Some designers brought up the point about the turn-off of the "pay to win" model.
I had the challenge of trying to figure out how much MANA players get each time they play.
Well I believe that I have SOLVED BOTH issues with the same mechanic:
- At the beginning of the game, 1 Player rolls five (5) polyhedral dice.
- Each dice represents one (1) of the five (5) stats in the game.
- In addition the TOTAL of those five (5) dice, represents the score that players must try to make.
How does this FIX the "pay to win" model? Well just because you have POWERFUL cards in your deck or on the table, doesn't mean you will be able to trigger their ability. Why? Because you may not have sufficient Mana (poly dice) to use it.
So EVEN if you have more powerful cards than your opponent, you are on the SAME playing field in that you have to do the best you can with the abilities and Mana that has been rolled.
This is GOOD because it doesn't discourage players from BUYING "stronger" cards, it just means that chance is a factor in increasing the odds for an opponent who has a weaker deck (overall).
So the Victory Score varies between 5 and 40 points! And this can be positive or negative whichever you are closer. This gives PURPOSE to minus ("-"), division ("/") and modulo ("%") operators since the score might need tweaking using one or several of these operators!
The median is 22.5 points and the average is 23.14 points... So expect a lot of rolls to be in the 20-30 range.
This makes for far more "interesting" game play. Adds a bit of "randomness" but allows for more "predictable" deck-construction (when knowing the boundaries for winning Victory Scores).
Anyone have any comments/questions?
What I wanted is for Players to be "excited" when NEWER cards come out - obviously some of them being more "powerful" than preceding or initial cards that a player may purchase.
That's why I was a bit "discouraged" when people (you designers) said that no one will buy into a "pay to win" model...
And I agree ... it's WRONG for people who spend more money to win. But perhaps if we changed this to "win more often" it may be equitable. It's exactly like a "boxing match": the Champion has more fights and more experience, but a worthy Challenger may just knock him out "with the right cards". So odds-wise you go with the Champion - but the Challenger still has a chance to defeat him.
That's what I am trying to achieve: a form of balance.
And since BOTH players have the SAME "Mana" and "Victory Score", the strategy lies in how you use these two in combination to get the closest score.
Of course this does not prevent players from BUYING "better" cards... Something that I felt necessary IF you expect to have a TCG/CCG model when players collect cards to make stronger/better decks during deck-construction.