I am making a card game, and in my card game, you can spend resources on cards from your hand, (spells, creatures, etc.) and buildings from a separate pile. The buildings can be played as though they are from your hand, which spreads the resources a little thin from what I have been noticing during the play test sessions. The players are often forced to choose between playing cards from their hand, which can be more important in the immediacy of the game, or buildings, which help more or less in the meta game. It doesn't seem so much as a choice to players, but as a restriction. Both playing from your hand and this separate pile are important, so the reaction isn't that great when players feel like they aren't empowered to do both. It seems like the strategy element of the game shouldn't be being able to pick or choose where to play (the hand or side pile), but what cards from there to play.
Therefore, I was thinking about adding a tweaked threshold mechanic to the buildings themselves. They would no longer have a casting cost associated with them, instead, as long as the player had X principalities (land) they could bring out a building that has X threshold or above (only 1 building can be played each turn). All the buildings are able to be upgraded, so I'm thinking it would free up more resources for upgrading and doing other play mechanics, and it would also make the buildings flow with the curve of the game. That's my theory, but I have never played a game with a threshold mechanic, and I'm not sure how they naturally affect a game.
I was wondering if anyone else had any experiences with threshold mechanics, both in their own games or games they have played, and how it affected their views of them on game play. I've tried to find information on this elsewhere, but internet doesn't seem to be helping much. Looking for the pluses and minuses of this mechanic, thank you all in advanced.
Best,
-Jonathan Flike
I cant comment much on your threshold mechanics without a fuller understanding of your complete system, but you sound like you are setting up a "free to play one resource per turn once you reach the threshold" situation which is pretty straight-forward. The effects that would have on your game-play depend on the entirety of your system however, and the difference between the old system, so you would just have to play test it and feel it out (always play test changes like that, extensively).
But on the face of it... I think that sounds less interesting. You are removing a choice from the player and replacing it with a no-brainer (I have a free resource option vs I have to decide between playing buildings or cards). From a design perspective, this is the opposite direction that you generally want to go in.
Instead, if the choice between resources feels restrictive, then spice it up a bit. A good choice is one which challenges the players because both options are potentially powerful, but contain their own set of drawbacks as well. The player should struggle a bit with this choice if they don't have an over-arching strategic plan, and if they do have a plan, this choice should make an important impact on their plan. But no matter what, it should be a real choice and never an obvious no-brainer, where one option is clearly optimal.
The resource system is pretty much a 1 resource per turn that accumulates over time (a tweaked Hearthstone/MtG hybrid resource system), but I agree, perhaps things need to be spiced up a bit. Players are more likely to play from their hand, because that's more interesting even if the buildings are necessary in a lot of ways. I'll try this threshold thing in play testing just to see how it works, but I'm more interested now in making the buildings more impactful, giving the players a real choice. Thanks for the feedback Daggaz, it was just what I needed to hear :)