

I was wanting none at all, as I felt that... let me do what i want and you do what you want and see if your deck is better than mine.  Not a game where you can only win if you stop me from winning.  Once again it because I am aggro player.

How do you feel about "spells that can stop your opponent" in a ccg?


Note: Please do not confuse this with ways to eliminate a card once in play, such as "return to the hand" I am just referring to cards that stop you casting your spells.

Random Mutters:

The actual difference between a terminate and essence scatter is almost non-existant. People generally find essence scatter more frustrating. Terminate is a better card half the time (terminate is worse on anything that does mean things when it hits the battlefield or leaves the battlefield and better on anything else, assuming sufficient mana is available to play either at any time).

Additionally, the mechanics one is forced to include to compensate for counter spells (a spell that can resolve before another spell that's already been cast), increase the complexity of the game without a promised increase in strategy.

That being said, I think blocking effects can be okay if done right, but I think it's pretty much just a better choice to make the game resolve around remove effects (perhaps a counterspell can only affect a spell and not an ally?)

I'm going to disagree with Tokimo just to say that adding this level of complexity does add at least one guaranteed level of strategy, and that is the bluff. Do they have the counter-spell now? Do I draw it out with a medium-strength spell so my heavy spell gets through next turn? Can I trick my opponent into thinking I have a counter-spell so that they wait a little bit longer? This can be fun, but it's something you need to decide if you want for your game.

Well, the reason I said it doesn't promise an increase in strategy is because I can think of games without the bluff that are paragons of strategy (Chess, Go).

Additionally, you could try to bait a terminate in the same way you could try to bait an essence scatter. Drop a really good creature and attack to get it terminated to then drop a better creature and have it be in the clear (I should start doing this against decks with mild removal... : D)

well on a personal note, I do not like my spells to be countered.  I feel it is one thing if you can remove my threat, but to actually stop me from making it not good.

With this in mind tho, without a true counter spell, I feel combo decks could take over as they are the deck archetype that do not need permanents to win with.

I have heard it before, that when design cards for your game to make stuff work together, but not to make winning combo cards, but players are intuitive and will find a combo one day.

So I am still a bit torn as to whether or not to include counter-spells in the game design.

I like the way Harry Potter TCG does this. There are no counterspells. Each player has 2 actions on each of their turns. There are some cards that can restrict what your opponent can do with their actions (like can not play spell cards next turn). There are some cards you can play to increase your actions, but there are also some cards you can play to reduce your opponents actions. But no matter what, your opponent always gets at least one action.

A good magic player will be able to take on any  deck-archetype, especially a control player. we are hard to come across because we can pick up an aggro deck and play it as well as any tim dick or harry about 40 - 50 % of our meta-game worldwide has been jund at least half of those people would of been playing fea with me last year.

Maybe it's because I'm coming from playing YGO, but the idea of negating things from happening and using the chain just feels normal to me. I have no problems with having my spells countered, perhaps because the Trap function in YGO is made in such a way that you have an idea of what is coming.

So in short, I am all for counter-spells.

Well I am beginning to come around to the idea of a balanced game will need the STOP effects that counter spells provide.

Quote from: suffolk on April 04, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
Well I am beginning to come around to the idea of a balanced game will need the STOP effects that counter spells provide.

A balanced game DOES NOT need the so called stop effects. most popular games use them but not all games do and some are for the better for not using them.

depending on how the game is designed. you can design cards that hinder or dampen effects without flat out canceling them. That way you still get the card's effect but it might not be as effective. Or you can design cards that increase the cost of cards. It depends on the mechanics of the game it self to design effective control

I may be in the minority but when you start having "can't"s in a card game it makes it less fun, which magic and wow tend to have alot of them.

Quote from: Turonik on April 04, 2010, 06:02:31 PM

Quote from: suffolk on April 04, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
Well I am beginning to come around to the idea of a balanced game will need the STOP effects that counter spells provide.

A balanced game DOES NOT need the so called stop effects. most popular games use them but not all games do and some are for the better for not using them.

depending on how the game is designed. you can design cards that hinder or dampen effects without flat out canceling them. That way you still get the card's effect but it might not be as effective. Or you can design cards that increase the cost of cards. It depends on the mechanics of the game it self to design effective control

I may be in the minority but when you start having "can't"s in a card game it makes it less fun, which magic and wow tend to have a lot of them.

I was not talking about over-powered cards.  This is what I meant by balanced.

1. Aggro decks beat Control Decks.

2. Control Decks beat Combo Decks

3. Combo decks beat Aggro decks.

regardless of the game you play the deck archetypes are there.

Just like paper, rock, and scissors.  if you take out one key element, then it is not balanced.

Counter/Stop spells is a key factor in controlling what your opponent can do.

I do not necessarily like them, but I feel that to design a game correctly and balanced you need that aspect.  I do not think it is a FIX card because the game designer made a mistake and this is the only way to fix the mistake.

If you hinder one part of the deck-archetype equation then to maintain balance you would have to hinder all of the 3 parts.

A lot of combo decks take a while to build up and then win.  if you can only hinder him by increasing the cost of his spells, all you really do it postpone the inevitable.  He will still win.  This is why there needs to be some form of stop spells.

I know, I am still an aggro player, but I am starting to come around to the idea that having stop spells are not that bad.  I would even to say that conditional stop spells would be acceptable.

What I mean by that is that "stop your spell unless you do STEP B".  If threw your ability to control the game, you can make it so your opponent can not do STEP B, you will succeed in your control deck.

Quote from: suffolk on April 05, 2010, 01:00:36 PM
I was not talking about over-powered cards.  This is what I meant by balanced.

1. Aggro decks beat Control Decks.

2. Control Decks beat Combo Decks

3. Combo decks beat Aggro decks.

regardless of the game you play the deck archetypes are there.

Just like paper, rock, and scissors.  if you take out one key element, then it is not balanced.

Counter/Stop spells is a key factor in controlling what your opponent can do.

I meant counters are over powered but that's besides the point. Yes. many games have that. But does it need it no. What I'm talking about is the game should be won based upon the player's skill and not what deck type they play.

The're can still be bad matchups, but they shouldn't be autolosses. Besides. most control decks I've seen are  designed with aggressive decks in mind.

To me, in a balanced game, you need balance between the play styles so you don't have a rock/paper/ scissors thing happening. That's an artificial balance. If A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A, yes you won't have one particular deck reigning over the tournaments but this isn't balanced to me. Only having A= B=C will you have a truly  balanced game.

And yes, any game will have some sort of those 3 deck arch types, however I never said take out control I love control decks. I just hate counters. They're boring to play and play against.

But it's your game, if you you need to design the decks around that, then go ahead. I was just merely pointing out that in order to have true balance you can't have one deck beat another.

I've merged these two threads together since they're basically the same.

I think i like yu-gi-oh's trap mechanic best, because you can see what the bluff is. I don't like counter cards that much, but i think some can be appropriate as long as the cost is fair and the bluff is predictable.