Skip to Content

Best and Worst Trading Card Game Mechanics

45 replies [Last post]
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013

What are your favorite and your least favorite TCG mechanics? What makes you love a certain TCGs and what aspects annoy you about certain ones? Please explain the specific mechanic instead of just saying the name of the mechanic (e.g. "tapping). I have only played Pokémon TCG and LOTR TCG so I am not familiar with many of the mechanics Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh!.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Not just TCG

Well currently the mechanic I am working on MOST is Deck-Building. In my most advanced WIP, the game is themed around space battles. What I like most about Deck-Building is the variety of game play one can achieve with not too many cards.

For example, in my game you can *configure* a starship from one of 2,250 unique combinations! That's really cool, it's like having a Magic: the Gathering deck of 2,250 cards available at your finger tips... This unique aspect of the Deck-Building mechanic is real interesting strategy-wise!

Other mechanics that *interest* me (although I have not yet used them) are RPS (Rock-Paper-Scissors) mechanics such as RPS-5 (Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock). I would really like to design a game which would use a RPS-5 in an intelligent manner. I have tried unsuccessfully once before... I may try again sometime in the future...

Another mechanic (I'm not sure it IS a mechanic or not) that I find *challenging* is "Special Abilities". What I mean by this is when certain cards in games employ an ability which does something to alter the game. I find these type of "Special Abilities" VERY hard to define... I have tried SEVERAL times to define these abilities without too much success. I can't IMAGINE how Magic: the Gathering manages to create so many unique cards with "Special Abilities". To me, it's MIND BOGGLING!!!

Hiddius
Hiddius's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/14/2013
questccg wrote:Well currently

questccg wrote:
Well currently the mechanic I am working on MOST is Deck-Building. In my most advanced WIP, the game is themed around space battles. What I like most about Deck-Building is the variety of game play one can achieve with not too many cards.

For example, in my game you can *configure* a starship from one of 2,250 unique combinations! That's really cool, it's like having a Magic: the Gathering deck of 2,250 cards available at your finger tips... This unique aspect of the Deck-Building mechanic is real interesting strategy-wise!

Other mechanics that *interest* me (although I have not yet used them) are RPS (Rock-Paper-Scissors) mechanics such as RPS-5 (Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock). I would really like to design a game which would use a RPS-5 in an intelligent manner. I have tried unsuccessfully once before... I may try again sometime in the future...

Another mechanic (I'm not sure it IS a mechanic or not) that I find *challenging* is "Special Abilities". What I mean by this is when certain cards in games employ an ability which does something to alter the game. I find these type of "Special Abilities" VERY hard to define... I have tried SEVERAL times to define these abilities without too much success. I can't IMAGINE how Magic: the Gathering manages to create so many unique cards with "Special Abilities". To me, it's MIND BOGGLING!!!

The problem I see with having so many different cards is to make EVERY card useful. When you look at MtG, they balance alot of their cards by what format you play. That's why alot of cards are just.. well, bears and such (A bear is just a vanilla 2/2 creature".

The most annoying "mechanic" about card games is when I have cards and such that just doesn't do anything, or are just plain unplayable. Or when stuff are just "too good".
It's one thing that a card is good, but just unbeatable? No.

I'm myself trying to make a card game, with a resoursce system that is reliable for both players. A game where deck construction still is important, but the essentials aren't really bothered THAT much about your deck. The deck you play with is more like "I like this kind of playstyle, I'll focus on that cuz its FUN and still good."

In short, mechanics that hinders players to do things are the worst. They are degenerate mechanics and makes a degenerate game state and makes the players upset.
Limitations are one thing. Not being able to do anything is just retarded.

Hiddius
Hiddius's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/14/2013
Random is also a mechanic in

Random is also a mechanic in games that I tend to avoid. Drawing random cards is one thing, but to have alot of cards with an effect and outcome that is determined by chance is a bad way to design, IMO. As a player, you want to feel like you are in control.

There are 3 different kind of players in Magic: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b).

All three has different mindsets and plays the game differently, and also builds their decks differently. R&D has to please all three of these players in their game, and having that in mind, the outcome of so many cards is determined by them. This is a good way to think, and imho should be incorporated in every game. But it shouldn't mean that only the cards for Spike are actually playable in a tournament.

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Cool article, Hiddius. That

Cool article, Hiddius. That seems to be a trick as it would seem most designers are by nature inclined to be Johnnys and avoiding designing only for designer interests is probably my biggest challenge. Back in the day when I travelled around the midwest doing pro-tour qualifiers for Magic, it was me and a bunch of Spikes working together.

So as asking designers for best and worst mechanics is tricky whether thinking as players or designers. I probably bought and played 90% of all new CCGs that came out those first couple of years. As a player then, mechanics like card draw and deck manipulation are my favorites,anything twiddling with the meta-game rocks. As a designer thinking of other players and game feel, I like ramping mechanics like one land per turn that allow a game to mature through the play of it.

What I can't stand is imbalance, particularly moderated by rarity. If two monsters take the same mechanic/cost to bring into play and one that is a rare has a direct and overwhelming advantage (such as one has power 2000 and the other power 1000, with everything else the same.)

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Game Mechanics

I was trying to lead the discussion in the direction of in-game mechanics, rather than discussing meta game aspects.

An example of a mechanic I really like is LOTR TCG's Twilight Pool mechanic. Every turn, the fellowship player adds Twilight tokens to the Twilight pool. The number of tokens is determined by the size of the Fellowship, heroes added on the turn, and equipment/abilities played. The opposing player then plays minions and removes Twilight tokens from the Twilight pool. Once the Twilight pool is exhausted, the opposing player cannot play any more minions.

I like this mechanic because it allows the Fellowship player to use as many cards as he or she wants (the player is not limited by Mana points). However, the Fellowship player has to be careful, because every extra card he or she plays makes his or her opponent stronger.

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Toa Lewa wrote:I was trying

Toa Lewa wrote:
I was trying to lead the discussion in the direction of in-game mechanics, rather than discussing meta game aspects.

Welcome to the internet.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Quote:Welcome to the

Quote:
Welcome to the internet.

Lol! Anyway, it's not that I don't appreciate your discussions. I did think it was neat what you were discussing (I found out that I am a "Johnny"). I am just thinking about making a TCG, and I want to learn from the mistakes of previous games.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
A well a bear, bear, bear, bear is the word!

Hiddius wrote:
The problem I see with having so many different cards is to make EVERY card useful. When you look at MtG, they balance alot of their cards by what format you play. That's why alot of cards are just.. well, bears and such (A bear is just a vanilla 2/2 creature".

Well what if your deck is only comprised of ALL *bears*. So if you only have bears (vanilla creatures), the idea is how are you going to outsmart your opponent.

Obviously this is not 100% accurate, because there are 15 DISTINCT and different starships with each one having a "Special Ability" (think a bonus like +1 Firepower or +2 Resistance, etc.) So there are abilities for each starship and I have managed to make them all unique.

Part of the strategy is BUYING stronger cards for your deck (Deck-Building Game). So how you play is a reflection of what cards you manage to draw... Meaning the cards you BUY determine what should be your best way to play in order to win the game. If you follow this (and not do whatever you WANT to do), your path to victory should be easier... because you have the correct cards to win in that manner.

It depends on the scenario but usually there are two (2) paths to victory: win by satisfying the OBJECTIVE or win by destroying your opponents. In the second path (destroying) you obviously need to be able to BUY strong offensive cards in the early stages of the game and then use them against your opponent. Obviously it will not help if your opponent is buying strong defensive cards... because the two will offset. These are examples of how to play based on what cards you CAN buy.

zmobie
zmobie's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2008
Drawing cards, shuffling cards.

At one point I would have said that I like card draw, card cycling, tutor type abilities etc... but then i realized that the reason I like this, is because it solves a huge problem I have with these card games, and that is the randomness of taking all your carefully chosen cards, and shuffling them up into a big pile where you might never see them again... So my least favorite mechanic is shuffling all your cards together and drawing from that pile.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Still random...

zmobie wrote:
So my least favourite mechanic is shuffling all your cards together and drawing from that pile.

I guess this means you are not a "Magic: the Gathering" fan?! Because even though you can build your deck, all the cards get put into one single deck and get shuffled... And then you draw your cards from that deck... It's random however I guess there are probabilities that the cards you want to use will be in the deck... I suppose having doubles or triples of a card are necessary if you want the deck to be less random...

zmobie
zmobie's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2008
Yeah, not a huge fan of MTG.

Yeah, not a huge fan of MTG. Part of the deck building is adjusting your deck so that you can get the right ratio of resources to creatures, to instants, etc etc. It's just not an interesting problem to solve after you've done it a few dozen times. Figuring out which cards have synergy is fun, figuring out how to distribute them in your deck is a chore to me.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
In my view

zmobie wrote:
Yeah, not a huge fan of MTG.

Although I don't play MTG, I still like the concept. Because my interests in tabletop gaming revolve around cards and collectible card games are a part of that, I *like* what the game permits: namely it allows for artists to draw wonderful works of art - another aspect I like about cards.

So this aspect, about cards, is something I really enjoy. I like working with artists to help render my cards/card games. I like being able to work with Graphic Designers to help improve the look of layouts, etc.

In my book, the game's appearance is part of it's charm! :)

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Summoner Wars

I don't mean to keep tooting Plaid Hat Games' horn (even though I think all of their games are excellent), but Summoner Wars is a cool card game that has some deck building involved in it (not as a mechanic). This isn't necessarily a mechanic that's in the game that I like, but the decks are small enough that most games you'll go through either your entire deck or through most of it. There are some cards that are better to get at the beginning but the luck of the deck has less effect on a game than in most CCGs.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Since there has been a lot of

Since there has been a lot of discussion about Magic the Gathering, could you tell me what you think its greatest weakness is (mechanic wise)?

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
I think...

Land cards since Duel Masters does not have such cards... You would need to ask *larienna*. He could tell you clearly why Duel Masters is a better game than MTG.

Having watching a video of Duel Masters, each creature has the power to create mana for the player. It's just another function of the card... So you don't need to worry about not having sufficient Land cards to summon creatures... You just use some creatures to produce mana and then summon creatures or use spells that use the mana you have produced.

Also Land cards serve no other purpose than to produce mana for the player...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The reason why I quit

The reason why I quit MTG:

The feeling of Great Imbalance:
There are players out there that could beat you in 1 turn. Not so much fun playing then if your side of the table stays empty. The only way to overcome this is to have a starting turn yourself and then lay down the same cards for an instant win. For that, a beginning player needs to buy a lot of cards, or buy the cards online. Pay a lot. And well, flipping a coin has the same effect if you ask me. No need for spending years gathering the cards, if you are lucky.

New players also don't know about the rules which cards are banned or limited etc. So their first impression was mostly: "Bah, stupid game, I quit." I have seen a lot that left after the first day.

Eventually I had some good cards. (Based on Enchantress, enchantments and lure) So it became impossible for my buddy to win against me. After 6 losses in a row he wanted to quit too. A mirror game (both players have the same cards) is not what he wanted. So we quit the game.

In my opinion, a good card game does not have to ban cards or limit them. Nor does it have instant winnings.
A lesson well learned from this game for my own game.

The pictures and stories where cool though. That's the reason why I started the game. And the vanilla version is the best if you ask me.

BubbleChucks
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Without a doubt - the "blind

Without a doubt - the "blind buying" booster pack marketing mechanic.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
This Is The Worst

X3M wrote:
The reason why I quit MTG:

The feeling of Great Imbalance:
There are players out there that could beat you in 1 turn. Not so much fun playing then if your side of the table stays empty. The only way to overcome this is to have a starting turn yourself and then lay down the same cards for an instant win. For that, a beginning player needs to buy a lot of cards, or buy the cards online. Pay a lot. And well, flipping a coin has the same effect if you ask me. No need for spending years gathering the cards, if you are lucky.

New players also don't know about the rules which cards are banned or limited etc. So their first impression was mostly: "Bah, stupid game, I quit." I have seen a lot that left after the first day.

Eventually I had some good cards. (Based on Enchantress, enchantments and lure) So it became impossible for my buddy to win against me. After 6 losses in a row he wanted to quit too. A mirror game (both players have the same cards) is not what he wanted. So we quit the game.

In my opinion, a good card game does not have to ban cards or limit them. Nor does it have instant winnings.
A lesson well learned from this game for my own game.

The pictures and stories where cool though. That's the reason why I started the game. And the vanilla version is the best if you ask me.

I always hated the feeling of imbalance in games. This is the reason I never got into Magic in the first place, as well as the blind purchasing. Power creep is such an annoying thing in games. It's one of the reasons I loved Heroscape so much. There was no power creep and there was no blind purchasing. Everything was enjoyable and I knew what I was getting.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Banning Cards

Quote:
In my opinion, a good card game does not have to ban cards or limit them. Nor does it have instant winnings.

I certainly agree. However, making a TCG where you don't have to ban or limit cards would be exceptionally difficult. To prevent a card from becoming too powerful, you would have to evaluate every other card in existence and check all of the available power up/special ability combinations.

Banning a card is probably much easier than doing all of those upfront comparisons.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
TCG Especially

Toa Lewa wrote:
Quote:
In my opinion, a good card game does not have to ban cards or limit them. Nor does it have instant winnings.

I certainly agree. However, making a TCG where you don't have to ban or limit cards would be exceptionally difficult. To prevent a card from becoming too powerful, you would have to evaluate every other card in existence and check all of the available power up/special ability combinations.

Banning a card is probably much easier than doing all of those upfront comparisons.

This is especially true with TCG as opposed to a game like Heroscape. TCGs have a much bigger volume of cards out there. It's harder to balance hundreds of cards vs. balancing 10 different squadrons/heroes like in HS or even Heroclix. Eventually you'll get a card that is just godlike and you'll need to ban it.

I remember reading somewhere that in deck building games you don't have to worry about balancing cards as much because if a card is overpowered, then everyone will buy it. I think this really only works best in games like dominion though where you all have the power to buy those overpowered cards.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Miscellany

Kroz1776 wrote:
I remember reading somewhere that in deck building games you don't have to worry about balancing cards as much because if a card is overpowered, then everyone will buy it. I think this really only works best in games like dominion though where you all have the power to buy those overpowered cards.

Yes this is true with my Deck-Building Game (DBG). There are some starships that are MORE powerful than the others... But the thing is, both players have these cards as part of their 60 card deck! It's just a matter of having the option to BUY them for your deck... And so there is a little bit of luck of the draw...

But both players having the IDENTICAL 60 card deck is one way to achieve a certain balance. You just can't BUY everything on the table to add it to your deck. You need to make choices and watch the opposing players to see what they are doing.

If you buy too much, you might be behind in terms of the scenario/objective... Having the MOST powerful starship does NOT guarantee you will win the game. It is only a PART of what is needed to make it powerful: you need to have a powerful *Weapon* and a strong *Crew* for defence. If you have this trio of cards, the opposing player can *gang up* on that starship and use, for example, three (3) starships to destroy one. So even with the most powerful starship, the opponent can have a way of defeating it. But if the REVERSE is true, the player has the powerful starship and two (2) other weaker ones, he may be able to defeat several starships on one turn.

The other thing to remember is that there are multiple ways to win a scenario, you need to be careful about how you approach the game. It's about warfare (Space Battles) but there is more with Trading and Missions. Those two are used in scenarios where you need to accumulate wealth.

Trading is usually small, incremental gains, whereas Missions is usually large returns. The thing is that Trade starships are vulnerable to attacks by the opponent's Fighter starships. And usually Trade starships are *weaker* overall. So you need to defend those starships with Fighter starships that will act as escorts!

So you have to *blend* the type of starships you deploy, at the same time you need to protect your Homeworld... And you will obviously want to trade or do missions to advance in the scenario... putting your opponent behind on this could lead you to a victory even while he is pummelling down hard on your Homeworld! :P So there really isn't an OVERPOWERING card to the deck... But some cards will be naturally stronger (when used in combination).

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Agreed

I think Quest, your post is a perfect example of why balancing isn't an issue in many deck building games, because generally everyone has equal access to overpowered cards. In TCGs though that's not true thus banning is essential even if it isn't ideal. It's just hard to balance out hundreds of cards vs. ten minis.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Magic's Strengths

So what would you think Magic's primary strengths are, and why do you think it is so popular?

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Collectible aspect

Toa Lewa wrote:
So what would you think Magic's primary strengths are, and why do you think it is so popular?

I know several people who just love (I mean real artists themselves!) the design and card artwork. They collect the cards just because of that. And these are people who do not even play the game... It's just something they like to collect, chasing rare cards, etc.

So I find it's something *empowering* in the fact that artists are capable of designing and producing all kinds of pieces of artwork to match their card descriptions.

This reminds me about a time way back, when I was young, that I was trying to collect all 100 cards to the movie E.T. Back then, cards would be sold in boosters at corner stores and they would come with gum. I went to so many different corner stores just to try to own the complete set. I never did get all 100 cards... But I remember going to all kinds of stores with my dad... It was magical!

Anyhow, getting back to MTG, when I was demoing at a local game store, I saw a hardcore MTG gamer come into the store. He didn't buy boosters, what he did was SHOW his IPhone to the clerk and said that was the LIST of cards he wanted to BUY. The clerk took from the back some binders and searched through them to find the cards the customer wanted to buy... Long story short - that changed my view on "collecting". Clearly this customer was buying a CUSTOM deck. How many other games can you do that with? Like zero.

I think one of the OVERALL strengths in MTG is also a COOL factor. So you play Dominion or Ticket To Ride, etc. This isn't something you would ADVERTISE like "Hey, I played Ticket To Ride last night and it was awesome!" I think MTG somehow embraces the fact that it's cool to be a MTG fan/gamer. There is this mystique about the game, some kind of charm, coolness and they keep designing new cards for the game.

In my opinion, I think the *collectible* aspect of the game is what gives the game the most appeal...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ok, how about this one? In my

Ok, how about this one?

In my town, some players (about 7) stopped buying the original cards.
They simply designed their deck by looking up what cards where available.
Then printed the cards out. And played with the cards.

Eventually, relatively speaking; sleeves where a better sold item.

Masacroso
Masacroso's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
This is a old post but I

This is a old post but I think the future of all games revolves on the use of the mechanism inherent to quantum physics.

What Im saying is about the use of fine-tuned probability and the evolution of this probability in a system (increasing, decreasing or doing another shape).

A good example are the goofspiel variants. To me the "bid" mechanic is essential in any serious card game next to simultaneous play. Bidding represent "the nature of risk" and by this in an abstract sense it represent "the nature of strategy".

The point is avoid the need of a "second-nature" skill to play a game (second-natures are some things like to talk, to swim, to mount on bicycle, to play piano, and so on) what happen in fixed-space-related games as chess, baduk or any other perfect information game by turns.

At the same point is very important to get all the possible strategy deep into a game (if you plan is to create a strategy game more like a social game). In this point card games are wide more open to real strategy than board-space related games... or at least a mix of spatial (vectorial space) and non-spatial game.

As I said quantum mechanics, in a wide range of points, is just what the games are going to acquire by the need of improve the gaming experience and avoid unneeded complexity.

In quantum mechanics you can see the union of the opposite in many points of view: random and determined, position and potential (space/non-space), qualitative and quantitative (specific wave length or geometry of space, by example).

And, maybe, a perfect "game" is something that trascend the point of simple competition between players... or at least take some unpredictability in the competition, something like a contest of creation with votation (as the game design showdown).

Isnt not a meta-hyper-game our game design showdown after all?

P.S.: sry for my english guys, I tried my best

Some Random Dude
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
I'm a Decipher fan

Let me start by saying, the company that I followed through most of my CCG stage was Decipher. My older brother was an ambassador-type for multiple games, so we had lots of free product as a result, which only made us want to buy more. So, if this sounds like I'm tooting their horn a lot it's because I am most familiar with them.

1) The Twilight mechanic of Lord of the Rings TCG, definitely. It was mentioned above, but that built-in balance between players is great. I also like that each players deck is "half good/half bad", meaning each player takes on a different role throughout the game, and there were 3 different ways to win.

2) Destiny draws in Star Wars CCG. Anytime you needed a random element in the game (different random effects, battles, etc.) you revealed the top card of your deck. On every card, there was a number that was "Destiny", and if it met the conditions (Destiny>3, for instance) then you succeeded. This added an extra layer to deckbuilding (do I really need another 0-Destiny card in the deck?) and also included the random element without a cumbersome component like dice.

3) In Star Trek CCG, there were three things I liked. One was Q's Tent. This was a "side deck" of 13 cards that you had on the table. During the game, you could play a card that allowed you to grab one card from the deck, or you could get them through a couple other ways. This combatted randomness some by allowing you to place key cards there, but it also let you put "just in case" cards somewhere that wouldn't clog up your deck. I also liked "downloading", which is used in a lot of games but I think it was done really well in STCCG and it was used a LOT in STCCG. Downloading is simply an ability that cards had where you could look through your deck for a very specific card and place it in your hand or in some cases play it immediately. Finally, the cool thing about STCCG was Dilemma piles. At the beginning of the game, each player took turns seeding dilemmas under the opponent's missions. These dilemmas would be faced by away teams in a particular order and would require certain skills to pass, as well as have a variety of effects like killing crew, putting them in stasis, etc. This added a deep level of deck building where you not only could create combos for your dilemma piles, but you also had to build your deck around what your opponent might throw at you.

4) Finally I want to talk about Anachronism. This game was by Triking I believe, and was also with the help of The History Channel. I think of it as a precursor to Summoner Wars. Each player has a warrior from history (some mythological/legendary ones too) on a grid-pattern board. You also have 4 other cards which are facedown in a row in a particular order. Each turn, players flip one of their cards, and move their warrior a certain number of spaces, then attack the opponent. The cool thing about this game was that the warriors (and their weapon cards) had a grid pattern printed on them with a bunch of spaces and some modifiers (like +0, -1, +2, etc.). If an opponent was in a spot that your grid was blank, you couldn't attack. However, if they were in a spot where your grid had a +1, you each rolled a die, and the attacker adds 1 and if they rolled higher they would do damage. I really loved the spatial aspect of this game. When I first played SWars, I immediately thought of Anachronism, although there are some obvious differences. Also, Anachronism only takes 5-10 minutes, easily.

Things I don't like about games? Bad card draws, which is why I like Downloading/in-game side decks, and randomness to the point that there is no strategy. I like Destiny draws because the randomness is a bit more fixed - you know what your destiny is like in your deck and can guess what you'll draw, and there are also ways to stack your deck legally. If they had just a pure die roll in STCCG, I would HATE the game.

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
I've been very separated from

I've been very separated from MTG for a long time because the game got to the point where you might go up against someone with a strategy that was nearly impossible to beat unless you had 1 of a handful of certain cards in the whole MTG library.

My prime example is a commander deck I played against that was full of low-level monsters, but the commander itself was a necromancer that would bring all the low-level monsters back from the graveyard each turn. Yes, there are strategies to beat this, but you'd have to practically design your deck around that one strategy. I see that far too often for my tastes.

So in short, I'd say my vote is Cards That Have Few Defense Capabilities.

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
Although one of my favorite

Although one of my favorite mechanics is the Secret/Trap card that you play face down until a certain action takes place. Very cool mechanic, surprised that more non-TCG games don't use it.

Tbone
Tbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2013
Limiting players... I know... I said a naughty word.

My game that I'm working on is slowly turning into a TCG. It allows you to create your own deck but the cards have a pre defined abundance in the deck--compared to MTG where you can have up to four but YOU can chose depending on how many copies you own.

Also... You can only have a certain amount of the pre defined abundance card.

To clear this up... There are six different abundances...
-Abundant: six cards
-Common: five cards
-Base: four cards
-Scarce: three cards
-Rare: two cards
-Monumental: one card

You can only pick two different cards from each abundance category with their alotted abundance--except for the Monumental, these cards are always on the field and there is only ONE Monumental card (exp. I pick the Fallen Star. The Fallen Star is a Rare card so if i chose to put that card in my deck I MUST put two of that card in my deck--no more no less. With this I still can chose one more Rare card to put in my deck since i can pick two of that abundance.)

This way the card is balanced (like it should) by its rarety.

Also there is minimal card draw (unless a card allows you to). You start with a 40 card deck which you then place 18 cards on the field most of which will be face down. Your objective? Get the most points/kills and end the game by killing the enemies Monumental card, all while using a combination of actions (which includes "activating" your "deactivated" or face down cards) and moves to outwitt your opponent.

This helps with the imbalancing issue to an extent where you have an actual army. You have the grunts (Abundant cards) which have exceptonally weak, low proability abilities but with a large number of them can ensure a stable advance, and you have Generals (Rare cards) low in numbers but very powerful (usually).

Hope this helped

Tbone

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut