Collectible Card Game Headquarters

Headrock wrote:I would like the highest generals to have no cap, though. Would kind of suck to have developed a deck based only on rares or somesuch and not be able to use it - especially when you've collected all the necessary cards

I agree. Level 10 wasn't supposed to be the highest level (i was thinking about at least level 50)

Headrock wrote:How are mana-based restrictions different from arbitrary restrictions? If we go by rarity-based-upkeep, then you can add as much as you can pay for with your mana - whereas putting a rarity cap on a commander makes an immutable boundary that the player can't cross no matter how much mana he has to spare, no?

Most players have no problems accepting restrictions (that they can even control by upgrading their general). But most players feel bad playing sub-optimal by including a card for fun in their deck that costs more ressources than another card.

Headrock wrote:

Sloth wrote:Changing the deck to all basic lands whenever there is no chance for a battle and powering up when needed

That is not a loophole, that is the point. If you don't need an army, you could completely disable that army and remove all the upkeep - only to reactivate it when needed. Upkeep is only paid when your army is active. In fact I would even consider having a button to do it for you (activate/deactivate an entire army deck with one click).

That's horrible micromanagemant. I don't want to check each turn whether i can save some mana by deactivating decks.

Headrock wrote:Also, I think I mentioned this earlier, but I'll mention it again - we could also charge mana (from the surplus, not on a turn-by-turn basis) for altering any army deck. Every card you put into a deck costs a certain amount of mana (again, basing the cost on rarity could work well here just as it would for upkeep). This is one way to ensure that players willing to micromanage don't find exploits by constantly changing their decks.

Building and testing decks is fun. Don't punish the player for trying to have fun.

Headrock wrote:For one, as mentioned, that the size and strength of your deck does not depend on your progress (though this might be solved with rarity caps, but introduces another problem of strong bias against rare card decks even after all the meticulous collection of cards is done with).

This is a matter of balancing the level up progress of generals. Veteran generals should have almost no rarity restrictions any more.

Headrock wrote:Secondly, if a general can only lead troops of his own color (or any limited set of colors), then the availability of generals would limit your color selection. I haven't decided on which system to use for recruiting, but in any system generals should overall be pretty rare and costly (even without upkeep), and their appearance tied to some factors of random chance - so until you get the general you want, you'd be screwed, and there is no guarantee you'll ever get him. On the one hand, that's Magic - there's no guarantee to get the rare card you want in a booster pack - but if your strategy is severely handicapped due to bad luck, then that's a problem with the game. If you can't get a general who will support the cards you have, you're screwed!

Once again a matter of balancing the level up progress of generals. As i've said a general should be allowed to branch into a new color instead of gaining other boni. So a player sometimes needs dedication to make use of cool new cards, but he will never get screwed.

Sloth wrote:

Headrock wrote:For one, as mentioned, that the size and strength of your deck does not depend on your progress (though this might be solved with rarity caps, but introduces another problem of strong bias against rare card decks even after all the meticulous collection of cards is done with).

This is a matter of balancing the level up progress of generals. Veteran generals should have almost no rarity restrictions any more.

Rather than rarity caps to control level progress, I think access to cards to control progress is better. I would not enjoy having cards I can't use in my inventory because of "rarity caps", but the same thing could be achieved by limiting supply while keeping the fun alive to quest for better cards.

Sloth wrote:Level 10 wasn't supposed to be the highest level (i was thinking about at least level 50)

Heheh

Sloth wrote:But most players feel bad playing sub-optimal by including a card for fun in their deck that costs more ressources than another card.

I... have no idea what you mean by that.

Sloth wrote: I don't want to check each turn whether i can save some mana by deactivating decks.

Ok, then I'll make a final proposition. What if the upkeep was only paid when the army is outside of any capital?

In this case, you can't finagle an army's deck to reduce upkeep while it is in the field. And if you move the army to a place where the deck CAN be adjusted, you don't need to reduce its upkeep because you're not paying any. An army that cannot meet upkeep requirements simply cannot leave the capital it's in.

This makes it MUCH easier to tell which armies are paying upkeep (in a town? No upkeep. Outside? Upkeep), and prevents exploits through micromanagement. If you want to reduce upkeep in a hurry, just retreat an army to a town and keep it there.

It also gives some advantage when defending territory - since you can use even a very costly rare deck for defense - but still need to pay when going on the offense, which is kind of why I thought upkeep would be a good idea to begin with.

(BTW, this may or may not work with general upkeep as well, depending on what capabilities we give generals when they are in friendly territory and/or capitals)

Sloth wrote:Building and testing decks is fun. Don't punish the player for trying to have fun.

Well, fun with deckbuilding and testing out decks is what casual matches are for, as far as I see it. The strategy layer is about doing what you can with what little you have, and expanding your abilities smartly step-by-step. I don't think the strategy layer should cater to deck-building exercises any more than it caters to its own strengths.

Of course, I only suggested costs for altering decks as a solution to the upkeep exploit issue - which I think would be solved by the suggestion above. I too don't want it if it's not needed.

Xitax wrote:Rather than rarity caps to control level progress, I think access to cards to control progress is better.

That is already in the design, since you gain cards by conquering new territory and improving it or otherwise utilizing its assets, so the repertoire is inexorably linked to progress already. I'm mainly looking for ways to keep the late-game from being boring once you've secured a lot of good cards. Rarity caps for generals are a good way to do so, although they will also become moot as generals go into very high levels. The other method is upkeep, which does not diminish in importance as time moves on (and in fact increases as you utilize more and more cards or more and more rare cards, forcing the player to find ways to compensate).

Headrock wrote:Well, fun with deckbuilding and testing out decks is what casual matches are for, as far as I see it. The strategy layer is about doing what you can with what little you have, and expanding your abilities smartly step-by-step. I don't think the strategy layer should cater to deck-building exercises any more than it caters to its own strengths.

This sounds short-sighted to me. The reason I love playing Quest mode is I get a bunch of random cards and I have to fit them together. The decks I create in Quest are no way close to what I'd create in a casual match. They are duct-taped together, with some glue and spit, and barely anything else. I'd imagine strategy would be the same way. I'm not sure if a card that sounds useful will be, I want to be able to plug-in a card I just got on the fly, but if I want to remove it, then I'd have to run back to town. I definitely don't think running back to town each time you win a single card you want in the deck is a fun rewarding exercise. (Which is the same point I was trying to make the last time, which you didn't seem to understand)

friarsol wrote:The reason I love playing Quest mode is I get a bunch of random cards and I have to fit them together.

That is the same thing I was saying, actually, though just like in Quest mode you get a certain amount of effect on said randomality - choosing WHICH booster to win, WHICH cards to buy, is a very limited effect but still requires some forethought.

Nonetheless, I don't see why little adjustments every time you get a new card simply can't wait until you get back to base - especially given that forays into enemy territory are likely geared towards getting a new base. Isn't a strategy layer supposed to involve... strategy? Knowing when and where to move? planning ahead? Having to make do as you maneuver to improve your position? The last thing I'd want is to just move from one battle to the next - otherwise what's the difference between this and Shandalar, or Quest mode? Like I said, we're here for the card battles, certainly, but the whole point is to make what's between them interesting and challenging in and of itself, which Quest mode doesn't really do, and Shandalar did in a relatively limited manner.

In any case, if there really is this much resistance to card-based upkeep, then I won't continue to advocate it - but will likely add it as an optional rule anyway when the time comes, since I still think it offers a challenge that general-based upkeep does not fully provide.

Lot of text in here.

I'd like to add, if it already wasn't mentioned someplace, a game mechanic that would allow you access to specific or certain cards. Quest mode currently relies on random chance to get cards, which severely limits players from making combo or synergy decks and skews them towards goodstuff decks.

Well, I guess I disappeared for quite some time without a follow-up, so I owe you guys one.

I did my best to try and learn some Java so that I could get this project going. Unfortunately, that attempt has failed miserably. Java is just too alien for me, since I grew up with languages like C++, VBScript and Javascript, all of which are not as insanely object-oriented as Java. Even after studying some concepts, I could not even remotely make heads or tails out of the MTG Forge code, let alone make any meaningful adjustments to it. I ended up just giving up on that entirely - it's not going to happen, and I've already spent enough energy trying to make it happen.

But that's not the end of the Strategy Layer idea. Instead of trying to mess with the MTG Forge code, I am going to do something different: I am going to write a playable version of the strategy layer in Javascript and post the result on a public server. Hopefully this will achieve two objectives:
1) Demonstrate the game in a playable format, so that it can whet appetites and perhaps attract interested coders.
2) Provide all the algorithms I had in mind, so that if a coder does approach, most of the work has been done for them - they only need to translate it into Java and hook it into MTG Forge (not a small task, but much smaller than writing an entire game).

The process of creating this javascript version will probably take several months. I don't have all the time in the world, and it is somewhat complicated - particularly because I would have to write a subset program to crudely simulate card battles off-screen while taking card properties into account (so you won't get to actually fight, but your strategic decisions will have a noticeable and somewhat-predictable influence on the outcome of auto-resolved battles).

Xitax wrote:a game mechanic that would allow you access to specific or certain cards.

That is the point of the Spell Research mechanism, which will be possible in certain rare sectors.