My first real CCG experience was, obviously, Magic: The Gathering way back in 1994. It was really the only thing around and the resource system was something that just blew me away. It had this feeling of two Magic users (now called Planeswalkers) battling it out on a field that grew as you played. It had this feeling of the ground beneath you forming as you continued to battle.
It was great.
Of course there are many issues regarding this...Mana Flood and Mana Starve much of which the creators of Magic didn't they'd have to address because they didn't think it would last this long.
It's easy to look back in hindsight and think maybe this was flawed from the beginning. It is not. The fact is, future card designers have been trying to "fix" this issue for so many years that 1) it has become a staple in card games and 2) not many designers try and think around it.
To build a better card game, you must build from the ground up.
This is what I was trying to do with my card game. I'm not using this post as an advertisement for my game, but I had the mindset of "Well, what kind of resource management would happen in deep space?". The obvious answer is not a growing resource that started from nothing. If you're coming in from space, you have an energy core...and that core can only give so much energy before it can "recharge" and give you energy again. In addition, if you're going into battle, you have to be able to have all weapons at your disposal...to come into battle with something you can't power up until sometime in the middle of a battle is pretty dumb. In game terms, it forced me to create hard balances on cards...a 6-cost card will have to be as important as 2 3-card cost cards.
But enough about my game. Here's what I've been cooking up.
Multiple resource system.
I got this inspiration from a couple of different sources. 1) My card game, which is really a play off of the Star Trek "engine core". and 2) Star Trek Fleet Captains.
It starts like this:
You have 3 different attributes: Engines, Shields, and Attack. Each attribute has up to 5 levels of energy you can divert resources to. Unfortunately, you have 8 energy points you can distribute amongst the 5 attributes every turn, which means some attributes will have more resources in it than others.
The cards in your deck, however are filled with cards that can be triggered on turn 1. The issue is that you need to distribute your energy to the right attribute in order to pay for it, which may mean making certain systems weaker in order for you to pull off a card effect.
For example. Say you have a card that can out-run and shoot-out a missile attack, but requires 4 energy in engines and 2 energy in attack, which puts your shields at 2. If the opponent instead uses a laser attack that requires 5 energy, then the first player may have an issue. But it's the player turn to redistribute their energy in order to play those effects.
Please don't over-analyze the above example, I haven't nailed down the mechanic yet and it was only used for demonstration purposes.
The point is, it's a different way of looking at resources. Give ALL the options to the player and make the player figure out which cards they want to activate. With a growing resource system (a la Magic), it's frustrating to have cards you just can't play because you just don't have the resources to fuel it.
In any battle, you should theoretically come in prepared, right?
Anyways, this post is really me actively brainstorming on an attempt at something different. I truly believe that card games have infinite possibilities and using a growing resource like Magic is so restricting and totally overused.
Thanks for reading!
Comments
Problem here is that you are
Problem here is that you are removing progression.
If you have all the options right at the get-go, then there's not much difference between turn one and turn X.
Could work if the game is really short though.
possibly.
If you have all the options right at the get-go, then there's not much difference between turn one and turn X.
Could work if the game is really short though.
But does progression have to mean growing resources? Can progression simply mean whittling their HP to 0?
My reasoning is that giving all the options to the player gives the player more control. If you have a card you can't play until turn 7, you essentially lose the opportunity to play that card in turns 1-6 and if you have more of those cards in your hand your options get severely limited, which results in an illusion that you have a lot of options (cards in hand) when you only have a few (actual plays you can do).
But by giving more control to the player, it is on the designer to create a balance. Like I said, a 6-cost card's value has to equal 2 3-cost value cards, or any combination thereof. It prevents the game from getting out of control, which is always the flaw when CCG's pass a certain point in its life cycle.
I think my beef is just the possibility of having NO options in early game. Games like Magic, Hearthstone, WoW, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, etc. ALL have this issue. Board games seem to mitigate this issue by allowing the player to have some options when they don't have any...I believe this is why deck building games are so popular...there's usually SOMEthing you can do if you have a dead hand, even if it's purchasing a weenie card. A dead hand in a traditional card game is, simply put, a fatal bug.
It's really a methodology. It's not something I'm telling everyone to do, rather a different way of looking at the traditional CCG.
radioactivemouse wrote:But
But does progression have to mean growing resources? Can progression simply mean whittling their HP to 0?
Progression in the sense of what you can do in the game.
In MTG you start with playing smaller stuff until you can pull-off epic things later on (when you have enough mana). This gives a sense of accomplishment in a way. If you can simply start with an 7/7 creature that feeling might disappear as opposed to building up to it.
+you have a concept of archetypes (deck doing better at certain point in the game), which goes out of the window if you don't have any sort of build-up.
My reasoning is that giving all the options to the player gives the player more control. If you have a card you can't play until turn 7, you essentially lose the opportunity to play that card in turns 1-6 and if you have more of those cards in your hand your options get severely limited, which results in an illusion that you have a lot of options (cards in hand) when you only have a few (actual plays you can do).
Yes, but there are other ways to solve it, while keeping the progression. For example cards can be dual use. Something which will let you play the card at the start of the game as a tiny 1/1 goblin or wait until late game where the same card is 5/5.
But by giving more control to the player, it is on the designer to create a balance. Like I said, a 6-cost card's value has to equal 2 3-cost value cards, or any combination thereof. It prevents the game from getting out of control, which is always the flaw when CCG's pass a certain point in its life cycle.
I think it's not balance which is the problem here.
I think my beef is just the possibility of having NO options in early game.
This I understand and agree with. I`m just thinking that by throwing away progression you're fixing one problem, but creating another. Perhaps some other solution could work better.
Progression?
The removal of what you call progression shouldn't be considered a flaw. What I explain is emulated classically in chess where all the options are given to the players and there's no improved moves later on down the line (See also games like Onitama or even checkers). Every piece is single-minded and there's no other units in the game. Each unit has their own strengths, but are balanced. The game is still played because it's highly cerebral; it becomes more of a skill game rather than a luck game. The "progression" is whittling down the enemy down to 0, like I said before and it works.
Again it's a different way of looking at things.
I disagree with the notion that by throwing away progression, you fix a problem, but creating another. Just because there's no possibility of an epic payoff doesn't mean the game has a problem. Just take the standard 52 card deck. There are literally hundreds of games conceived, yet there's no epic progression as you call it, all options are given to the player, and there's hardly any "build-up".
"Build-up" is nice to have in a game, but it doesn't have to be in all games.
Even thematically in a lot of instances, the idea of build-up is kinda weird. If you're coming into a fight, battle, whatever, you come in prepared, not as some warrior/wizard/whatever with a ton of life and nothing prepared. I've got a game in prototype where your primary resource is a deck of "bullet" cards; each weapon you fire expends bullets (you start off with a knife, which takes no bullets). It's easy when you start because you have a ton of bullets, but it gets increasingly harder when you have to go into a boss battle with a few bullets because you spent them all in previous battles. The hard part is now HOW you deal with your ammunition and which weapons you acquire down the line. There's no "build-up", but there's definitely a challenge.
In video game terms, it's like comparing Borderlands with Overwatch.
Therefore you have to ask the question: Is Progression fun? Like I've always said, I believe fun comes from "meaningful cool decisions" and if you give the player the means for those "cool decisions", then the victory at the end feels like each decision was worth it. Progression, as you put it, DOES add to cool decisions (to which I agree with your points), but it's not required.
radioactivemouse wrote:The
I'll probably disagree here. Apart from reasons I've mentioned above it is also a good thing to have in any non-lifestyle game since it makes learning the game easier. By gradually increasing the number of available choices you lower the entry level.
What I explain is emulated classically in chess where all the options are given to the players and there's no improved moves later on down the line (See also games like Onitama or even checkers).
I believe that chess is a really really bad example when talking about board-games. If anything, you probably want your game to be as far from chess as possible if you want it to be successful.
But if you really want to go with the Chess comparison - of course there's progression in chess. And no, not all the options are available - you can't move all the pieces on turn 1 and the board position becomes increasingly more complex as the game unfolds.
The "progression" is whittling down the enemy down to 0, like I said before and it works.
Maybe we are using different terms.
Whittling down the enemy down to 0 is the way to track who is winning. I`m not using progression in a sense of tracking performance.
Rather in a sense of options available to the player and how those options gradually increase and/or change as the game progresses.
I disagree with the notion that by throwing away progression, you fix a problem, but creating another. Just because there's no possibility of an epic payoff doesn't mean the game has a problem. Just take the standard 52 card deck. There are literally hundreds of games conceived, yet there's no epic progression as you call it, all options are given to the player, and there's hardly any "build-up".
Again, weird example. We're talking about hobby card/boardgames, right? I suggest we stick to more contemporary examples.
If you're coming into a fight, battle, whatever, you come in prepared, not as some warrior/wizard/whatever with a ton of life and nothing prepared.
Yes, but you also have reserves, reinforcements etc.
I've got a game in prototype where your primary resource is a deck of "bullet" cards; each weapon you fire expends bullets .... There's no "build-up"
(you start off with a knife, which takes no bullets)
This is build-up.
In video game terms, it's like comparing Borderlands with Overwatch.
Overwatch matches are short. This why you can get away with less progression. Then again, you have the ultimate which is not available at the start. And you can also switch heroes.
Therefore you have to ask the question: Is Progression fun?
Ofcourse it is. Look at the popularity of "rpg elements" in pretty much everything.
Progression, as you put it, DOES add to cool decisions (to which I agree with your points), but it's not required.
Well, let's agree to disagree then :)
??
I'll probably disagree here. Apart from reasons I've mentioned above it is also a good thing to have in any non-lifestyle game since it makes learning the game easier. By gradually increasing the number of available choices you lower the entry level.
Wait, what? We're really going to have to disagree here because I don't think there's a correlation between the rate at which your choices come and the entry level. Games like Cards Against Humanity/Apples to Apples/Dixit/etc. have the same choices every turn, yet played by millions of people. I would venture to say that gradually increasing the number of available choices helps a player grow, but it certainly doesn't determine an entry level.
I believe that chess is a really really bad example when talking about board-games. If anything, you probably want your game to be as far from chess as possible if you want it to be successful.
But if you really want to go with the Chess comparison - of course there's progression in chess. And no, not all the options are available - you can't move all the pieces on turn 1 and the board position becomes increasingly more complex as the game unfolds.
I also disagree with you here as well. If you want me to bring a more modern example, let's talk about Onitama, which is in Dice Tower's Essentials line. What about Quirkle? There's tons of abstract chess-like games that are just as fun and just as successful.
Maybe we are using different terms.
Whittling down the enemy down to 0 is the way to track who is winning. I`m not using progression in a sense of tracking performance.
Rather in a sense of options available to the player and how those options gradually increase and/or change as the game progresses.
Progression is a state where you're either growing stronger as the game progresses or you're doing something that's giving you a greater advantage during the game. Whittling down the enemy to 0, while it is a method of tracking who's winning is also a form of progression. In chess what is the progression? You'll have all the options available to you at some point, but I would say that the progression DECREASES as the game moves along because your pieces are slowly taken away from the board.
The definition of "progression" is: a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.
A destination..like destroying the opponent, or a certain board state, or total elimination. While they are winning conditions, they are ALSO destinations.
Again, weird example. We're talking about hobby card/boardgames, right? I suggest we stick to more contemporary examples.
You're going to have to give me a better reason other than "weird example" because now you're being subjective instead of objective. I've been giving you examples of games that support my point, but I haven't seen you do the same.
Yes, but you also have reserves, reinforcements etc.
See: "A different way of looking at resources" I'm giving alternatives that might be interesting to other designers, you shouldn't dismiss it because it doesn't have a quality you find valuable.
Overwatch matches are short. This why you can get away with less progression. Then again, you have the ultimate which is not available at the start. And you can also switch heroes.
It's STILL a game, it'e STILL successful, and it's a perfect example. The exceptions you've told me doesn't dismiss the fact that it's a GAME that has all available options given to the player from the beginning with no progression within the game. Does the length of the game dismiss it from our argument? Of course not.
Progression, as you put it, DOES add to cool decisions (to which I agree with your points), but it's not required.
We are going to have to disagree. You say there's no progression when I suggest to give all available options to the player, I say there is because there's an end goal anyways, whether by gaining points, whittling an enemy to 0, etc. I give examples of games that support my point, you dismiss them as "weird", which really isn't holding much ground.
radioactivemouse wrote:I
I don't think there's a correlation between the rate at which your choices come and the entry level.
Of-course there is. The more choices you have at the start of the game, the more complicated the game will be for a new player.
Good example of this: Building in the Lords of Waterdeep
Bad example of this: The enormous amount of options thrown at you in Caverna from the get-go (though they did manage to remedy it by having the progression in the actions, but not the rooms, sadly).
Games like Cards Against Humanity/Apples to Apples/Dixit/etc. have the same choices every turn, yet played by millions of people. I would venture to say that gradually increasing the number of available choices helps a player grow, but it certainly doesn't determine an entry level.
I've started my point with saying that shorter games can get away without it.
Plus, there's no need to do progression if the game it's a gateway game like the ones you use as examples.
I also disagree with you here as well. If you want me to bring a more modern example, let's talk about Onitama, which is in Dice Tower's Essentials line. What about Quirkle? There's tons of abstract chess-like games that are just as fun and just as successful.
See above - 1) Short 2) Gateway
Progression is a state where you're either growing stronger as the game progresses or you're doing something that's giving you a greater advantage during the game.
Whittling down the enemy to 0, while it is a method of tracking who's winning is also a form of progression.
How is lowering other player's HP make you stronger or gives you an advantage?
In chess what is the progression? You'll have all the options available to you at some point, but I would say that the progression DECREASES as the game moves along because your pieces are slowly taken away from the board.
In the late game - perhaps. It starts limited, then goes up, then decreases late in the game.
The definition of "progression" is: a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.
A destination..like destroying the opponent, or a certain board state, or total elimination. While they are winning conditions, they are ALSO destinations.
This is polemics.
I`m not interested in arguing over the terms. Call it what you want.
Let me state my argument clearer to avoid further derailing of the point:
Unless a game is short filler and/or a gateway game, it is beneficial for the experience when the number of options available to the player gradually increase, as opposed to staying the same as they were at the start of the game.
Hence by removing gradual build-up in a MTG-like game, you add more options at the start of the game (potentially a good thing) while removing the progression/build-up which is (potentially) a bad thing.
Which _might_ still work. I just wouldn't call it an ideal solution which will work well/better than what you were trying to fix.
examples of games that support my point, but I haven't seen you do the same.
I gave you an example, no problem.
See: "A different way of looking at resources" I'm giving alternatives that might be interesting to other designers, you shouldn't dismiss it because it doesn't have a quality you find valuable.
I`m not dismissing it. I`m pointing out at a potential problematic spot in your suggested fix. As well as give a potential solution to the problem you've raised.
I've also pointed out that it's not a problem in a simple and/or quick game.
It's STILL a game, it'e STILL successful, and it's a perfect example.
The exceptions you've told me doesn't dismiss the fact that it's a GAME that has all available options given to the player from the beginning with no progression within the game.
Overwatch is a completely different media and pointless as an example in this case since we are discussing boardgames.
Does the length of the game dismiss it from our argument? Of course not.
Of course it does.
Please read my very first message.
P.S:
Do you really have to be that defensive?
Lol.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. If we are to legitimately argue over this, we'll have to come to terms on definitions. Call it polemics, I've tried to set the standard by using a definition that's objective and for some reason you think I'm attacking you, whatever. I assure you, it isn't. We just don't seem to agree on the basic terms and therefore we should just drop it.
We're going in different directions based on our own definitions of terms. You say some kind of progression is required, I say progression can be as simple as life points, you disagree. You say progression is defined in-game, I say it's not particularly required because of the previous sentence.
We're running around in circles. Call it "defensive", I call it something else. We aren't agreeing at this point. It was an interesting conversation, but I think it should end here.
radioactivemouse wrote:I say
Well, this statement contradicts the definition you yourself provided.
We're running around in circles. Call it "defensive", I call it something else. We aren't agreeing at this point. It was an interesting conversation, but I think it should end here.
Agreed.