Un-fun strategies/types

[MLaRF]

Howdy howdy! Now that some of the hullabaloo over Dragon's Maze should be starting to die down for a little bit, I'd like to ask your guy's thoughts on something: supporting strategies that are "un-fun." Specifically, the big 3 contenders are stall, mill, and lockdown. From some people's perspective it's pretty frustrating to face these types of decks, properly-done ones being the bane of stereotypical novice Timmies whose decks are hard countered by them. However, there are some people (like me) who don't like to play faster decks, so doing away with these types entirely tends to alienate a (possibly large) portion of your potential player base.

So, the main question is, how much love would you give to un-fun strategies such as these ones? Do you give them more support than the "fun" types, allowing the game to last longer or competitive players to get the maximum edge, but lowering the amount of "fun" other players will have? Do you give them an equal opportunity so that no one is left out, but in turn risk more "un-fun" decks at lower levels of play? Or do you think you should keep them toned down, making the game more fun but biasing your game in favour of a certain style of play?

As always, thanks for your feedback and I look forward to a cool discussion!
--MLaRF

[Turonik]

Well it all depends on how you set up the support for the types. I love playing mill and in Bleach, the "mil" deck was based around a guy that made it so whenever you would do attack damage, they milled that much instead. So you couldn't just sit back and do nothing and then all of a sudden come out the winner. And I think that's the point. I hate it the deck is set up where it's more you're just doing your own thing while your opponent is just little more than a distraction than an opponent.

Control has always gotten a bad wrap about being not fun to play against and it's not entirely undeserved. People hate it when things are not as they appear and having their toys taken from them. But I mostly blame magic for the bad wrap. In the early days you had "permission Decks" which where nothing but counters. Anything you played would get countered or bounced back. There was nothing you could really do to play around this aside from hoping to drop many cheap guys and/or hope he ran out of counters. You where mostly relying on the luck of the draw, and that leads to not having fun.

As to lock down... ugh. I do admit it's a very frustrating deck type since you can't do anything other than(usually) play a card that will destroy the card or cards creating it. I find this poor design and makes players rely on topdecking more than play skill however this, sadly, has become the norm and designers stick with it.

It all depends on how you design the game, Control is about slowing down your opponent and using their stuff against them but if it's far too passive, meaning, there's not much player interactions then that's bad for the game. Having it so you can easily set up a complete lock down on your opponent isn't a fun thing either since typically once you get it on, it's game.

[Typherion]

I think you guys have rightly pointed out that it's the effect on player interactivity that makes strategies un-fun. Players need to have the opportunity to play their decks to a decent extent, otherwise there isn't much point to the exercise.

I'd say resource destruction strategies are perhaps the worst offenders, because then players don't even the chance to play cards. Wizards has realised this and dramatically reduced the viability of land destruction effects in Magic.

You could probably add degenerate combo decks to your list. Some combo decks don't even care what the opposing player is doing because they will win or lose by turn X based solely on whether they can assemble the combo.

Control strategies are an interesting case. Many would argue that they are the most interactive, as they are based around predicting and reacting to the opposing player's moves. They would say removal and counters are far more interactive than players just turning dudes sideways. I guess there is a distinction between a control deck and a truly un-fun permission deck. It's interesting that Magic is moving away from cheap hard counters towards more soft counters.

As to stall strategies, I read an interesting article a while ago about a Yugioh deck called Final Countdown. The deck relies on casting its namesake spell that makes the player win the game after 20 total player turns, which is combined with stall cards. Although players generally hate playing against the deck, the writer convinced me that the strategy has merit and adds value to the game. But players who refuse to learn to adapt their playstyle in order to win seem to like a scapegoat. This could probably be said of all alternate victory strategies.

Perhaps much of the problem is that alternate win conditions are seen as "cheap". If you knew your opponent was capable of achieving any of several equally viable win conditions then maybe this wouldn't be an issue.

I think the key is to prevent the possibility of situations arising where the game continues to drag on even though there is almost nothing the losing player can do. But I believe there are ways to support these strategies without creating this situation.

[Dan55]

I believe "un-fun strategies" will be self correcting.  People will eventually refuse to play with you.

[Malagar]

I second Typherion and would also thinkt that resource denial and degenarte combo decks belong to the list.

Back in the days when I played Type-1 tournaments here in germany (no pro tour of course) we had those Necropotence decks like the pest. And we hated them like the pest as well! No matter what you played, they litereally ignored the other player and just "did their thing". Necro/Hypnot Spectre/Land Destruction/Discard - rewind, repeat.

What I see in "un-fun strategies" are "omni strategies" that could be easily applied to any CCG out there (now this may be a bit of a weird point of view, but thats just how my brain works):

strategies that rely on the overall physics of a card game (like drawing, discarding, resource control, counter, stall, mill) instead of the built-in mechanics (like combat, creatures, their interactions etc.). is what i perceive as "omni strategies".

basically you can plug-and-play all omni strategies from one game (like MTG) into any other CCG out there. because (for example) discard is possible in every game that uses cards. the same is true for mill, stall or resource control.

so, "un-fun strategies" are those that mess with the "physics" or card games instead of its mechanics.

they are un-fun because they bypass the rules (like creature combat, attacking or blocking) and instead manipulate the nature of card games in order to win.

--

off topic: this brings me again to the "perfect CCG". this would be a CCG that is able to turn all hard cards into soft cards (like typherion keyworded it). and at the same time shifts gameplay completely from physics to mechanics as well.

this would require a "soft mechanics layer" to be created on top of the "hard physics layer" of the cards and their built in attributes. and that soft layer must provide enough design space to fit all game mechanics into it. so that the design space is big enough for all cards to take place on the "mechanics/soft side", and designers are not tempted to create cards that are part of the "physics/hard side".

in a nutshell this would mean a CCG without mill, discard etc. strategies. instead rely on combat (number comparison), intrigue (bluffing), bidding or any other mechanic that can be build "ontop" of cards.

[Turonik]

What I see in "un-fun strategies" are "omni strategies" that could be easily applied to any CCG out there (now this may be a bit of a weird point of view, but thats just how my brain works):

strategies that rely on the overall physics of a card game (like drawing, discarding, resource control, counter, stall, mill) instead of the built-in mechanics (like combat, creatures, their interactions etc.). is what i perceive as "omni strategies".

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Utilizing resources should be a legitimate way to win. It just depends on HOW it's  done. I typically play games that have factions one choices to play as in a game, and each faction would have a different style they use in order to win.

If you compare magic to Legend of the five rings, you'll notice that in magic there is a TON of pin point removal that is cheap and readily available along with quite a bit of mass board removal when you compare it to l5r where the removal is more strict and that there rarely any mass removal (and it's typically way too expense and never really gets played) In magic, I can use all my land to play a guy whom costs 8 and can get taken out that same turn with a card my opponent plays costing just 2-3. There is no protection of your investments. While in l5r, if you play your 13 gold guy, he's typically harder to be targeted so you don't feel that he can be cheaply killed by a single card.

But that's just how magic is set up. I have seen that they are addressing some of those issues, like dialing back the counters) but that's just how people are used to magic, you run the risk of your big guy just dying without you being able to do anything. It's just the nature of the beast, but in other games where they have major battles like l5r and spycraft, they slug it out in combat which is a much more enjoyable experience. It's all your taste in games I suppose.

****

As far as Combo decks/ alternate win conditions. In many games people feel that you're just really playing against yourself until you either win or you die. Which can be no fun. However going back to l5r (yes, THAT game again) you have 4 win conditions, Military, Honor, Enlightenment, and dishonor. Military is the main one people typically win with. Honor you win by starting your turn with 40 or more honor . There used to be decks that where all about gaining honor that didn't need to go into combat at all. The designers wanted to go away from that and retooled the game so you would be forced to be involved in battles in order to get enough honor. And enlightenment victory is where you have all 5 rings in play however in order to play a ring you have to meet a requirement to do so, and this is usually done through combat so you can't just sit back and do nothing.

[MLaRF]

What I see in "un-fun strategies" are "omni strategies" that could be easily applied to any CCG out there (now this may be a bit of a weird point of view, but thats just how my brain works):

strategies that rely on the overall physics of a card game (like drawing, discarding, resource control, counter, stall, mill) instead of the built-in mechanics (like combat, creatures, their interactions etc.). is what i perceive as "omni strategies".

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Utilizing resources should be a legitimate way to win. It just depends on HOW it's done. I typically play games that have factions one choices to play as in a game, and each faction would have a different style they use in order to win.

Two main things on this: the first is that resource control is definitely not a physic-based strategy but instead a mechanic-based one. I can say this for sure because I play Yu-Gi-Oh and there is probably less restraint in that game than a puppy on a mountain of dog treats.

Second thing is that it's interesting to note that revival and draw decks can be pretty fun to play against when done right (if there's some kind of limit like a resource or if you can only play a certain amount per turn), despite the fact that they're more physics-based (probably because you get to see bigger/more cards appear throughout the game, whereas mill just takes the good cards out of your deck or hand). However, do you guys think discard instead of mill can be made fun for the person playing against it?

As far as Combo decks/alternate win conditions. In many games people feel that you're just really playing against yourself until you either win or you die. Which can be no fun.

And a note on this one, I remember there was this one time that I was playing Yu-Gi-Oh against an Exodia deck, where the game was over in 3 turns and I had not inflicted any damage or pulled off any successful combos. It makes me realize that sometimes combo decks are also like Typherion said in his allusion to the Final Countdown deck, where most people won't put the time/effort into changing their playstyle just because of one deck, especially considering the fact that countering Exodia decks is only really done through mill and discard, which tend to be un-fun to play against and must either sacrifice potency for winning or vice-versa. That alternate win condition cycle from Magic including Helix Pinnacle and Battle of Wits seems to be a lot easier to deal with and more fun to play against, because of the vast amount of enchantment removal available.

[Turonik]

I see your point but I was thinking in just general terms.

However, do you guys think discard instead of mill can be made fun for the person playing against it?

I personally like mil, and some games are designed with just that win condition in mind. And many that do, typically have many ways to get cards back into your deck. A mil deck gets a bad wrap because for the most part, it's a stall deck or combo deck, which are not favored decks to play against. But with that aside, comparing mil to discard, I'd rather go up against mil. Discarding attacks cards you have in your hand, the stuff you were about to play or need to play, while mil is just limiting what's coming up so it's not taking away anything you have already. This is probably all biased since I enjoy playing mil in any game that  has that as a win condition just to be different.

However with discard, at least early game, it can put you behind and put you in a position that will be hard to comeback from but honestly, while I've seen a lot of decks focused around it, they are aren't the win condition.  Mil is the win condition and the deck is designed completely around that, so while I do like it, at least in the majority of games I've seen, it's a passive deck that people don't like to play against.

[Burst]

My favorite decks to play and play against are discard/disruption/land destruction and second-most permission.  I see these as the MOST interactive.  You attack my hand and my mana you're hitting me at the core of my game.  You counter my spells that's my game too.

If we're slugging creatures at each other, well that's usually kind of boring.
Combat basically falls into two categories:
1- A mana curve race followed by top decking.
2- A trick to pop out something big and hence not really combat; leaving basically just option 1.

I don't particularly mind either of these, I just don't think they are quite as fun as a resource battle.

The least interesting are degenerate combos.  If you can win on turn 1 or 2 that's stupid.

I also don't care for overwhelming theme in the metagame either.  Like current legacy decks which are mostly variants on Show and Tell + Eldrazi.
Sure it's a cool idea, but when every deck tries to do the same thing it's not a healthy environment.

[Shockpulse]

The Mill and Stall decks I've run into weren't much of a threat, but I hate Lockdown decks and, in "Yu-Gi-Oh!" specifically, Exodia decks.
(I have to admit to a biased stance towards Mill decks, I love the "Iron Chain" cards in "Yu-Gi-Oh!", and my current CCG design is entirely focused on milling, as there's no other way to win.)

In the past, "Exodia the Forbidden One" was limited to stall decks. You had to outlast your opponent until you drew all 5 cards and won the game with its effect. But now, there are so many "Draw X Cards" effects, you'll be lucky if the person doesn't win on their second turn. You'll just be sitting there, watching your opponent draw cards, then using those cards to draw more cards, until they finally can't draw for the rest of the turn.
Any deck that makes you sit around waiting for 10 minutes while your opponent does some ridiculous chain of cards is annoying at best, infuriating at worst. It's not uncommon for players to forfeit immediately when their opponent starts drawing a lot of cards!

I never really disliked stall decks, because all of them have a weakness, and it just feels so good to break through that wall and deal some damage to your opponent!

True Lockdown decks are a special case. That last "G" in CCG stands for "game", and if my opponent's locked me down, it's no longer a game. Instead I'm just sitting around waiting to lose.

[crapcarp]

It's seems to me like the "un-fun" strategies are the ones that limit the interactivity of the game. Makes perfect sense when you think about it. Afterall, how is a game fun when you can't really play it? Several CCGs are about the struggle of players, but if a player can't put up a fight then they can't really play the game, can they?

So decks with these "un-fun" strategies are only truly un-fun to play against when you can't play against them. But if there's a way to play against them, and even a weakness within them to exploit, then there's interactivity and as a natural consquence, fun.