Skip to Content
 

Magic the Gathering - Room for improvement?

40 replies [Last post]
Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012

I am creating what you might call a modernization of Magic the Gathering. Or at the very least, my take on a game concept that does not seem to have any true rivals. (Edit: To be clear, this is an entirely new game that happens to be very similar to MtG at it's core)

I would like to use this thread as a place to gather a list of mechanics and concepts from MtG that could be done better, as well as to compile your thoughts and feedback as fellow designers.

Note that some of what I list may be right for MtG, but not necessarily the best solution for a new game. I also understand that many cards in MtG came about sometimes due to theme, and other times so that they could actually shake up the meta-game.

Additionally, there may not actually be a viable solution to some of these problems while still keeping in the spirit of the game.

MTG's drawbacks in no particular order:

1. Trading Card Game(TCG). Magic is prohibitively expensive when it comes to developing and maintaining a collection of cards, and this often proves daunting to any potential new player(or even people who have been playing for decades). I can't even count how many thousands of dollars I have spent over the years buying cards to build the decks I want to use(or even just try). It costs $400-600 every release(4-6 months) just to maintain a complete set of cards, and that is whether you buy packs or cards individually.

1.1. Power Balancing a TCG. If you have played Magic, you may have noticed that more more rare and expensive a card is, the more powerful it gets. Just look at the way Wizards has handled Planeswalkers in the last few years. Planeswalkers are some of the most powerful cards that can be found, and they are also the most rare. Those who don't want to spend $20 per card for their deck are left to face all the players that do.

1.1.1. Mana Balancing. As X3M brought up below, rarity affects the power cost in MtG. This creates hordes of useless cards that have rare/useful counterparts.

2. Mana Screw/Mana Flood. A common theme in many games of Magic is having your hand deprived of or flooded with some of the most important cards in the game simply through luck of the draw. When this happens you basically sit there and watch other people play the game as you hope for a miracle.

2.1. Land Destruction/Denial decks take the mana screw problem and allow players to do it to each other. Someone facing an LD deck generally sits through the entire game while the LD deck plays with themselves(unless the player built specifically to combat LD or has a really fast deck). LD cards are at best too cheap for the effect they confer in the game.

3. Ridiculous Combos. You can lose Magic before you play your first card. More commonly, you see combos that burn you down before turn 4. I am fairly certain there is a whole subset of people who actively build and play nothing but these decks just to grief people(they do it with Land Denial too). This is a problem that is more prevalent in formats that include cards going many years back, but it still happens in sets that just came out. Now, you can't design a game as open and fluid as Magic and not have potential for these game destroying combos, but certain cards make these combo's much more likely to appear.

4. Excessive Control. Basically any situation where a player or players cease to play the game because another player has the game on lock-down. Any of #3 that do not outright win the game count in this section. A player under a lock-down can either sit around for untold minutes waiting for defeat, or concede the game.

4.1. Extra Turns. This is often abused with #3. Even when it isn't abused for infinite turns, the fact that all the other players must sit around and wait for player X as he plays by himself, is I feel, a design failure.

5. Lack of Focus/Abstractness. This is both good and bad for MtG(really net positive in MtG's case). On the one hand, the game is refreshed with every new set as players get new mechanics and cards. On the other hand, it can be hard for players to identify with any given setting, build, or style because everything is constantly changing.

5.1. Theme Delivery. Part of the lack of focus has to do with the order that cards are presented to new players. It is often completely random and the designers have to take that into account. Extra card space has to take into account that players are often not seeing a complete package, but only what they currently have or can afford. There are of course starter and theme decks, but that is not how the majority of the game is delivered.

5.2. Theme Stability. The Color Pie and parallel realities. That is the theme. MtG pulls it off well, but it lacks a lot of the connection that more grounded worlds can offer. Magic is always on a different mechanic, a different world, and a different theme in every new block.

5.3. Mechanical Stability. Mechanics are left behind with every new block whether they are fun and engaging or not.

5.4. Race/Class Stability. As with mechanics, races and classes come and go. There are some recurring staples such as Elves, Goblins, Zombies, etc, but overall, most races and classes are rarely hit upon and even then it is usually sparse and random.

5.5 Hand Randomness. Draw is random. You want to cast a fireball, because you are a pyromancer, but for some reason you can't remember how to do that, and may never remember the entire length of the battle. This is of course a level of randomness that is present in most card based games, but in Magic's case it can be extreme and it does work against the game in some aspects.

6. Character Role. You are a Magician, period. Despite all the extremely powerful fighters that exist in any of these worlds, you can not be one of them. You yourself can not wield a sword or do any fighting.

7. Team Multiplayer. There are quite a few cards that have been produced, even recently, that are horribly broken in team formats. Serra Ascendant and Cloudpost being the 2 closest to mind.

8. Lack of Equipment. Magic released new swords a set or two back, but they were so powerful and rare that most people will never be able to afford them. You do get some decent equipment now and then, but given the possibilities, far too few equipment related items are designed. #5.5 is largely responsible for this.

8.1 No limit on equips. One human can use any number of swords all at the same time.

9. Roleplaying. Both the world and the abilities from MtG are ripe for roleplaying, but there is no established way to make this happen. The randomness of the game makes RP hard to pull off.

10. Poison/Infect. I get that the designers needed another way to kill players because life points can get out of hand. However, there is quite a lack of answers to poison other than removal. Much of the problem stems from the fact that poison was tacked onto the game long after it was originally designed making it difficult to change too much of the game.

Anyway, this is a pretty long post and I am out of MtG flaws at the moment. Let me know if you have any gripes with MtG and what you might do in a design to remedy the problem.

MayuPolo
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2012
I would say this is quite an

I would say this is quite an undertaking. :) Magic had has 20 years of evolution and is now stronger than ever in terms of player base and revenues. Of course there are certain things that people complain about like mana/screw and flood but overall I think MtG is pretty close to a perfect game (I'm a fan if you can't tell :) ).

I would say the way to modernize it is take it to the digital medium and that is exactly what Cryptozoic is doing with Hex TCG MMO (hextcg.com). They are taking the core of what makes magic great and using the digital medium to the fullest.

Will be interesting to see what you come up with in the end. :)

Good luck!

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Yeah, definitely a huge

Yeah, definitely a huge project, thanks. :) And thanks for the link. Had not heard of hextcg.

I don't necessarily mean modernize as in technology, but more along the lines of conceptual modernization. Of course, getting the game into digital form one day is highly desired. Base card game needs to be fleshed out first though. :)

Some key points about my project:

1. Living Card Game. Decks will be sold as complete sets(~150 cards in a deck). There is no rarity or anything other than your deck building skills to worry about. I have always felt the TCG part of MtG holds it back. It is a monetization mechanic that, to me, detracts from the gameplay.

2. Your "Deck" consists of 1 Ability deck, 1 Creature deck, 1 Equipment deck, and 1 Energy deck. 30 card minimum per deck. 3 of any given card can be in a deck. Base draw is 1 card from any deck of your choice. Additional draw steps would be thematically added such as a Druid getting an extra creature deck draw every turn(through talents). This adds some solidity and control while maintaining the randomness of the draw.

3. Class based. Each deck(sold) will be based around a given class, such as Mentalist, Shaman, Warrior, Sorcerer, etc. Classes don't lock you into any given cards, but allow for specialization through references to their Class. Additionally, players can multiclass by taking different talents.

4. Players have Talent cards that allow for specialization and character development. Each Talent will generally have 3 bonuses that are each leveled up by using energy(say 3, 5, and 7 mana to level). Talents are not target-able by other players. Ex Talent: All Warrior Abilities cost 1 less to play. Ex Talent: Demolitionist abilities deal X more damage. Ex Talent: At the beginning of your upkeep, draw 1 Equipment card.

5. There are 7 colors instead of 5. More thematically aligned colors than you see in Magic. Ex: Mechanical, Social, Biological, Mental, etc.

6. Players have a character card on the field that can fight with the rest of the army. It can be equipped with gear, hit by AoE, crowd controlled(in many cases), etc. Can not be destroyed or exiled of course.

7. Many class abilities involve the player using a weapon against the enemy, so you may have a Warrior use a Cleave ability that he can target on a player or creature. If the Cleave ability targets a player, that player's creatures may be able to take the blow depending on their abilities. A lot of core MtG systems can undergo quite a change when you put the player on the field hacking and slashing.

8. Many abilities require a specific weapon type, but generally your talents will enable their use as a base ability of the talent. Like you start with a rusty training sword, but if you want better stuff you can draw from the equipment deck on your turn.

9. An adventure mode is designed to exist side by side the traditional MtG style duel to the death. Given the mentioned changes among others, players will actually be able to use their cards, talents, etc in a D&D style setting where the cards and decks substitute for the tables and books of rules. A GM would be able to focus more on story and special situations such as when a Warrior wants to use a Cleave card on a door. There will of course be environment, dungeon, encounter, event, etc cards for the roleplaying experience.

10. A deeper keyword and "Evergreen" mechanic system. This is pretty complicated(design wise), but think of MtG with 10 times more pre-thought on the whole concept of color pie that includes classes, combat statistics, and mechanics that recur on a regular basis instead of fading off into the past as with MtG.

11. The Creature/Artifact/Enchantment trifecta is replaced by Physical/Mental/Spiritual which make up every target-able card in the game. You basically have abilities, equipment, and creatures that are all target-able based on their types, or their essence.

12. Power/Toughness is replaced by a statistic wheel that increases the depth of combat. Each creature has 1 of the 3 offense, and 1 of the 3 defense stats. A creature might still be 4/4 but might be Power/Health or another combination. It's stats determine what keywords it can have and how it interacts in combat.

Those are the big changes. Really it is MtG at the heart, with spells, draw, and mana, but otherwise taken to another level.

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
If your muse is to see it as

If your muse is to see it as a modernization of Magic, cool. But you might get less helpful feedback and have a harder time with playtesters and such contextualized that way rather than as simply designing your own fantasy based LCG with an RPG focus, character classes, and multiple decks.

I don't see any real problems with Magic, but find most any fantasy card game intriguing. Oddly, I've seen variations of this thread/pov quite a few times.

zmobie
zmobie's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2008
The last 20 years

I think the last 20 years of american hobby board and card games is a direct result of people trying to make an improvement on magic the gathering.

Orangebeard
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2011
Modernization?

Since my MTG years existed wholly between Legends and Fallen Empires, I can't speak to MTG in its current format, but it sounds like you have stripped MTG back down to its base mechanics and are building back up from a skeleton frame. My guess is this will result in a completely different game rather than a modernization, but it sounds cool.

I do agree that not being able to cast basic spells seemed odd; to cite your example, why can't the Pyromancer cast a fireball at will? If I could only choose one change to the game, I would be inclined to pick something that required the player to declare the type of spellcaster they wanted to be, and with this choice they automatically have some mana available and 1 or 2 simple spells they can cast at will (provided they have enough mana).

You have definitely have some thought provoking ideas here...good luck with your design!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Haha, it is number 3 in your

Haha, it is number 3 in your list that made over 20 people quit MtG in our town. There where about 30.
Eventually only vanilla players remained.
Even the one abusing number 3 quit the game.

If MtG is redone, then every imbalance needs to be tackled. And there should be a new set of MtG cards with a different background.
Some sort of gold edition.

And what I find very very important is that more powerful cards simply need more mana. The rare cards are often cheap in use as well. Which makes the game boring as well. The richest player wins, not the skilled one.

A suggestion would be:
Common cards have mana costs of 1-3.
Uncommon has 4-5
and Rare would have 6-7.
As simple as that. So a deck of only rare cards will also need a lot of mana to be build up.

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Corsaire wrote:If your muse

Corsaire wrote:
If your muse is to see it as a modernization of Magic, cool. But you might get less helpful feedback and have a harder time with playtesters and such contextualized that way rather than as simply designing your own fantasy based LCG with an RPG focus, character classes, and multiple decks.

I don't see any real problems with Magic, but find most any fantasy card game intriguing. Oddly, I've seen variations of this thread/pov quite a few times.

Sorry for the confusing use of terms. The core of my game is very much like Magic however.

Orangebeard wrote:
I think the last 20 years of american hobby board and card games is a direct result of people trying to make an improvement on magic the gathering.

Hehe, despite all the failings I listed I keep going back. :p Years of complaining about this or that mechanic in MtG and any random game and I finally started writing stuff down. Now I have a pretty good 33 page start on a design document for this concept.

Orangebeard wrote:
I do agree that not being able to cast basic spells seemed odd; to cite your example, why can't the Pyromancer cast a fireball at will? If I could only choose one change to the game, I would be inclined to pick something that required the player to declare the type of spellcaster they wanted to be, and with this choice they automatically have some mana available and 1 or 2 simple spells they can cast at will (provided they have enough mana).

You have definitely have some thought provoking ideas here...good luck with your design!

Despite recognizing this problem with MtG, it is quite hard to come up with a viable replacement mechanic that doesn't overtly break the game or bog it down with dozens of extra possible plays per turn.

I have considered having abilities your character can always use, with cooldowns, but that can quickly get out of hand given everything else that goes on in such a game. I may yet be able to do it through talents. I could have Talents that let you search your deck for specific types of cards every turn or two. That would probably be a higher level talent, so essentially as you level up your talent and as you become that pyromancer, you gain the ability to grab a fireball every so often. Or you might just choose a talent that grants an extra Ability draw every turn.

Either way it will take an epic level of playtesting to ensure that balance can be maintained. Most likely, talents will remain passive in nature. Ways to specialize your character and deck without giving players things like counter-on-a-stick that you see in MtG with certain combos. I at least have the consolation that if a player wants an ability, he can draw from the ability deck so that he at least gets in the general ballpark.

X3M wrote:
If MtG is redone, then every imbalance needs to be tackled. And there should be a new set of MtG cards with a different background.
Some sort of gold edition.

Yeah, definitely, though the core of MtG's gameplay makes it hard to tackle every imbalance. But I do give the MtG designers plenty of credit. MtG was created without realizing where it was going to go. A lot of the systems grew over time and weren't necessarily hammered out well in advance. The past 5-10 years they have started to get a handle on the future of Magic, but it is a really long process.

I don't think MtG will ever grow out of it's roots though, so that is what new projects are for. :)

X3M wrote:
And what I find very very important is that more powerful cards simply need more mana. The rare cards are often cheap in use as well. Which makes the game boring as well. The richest player wins, not the skilled one.

Yes, I had forgotten about that one. One of the problems with the rarity system of a TCG is that it skews the mana cost of just about everything(in bad ways). 2 creatures, same size and power and abilities, but one is rare so it costs less. You end up with all these "useless" cards in MtG as a result. It can drive me crazy. However...

It does obfuscate the true cost of much of the game's cards, which can be useful in and of itself. The longer it takes players to get a handle on what each card "should" cost, the longer it takes to nail down how the game works. It gives them things to learn over a long period of time. Why does this counterspell cost more than that one? It isn't always rarity. The fact that you have multiple cost systems running simultaneously makes things harder to figure out, and helps keep them hooked longer.

I definitely want a bare-bones cost system that is across the board identical. A blank 1/1 creature always costs the same. It will be as keywords, abilities, and many other factors such as alternate means of payment(life, creatures, etc) are added that the cost will fluctuate. I will use all these additional factors to make essentially make it hard for players to nail down true costs and give them plenty of food for thought when deckbuilding.

Just when players think they have card figured out, you give them another one that is similar, but different in a couple key ways, and suddenly a million deck ideas appear in the head.

zmobie
zmobie's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2008
haha. Yeah, the problem with

haha. Yeah, the problem with magic is that they simply just don't know how to balance their game, and anyone could do a better job /sarcasm

I argue that the hidden imbalances in magic is why people play the game in the first place. Playing the game is way less fun that pouring over cards to find synergies and combos that may have slipped through the cracks... which doesn't happen a lot. Try playing any other CCG/LCG. So much worse than the balance issues magic has. I don't want to name names, but a CCG I play just came off of an arc where they had to throw around the ban-hammer pretty hard for a whole arc because of some serious game breaking balance issues.

Fluctuations in balance is part of the fun of a CCG, it just needs to stay within some kind of set parameters, or there needs to be an answer to every crazy combo. In magic, if there is a turn 2 win, there is more than likely a turn 2 answer to that combo. The metagame tends to solve a lot of those issues because they are really good at balancing magic.

The rarity issue is more of a business model problem than a game problem. Magic is a money eating lifestyle, but that's also sort of it's appeal? It demands a lot of your time and attention, and generally serious magic players don't play a whole lot of other games. I've played LCG's that are really good and a lot of fun, but they just don't draw you in as much because they don't demand as much of your life in order to play them.

eviljohs
Offline
Joined: 03/10/2012
Corsaire wrote:If your muse

Corsaire wrote:
If your muse is to see it as a modernization of Magic, cool. But you might get less helpful feedback and have a harder time with playtesters and such contextualized that way rather than as simply designing your own fantasy based LCG with an RPG focus, character classes, and multiple decks.

I don't see any real problems with Magic, but find most any fantasy card game intriguing. Oddly, I've seen variations of this thread/pov quite a few times.

I agree. Also, Wizards of the coasts --> hasbro have developed something that works well. Despite its flaws, people still play. They still invest time and money into the game.

You sound quite educated with the mechanics of collectible card games. The flip side is. Because of the long legacy that this game has, anything that is close at all is almost always written off as just a MtG clone. And dismissed.

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
zmobie wrote:I argue that the

zmobie wrote:
I argue that the hidden imbalances in magic is why people play the game in the first place. Playing the game is way less fun that pouring over cards to find synergies and combos that may have slipped through the cracks... which doesn't happen a lot. Try playing any other CCG/LCG. So much worse than the balance issues magic has. I don't want to name names, but a CCG I play just came off of an arc where they had to throw around the ban-hammer pretty hard for a whole arc because of some serious game breaking balance issues.Hidden imbalance is definitely important. I did list the combos as a problem with Magic while also realizing the system that allows it in the first place is the very core of the game.

Like you said, the key is to keep imbalances confined to a set.

For me though, turn 2 combos aren't really the problem, especially when they are the result of 5-10 years of set releases. Part of the problem is that when every jackass under the sun decides he has to play that turn 2 combo deck, that means I have to play the counter deck when what I really wanted to play was something a little slower and generally different. This is also kind of a matchmaking issue, but it literally drives people to quit the game and it puts me into vacation mode. I will say that I haven't seen as much combo and LD as I did in the past. Maybe all those jokers went to League of Legends.

zmobie wrote:
The rarity issue is more of a business model problem than a game problem. Magic is a money eating lifestyle, but that's also sort of it's appeal? It demands a lot of your time and attention, and generally serious magic players don't play a whole lot of other games. I've played LCG's that are really good and a lot of fun, but they just don't draw you in as much because they don't demand as much of your life in order to play them.

I don't think the money sink itself is a draw, but the investment does keep motivation to come back from hibernation. Magic is basically full of players that modern Microtransaction guru's refer to as Whales. If you spend $500 a year on cards, you are a Whale. How much of Magic's $~200 million a year revenue is from Whales? Probably a percentage that would make any facebook game company drool golden coins.

An LCG game, done right, would offer the same experience for 1/10th the cost. I know a lot of people that say hell no to Magic's TCG costs, but don't mind plopping down $50 every so often for a complete package. I don't think an LCG has launched that has hit the same sweet spot that Magic hits.

eviljohs wrote:
I agree. Also, Wizards of the coasts --> hasbro have developed something that works well. Despite its flaws, people still play. They still invest time and money into the game.

You sound quite educated with the mechanics of collectible card games. The flip side is. Because of the long legacy that this game has, anything that is close at all is almost always written off as just a MtG clone. And dismissed.

I agree, and I invest money into their game. What I am trying to create is something that hits a much broader audience's price point while also advancing the genre mechanically.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Please do keep in mind that

Please do keep in mind that indeed most clones or other card games have more imbalance than MtG. So MtG would still be the best game out there if you use balanced decks against each other.

The reason for this:
MtG has a good balance in the base (or also known as vanilla version).

1/1 costs 1
2/2 costs 2
3/3 costs 3
1/3 costs 2
3/1 costs 2
etc.

Even thought the first imbalance that I noticed is that the mountain creatures cost 1 more. And Forest(?) creatures often have 1 less. (So I became a forest player.) If this is straitened out first. And you then build upon this. There is a high chance the balance keeps in check.

Another problem with balancing is that you need to keep track of every...other...card that is out there.

Now for some suggestions:

Special magic from the 5 colors?
Forest could supply enchantments (1/0 or 0/1 would cost 1, it is an permanent upgrade), this can be balanced with ease. If you want to supply a creature from another color, you still will be needing forest mana for this.
The other 4 need something as well for this.
Temporary (1 time use) upgrade 2/0, 1/1 or 0/2 would cost 1. Plains?
Temporary (1 time use) blast 0/2 would cost 1. 0/4 would cost 2 etc. Mountains?
Temporary (1 time use) negative effect, in need of a creature as well. -2/0, -1/1, -0,2. But basically the same as that of the mountains. Used by Islands.
And a cripple enchantment on the enemy, permanent -2/0, etc. Black, of course.

Those 5 effects need to be discussed for costs. But afterwards kept the same as always.

Other stuff like adding "first strike" should cost the same for every creature.
Something like doing it on the player instead of a creature would also cost 1 more.

So a set of rules for the costs and all the cards are derived from this.
Then if new rules are added, they only are added if they do not disturb the balance of all the previous rules.

eviljohs
Offline
Joined: 03/10/2012
Procylon wrote: I agree, and

Procylon wrote:
I agree, and I invest money into their game. What I am trying to create is something that hits a much broader audience's price point while also advancing the genre mechanically.

MtG is so tied up with all the things you mentioned in your first post. Especially the idea that the more money you spend the more competitive you can be. That is part of the game. Ingrained. If you want to reach a lower price point then perhaps the answer is moving away from a CCG game. Do you want a game where you purchase it once and have every thing you need or CCG. Or a ccg with less expansions to have to buy to be competitive.

zmobie
zmobie's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2008
Procylon wrote: Like you

Procylon wrote:

Like you said, the key is to keep imbalances confined to a set.

For me though, turn 2 combos aren't really the problem, especially when they are the result of 5-10 years of set releases. Part of the problem is that when every jackass under the sun decides he has to play that turn 2 combo deck, that means I have to play the counter deck when what I really wanted to play was something a little slower and generally different. This is also kind of a matchmaking issue, but it literally drives people to quit the game and it puts me into vacation mode. I will say that I haven't seen as much combo and LD as I did in the past. Maybe all those jokers went to League of Legends.

That's one of the reasons I don't play magic anymore either. At high levels of the game there are AT MAX about 5 deck types that do well, and realistically two or three that have a shot at winning tournaments. The differences between tourney winning decks are very slight. A few cards here or there. If you get a neat idea for a fun deck idea, you are pretty much relegated to playing it in a casual format or just accepting a loss to play your fun idea.

One way I can think to balance this kind of meta game imbalance is to make a game almost totally skill based and minimize the effect the cards themselves have on the strategy of the game. An extreme example of this would be chess. In chess, your pieces and game balance is basically symmetrical, so the game is totally skill based (that's actually arguable, but its still a good example, so back off! hah)

The other way to do it is to provide some kind of other incentives within the tournament structure that encourage deck variability. In Legend of the 5 Rings, there are 9 different clans. Each clan has its own cards, starting stronghold, etc. You always pick a clan when you build a deck.. and tournaments always have a 'best of clan' prize. There are those who play the game to win the whole thing... and the game generally has the same issue as magic where there are 3 or 4 decks that dominate... but because the players have clan loyalty, and the best performing member of a clan wins something, you get a lot of deck diversity in tournaments.

Procylon wrote:

I don't think the money sink itself is a draw, but the investment does keep motivation to come back from hibernation. Magic is basically full of players that modern Microtransaction guru's refer to as Whales. If you spend $500 a year on cards, you are a Whale. How much of Magic's $~200 million a year revenue is from Whales? Probably a percentage that would make any facebook game company drool golden coins.

An LCG game, done right, would offer the same experience for 1/10th the cost. I know a lot of people that say hell no to Magic's TCG costs, but don't mind plopping down $50 every so often for a complete package. I don't think an LCG has launched that has hit the same sweet spot that Magic hits.

That's what I meant. You're right though. Your investment begets more investment as to not incur a loss. It's not a 'draw' per-se, but definitely a motivator.

You say an LCG done right would lower the cost, but who is that right for? It's nice for players who are hard up for cash, but its bad for a publisher that wants to make a pile of money.

I think this brings up an interesting point that the game design, the meta game, and the business model of a game are all intrinsically linked together in a weird triangle. You can design the game, but your business model must support the game play you want, and encourage the meta game you are looking for. You can design your business model, but if the game isn't interesting you won't be making any money.... and if you get both the model and the design right, but the meta game is a disaster, you might turn off players who will walk away in droves.

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
X3M wrote:Even thought the

X3M wrote:
Even thought the first imbalance that I noticed is that the mountain creatures cost 1 more. And Forest(?) creatures often have 1 less. (So I became a forest player.) If this is straitened out first. And you then build upon this. There is a high chance the balance keeps in check.

Generally the Mountain creatures have more utility such as Haste of affects that pump all their friends up, while Forest creatures are just bigger. This of course gets shrouded by the rarity cost differences.

X3M wrote:
Special magic from the 5 colors?
Forest could supply enchantments (1/0 or 0/1 would cost 1, it is an permanent upgrade), this can be balanced with ease. If you want to supply a creature from another color, you still will be needing forest mana for this.
The other 4 need something as well for this.
Temporary (1 time use) upgrade 2/0, 1/1 or 0/2 would cost 1. Plains?
Temporary (1 time use) blast 0/2 would cost 1. 0/4 would cost 2 etc. Mountains?
Temporary (1 time use) negative effect, in need of a creature as well. -2/0, -1/1, -0,2. But basically the same as that of the mountains. Used by Islands.
And a cripple enchantment on the enemy, permanent -2/0, etc. Black, of course.

Those 5 effects need to be discussed for costs. But afterwards kept the same as always.

Other stuff like adding "first strike" should cost the same for every creature.
Something like doing it on the player instead of a creature would also cost 1 more.

So a set of rules for the costs and all the cards are derived from this.
Then if new rules are added, they only are added if they do not disturb the balance of all the previous rules.

Overall I feel it is really important for each color to have it's own area of expertise, and this is where the color pie generally shines. It has also been difficult to balance over MtG's life span as you see some colors generally have effects that make them more competitive as a whole. Black has always been one of the most powerful colors because of it's set of traits that have been designed into it from the ground up. Any game that would replace Magic would want to keep the color differences while keeping careful watch that a single color didn't become mechanically dominant at it's foundation.

Like you mentioned with the creature buffing, each function in the game needs to be balanced among the colors, whether it is drawing, discarding, searching the deck, etc.

One way my game facilitates this is with 4 decks. One color can have better efficiency drawing cards from the Creature deck(say green), while another color can have better efficiency drawing from the Ability deck(say blue).

Another way is that I will have quite a few more subtypes and supertypes. Many cards, even abilities will be referable by class, race, element, etc. Some colors will be more efficient at targeting certain sub/supertypes than others.

Also, you have multi-colored cards. This is where you can really mix things up by combining colors and all the efficiencies/deficiencies therein. Multicolored cards are one thing I tend to think MtG neglects now and again, but I am not sure there is a true solution other than to print more card sets every year.

I tend to think that MtG needs a parallel set of cards they release that has new cards with old mechanics, color combos that are neglected, etc.

eviljohs wrote:
MtG is so tied up with all the things you mentioned in your first post. Especially the idea that the more money you spend the more competitive you can be. That is part of the game. Ingrained. If you want to reach a lower price point then perhaps the answer is moving away from a CCG game. Do you want a game where you purchase it once and have every thing you need or CCG. Or a ccg with less expansions to have to buy to be competitive.

Definitely, which is why I am creating an LCG. When you buy a box of my game, you will get all the cards that come with that set. Players could spend say, $50, and get all the White cards that come in that set(including the max number they can put in their deck).

zmobie wrote:
The other way to do it is to provide some kind of other incentives within the tournament structure that encourage deck variability. In Legend of the 5 Rings, there are 9 different clans. Each clan has its own cards, starting stronghold, etc. You always pick a clan when you build a deck.. and tournaments always have a 'best of clan' prize. There are those who play the game to win the whole thing... and the game generally has the same issue as magic where there are 3 or 4 decks that dominate... but because the players have clan loyalty, and the best performing member of a clan wins something, you get a lot of deck diversity in tournaments.

I see your point about the number of competitive deck styles, but I am not sure it is a huge problem at the high end tiers. To me it becomes more a problem when all the low-mid tier players are doing it.

I do like the idea of tournaments that promote color/faction loyalty. One problem with using an LCG format is the popular drafting format can lose out. Using color loyalty could be a way to make up for that, assuming I can't figure out a way to implement drafting in my game.

zmobie wrote:
You say an LCG done right would lower the cost, but who is that right for? It's nice for players who are hard up for cash, but its bad for a publisher that wants to make a pile of money.

I think this brings up an interesting point that the game design, the meta game, and the business model of a game are all intrinsically linked together in a weird triangle. You can design the game, but your business model must support the game play you want, and encourage the meta game you are looking for. You can design your business model, but if the game isn't interesting you won't be making any money.... and if you get both the model and the design right, but the meta game is a disaster, you might turn off players who will walk away in droves.

True, but it isn't as if there are TCG's just pop out and make piles of cash. They have to compete with MtG and a few other top tier TCG's, and the players who already enjoy TCG's are locking into those other games.

An LCG, especially one closely modeled on the core of MtG, hits MtG where it can't defend itself. You may make 5x less profit per player, but if you have 5x more players, then it is the same thing.

I think from a design perspective, the LCG business model has a better effect on the playerbase. Assuming you are launching new sets every 3-4 months as expected, and the metagame stays fresh, and you hit all those other points that Magic does, then the lower price point "should" mean more players. And LCG's are still investments, they are just investments where more people can get into over a longer period of time.

chriswhite
Offline
Joined: 07/10/2011
The biggest flaw in Magic

The biggest flaw in Magic the possibility of being mana-screwed. Note that this is both central to the game's design, and also widely recognized as it's most debilitating flaw. The concept of the 'mulligan rule', the paris mulligan, and even the match as a combination of 3 games were created to combat this.

The problem basically amounts to 'bad opening hand = near-certain loss', which trivializes ~10% of games.

Many later CCGs, including other ones by WOTC got around these problems.
For example, the Battletech allows 2 cards to be played per turn (unit or resource) as well as cards that can be played face-down that you can't afford yet. This means that you could suffer less loss of tempo by (if you began with no resource cards) still using your deployment allowance to play unconstructed units, and then pay for them on a later turn (after which time you might have drawn more resource cards). It also included a mechanic where you could pay for cards over the course of several turns.
For example, if you wanted to play a unit costing "2", you could play a resource card on your first turn, and then put the unit 'under construction' with 1 resource counter on it. On the following turn, you could use that resource again and put a second counter on it, and then reveal it as completed. These mechanics worked together to make bad draws much more flexible.

The Hecatomb game got around it in a much more simple way–– there were no dedicated resource cards. Every card could potentially be a resource card, which was signified by playing it upside-down.

Other games, like Netrunner (1996) and MagiNation circumvented card-based resource-dependance by allowing the player to generate a certain number of resources per turn, irrespective of the cards they drew.

I'd recommend giving these games a try, as they each exemplify games which were designed to combat the flaws of MTG.

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Even beyond starting hand, I

Even beyond starting hand, I have had plenty of games of Magic where I had a perfect starting hand and then didn't draw any more mana for many straight turns. Or other games where I would have drawn more land, but someone milled them into my graveyard before I could draw them. And then of course times when you just draw land after land until you lose the game from lack of abilities.

I like the mechanic Battletech used, though it is a little more relevant in games where things are "constructed". I can see in a Magic themed game how you could "Channel" a creature or high cost spell, but you are still at a significant disadvantage to those who get their mana. Additionally, the ability to channel high cost spells in Magic could be potentially game breaking so it would have to be designed into the game from the ground up.

Personally I have never liked the mechanics where you just take a random card and flip it over. Yes it fixes the problem, but it is a very gamey way to do it and generally doesn't make sense from the context of the theme.

The game I am designing, I want to give players more control over what type of cards they generally draw. This helps with the mana screw/flood by having an Energy deck, but it also helps other areas by having decks for specific purposes(Abilities, Allies, and Equipment).

wooberg
wooberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2013
MtG's Issues

As a long time player of MtG, I say you have quite the undertaking trying to make a better game. The big pet peeve I have with MtG is the expense. Looking at other CCGs though, price can get out of hand when there are enough people who are willing to throw more and more money into cards (especially the good ones). Obviously MtG is still more expensive but I believe a large player base plays a big role in that.

People's complaints about insane combos don't make sense to me since there are always answers to them (if you draw said answer). That's why there's a sideboard (and the color blue). It allows you to better handle bad or unfavorable matchups. Also, combos will always be a part of magic and I think they have their role. I'm no combo player and have played against many of them, but I can see how some people can get annoyed by them. Also, the early game combo kills only exist in certain formats (Legacy, Vintage, and somewhat Modern and casual). There are so many formats in MtG that you can mitigate the early game kills.
The hand randomness in MtG is kind of a buzzkill but many card games suffer from the same issue so I expect it to happen here and there. Getting mana screwed will always happen no matter how awesome of a deckbuilder you are.

I'm not saying MtG is perfect by any means but it sure has been successful.

As for redesigning it, I'd say pulling it off would require some serious work. You would need a VERY strong understanding of how the game's mechanics work and how to balance them. Balancing is difficult because people will always try and find ways to break the game because of its endless card interactions. Also here's my problem/warning with LCGs. I've played Android Netrunner for about a year now and believe the LCG mechanic will still suffer from a price issue in time. The reason I say this is because UNLESS there are reprints of old expansions/cards, people will have to pay a high premium to get their hands on older cards or expansions since they have a limited print run. Limited print runs makes getting your hands on certain cards difficult if you didn't buy the set when it came out.

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
wooberg wrote:People's

wooberg wrote:
People's complaints about insane combos don't make sense to me since there are always answers to them (if you draw said answer). That's why there's a sideboard (and the color blue). It allows you to better handle bad or unfavorable matchups. Also, combos will always be a part of magic and I think they have their role. I'm no combo player and have played against many of them, but I can see how some people can get annoyed by them. Also, the early game combo kills only exist in certain formats (Legacy, Vintage, and somewhat Modern and casual). There are so many formats in MtG that you can mitigate the early game kills.

I don't have a problem with combos personally. I have a problem with combos that win the game before turn 3-4. And yeah there is only so much you can do when the game begins to span decades.

wooberg wrote:
As for redesigning it, I'd say pulling it off would require some serious work. You would need a VERY strong understanding of how the game's mechanics work and how to balance them. Balancing is difficult because people will always try and find ways to break the game because of its endless card interactions. Also here's my problem/warning with LCGs. I've played Android Netrunner for about a year now and believe the LCG mechanic will still suffer from a price issue in time. The reason I say this is because UNLESS there are reprints of old expansions/cards, people will have to pay a high premium to get their hands on older cards or expansions since they have a limited print run. Limited print runs makes getting your hands on certain cards difficult if you didn't buy the set when it came out.

Lots of work indeed, though I think the hardest part will be breaking through the player perception barrier and moving units when that time comes.

I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of MtG, having played it for decades now, but these days when I play I pay extra attention to the why of every detail. However, MtG is one thing. What I have envision for my game will require a whole new mindset regarding balance.

Good call on the reprints. I hadn't put thought into that, though I am not exactly close to a first print anyway... :p

However, if the game is successful enough to drive up the value of older cards, then hopefully reprints can be justified.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Although a huge undertaking,

Although a huge undertaking, someone ought to be able to design a better non-CCG Magic-like game than Magic because MtG is currently designed first to be a revenue-generator, designed so that imbalances are inherent (so people will buy more cards). For any CCG, the objective is to change it each year so that the best deck(s) are different from the previous year.

I personally never touch it, as I strongly dislike unfair games, and Magic started as a "pay to win" game, though there are tournament forms now that are not pay to win.

But consider also that the heart of Magic's popularity is in its variety and its metagame. An LCG will need to continue to bring out new decks, or that variety may ultimately be lost and people will abandon the game (as there won't be the same scope of metagame Magic offers). Of course, you can say that about most tabletop games.

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
lewpuls wrote:Although a huge

lewpuls wrote:
Although a huge undertaking, someone ought to be able to design a better non-CCG Magic-like game than Magic because MtG is currently designed first to be a revenue-generator, designed so that imbalances are inherent (so people will buy more cards). For any CCG, the objective is to change it each year so that the best deck(s) are different from the previous year.

I personally never touch it, as I strongly dislike unfair games, and Magic started as a "pay to win" game, though there are tournament forms now that are not pay to win.

How the TCG impacts the gameplay is my biggest problem with MtG. I think a version of MtG unchained from the model should have a place in the market.

lewpuls wrote:
But consider also that the heart of Magic's popularity is in its variety and its metagame. An LCG will need to continue to bring out new decks, or that variety may ultimately be lost and people will abandon the game (as there won't be the same scope of metagame Magic offers). Of course, you can say that about most tabletop games.

MtG releases 500-600 new cards a year in 4 month intervals. I do feel a good number of these cards are basically filler trash, but that number of unique cards per year is a good goal for a competing card game.

Once the core design is complete, the art and balance/playtesting will be the hard part.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Not only do you not have the

Not only do you not have the huge resources that WotC has to create so many new cards, I think you'd find that buyers might be offended by production of so many cards for a non-TCG.

I don't follow Knizia's Blue Moon, how many new decks per year there? But you're not planning to segregate cards into decks, are you?

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Procylon wrote: How the TCG

Procylon wrote:

How the TCG impacts the gameplay is my biggest problem with MtG. I think a version of MtG unchained from the model should have a place in the market.

There are plenty. 17-18 years ago when I was travelling around the US for qualifiers and such, I stopped constructed and switched to Sealed Deck. You still spend, but the competition is constrained to that limited enivoronment. Since then, the only time I've gotten new cards is through sealed or league play (also a sealed based format.) You could also look at the cube, where you design a full fixed envionment of cards and play those with a group:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcove...

Procylon
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
lewpuls wrote:Not only do you

lewpuls wrote:
Not only do you not have the huge resources that WotC has to create so many new cards, I think you'd find that buyers might be offended by production of so many cards for a non-TCG.

I don't follow Knizia's Blue Moon, how many new decks per year there? But you're not planning to segregate cards into decks, are you?

I can see some buyers having a problem with the number of cards, but I don't think the average person who would enjoy a MtG style game would mind(I think it would be a bonus for that group of people).

Never played Blue Moon, but wiki says they came out with 344 cards, with 30 card decks.

I wouldn't say "segregate into decks". More along the lines of "sold as decks". You will have the full freedom of deck construction as found in MtG, except the game will be release as complete decks with 1-4 decks packaged in each box.

I am leaning towards 3 decks in a box because it meshes with my current design. If multiple decks are released in a box/starter kit, then someone can buy it and play with friends, or use the 3 decks to create a deck combining cards from the different decks. I am not yet sure if the 3 decks will all be the same color, or a mix.

Corsaire wrote:
There are plenty. 17-18 years ago when I was travelling around the US for qualifiers and such, I stopped constructed and switched to Sealed Deck. You still spend, but the competition is constrained to that limited enivoronment. Since then, the only time I've gotten new cards is through sealed or league play (also a sealed based format.) You could also look at the cube, where you design a full fixed envionment of cards and play those with a group:

Which kind of proves the point. The best version of magic is the version that is unchained from it's core monetization scheme.

Drafting is great, but it requires monetary investment every time you do it, not to mention you have to be around other people who are playing the game. Part of the reason I haven't played MtG paper in a decade is finding Magic players has not been easy. One of my coworkers brought a Cube and we played that for a few months, but he is gone now and I probably won't play paper again for who knows how long. Of course, Cubes can be quite expensive to build, especially good ones.

I intend to create a game that is cheaper to maintain for players, but I also want to add some of the fun formats from MtG. Cube is easily doable, as are Commander, Type 4, and Danger Room. Drafting may take a little more thought but I am sure I can work it out.

Machius
Machius's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
This is a very in depth topic

This is a very in depth topic and there are a lot of issues (some I agree with and others - like the concept of being TCG being inherently a flaw that I disagree with) so i'll focus on my view about what most players consider the main drawback to Magic as a game (and one that Richard Garfield and various R&D members at Wizards of the Coast have on occasion admitted to) - the land system.

The mana system in Magic is a major part to what makes the game what it is (enjoyable and successful for one thing).

- Starting with no mana and increasing throughout the game thus scaling the power level of the spells/creatures/amount of actions that can be used at each point creates the pace for the game.

- A system of 5 different varieties of mana creates the different identities and conflicts between deck styles and the fact that it is easier working with less varieties/colors (because of both mana production and because of weighting cards to require more of a variety of mana) means that no single all encompassing 5 variety/color deck is automatically the "most powerful deck".

Unfortunately the flip side to the mana system is the land system and relying on lands interspersed throughout the deck in order to produce mana results in the possibilities of Mana Screw (not getting enough lands), Mana Flood (getting too many lands) and if the deck is using more than one color the possibility of Color Screw (not getting enough lands of a certain color). And this is the biggest game play flaw of Magic.

A potential solution is the concept of having 2 parts to a deck, a land/mana deck and a spell deck and then in some way doling out the land/mana deck throughout a game. The drawback to such a solution though is that while eliminating a source of negative variance in the game it also eliminates a lot of the strategic depth of the game since taking advantage of low mana with the right low cost "curve" of creatures/spells is strategic option in Magic (weakened by such a change) and since having perfect mana would greatly enhance other strategic options like control style decks.

It's definitely a large challenge you are taking on and I wish you luck with your efforts. Creating a Magic style LCG is certainly not an impossibility but I would be careful how you go about it since until a strong support base and community could be established such a game would essentially be competing as a something similar to a prebuilt deck/s casual product something that Magic already caters for with their various duel decks (as well as products like Commander) and unlike those duel decks the ability for people to easily start deckbuilding/improving on things by buying a pack or two or some cheap singles at their local game store wouldn't be there for your game. Having a very interesting and/or unique theme or better yet one that uses a popular existing property (like LCGs based on Game of Thrones etc.) would probably go a long way to helping establish a market presence.

Zodiak Team
Zodiak Team's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2012
O boy I knew coming inside

O boy I knew coming inside this thread was a bad idea lol.

You're not the first person to try and take on MTG. You should look into Legacy. It's a card game made by ths guy (who's a little odd) who has been perfecting it for the last 3+ years so I'm sure if you looked at his game you could gain some insight.

If you want you could always chat with him on the TGC website using the chat log but...yeah...

good luck to you sir!

tuism
tuism's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2013
Honestly, MTG HAS been

Honestly, MTG HAS been modernised... Over 20 years. And people who stick with it are people who will stick with it. It's a particular kind of people. So trying to "fix it" for them isn't really helpful. Thus, you're trying to make a new game that appeals to a different crowd, and I bet that crowd overlaps hugely with the Netrunner crowd :P

Anyhoo, speaking of modernising magic, have you ever seen Assassin's Creed: Recollection? It's an iPad card game, which has unfortunately been discontinued (sadness, screw you Ubisoft, you're just like Fox), and a really good modernisation of MTG - removing summoning sickness, timing shinanigans, with an elegant real-time system. Granted, it's digital, so I think the only way you can replicate it in real life is with egg timers :P

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed:_Recollection

But it was a super interesting and fun game :)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Back to the OP

While I'll stay away from what you think is good and bad, or what needs changes, I want to comment on the general idea.

Personally I think it's BAD to try to improve an existing game. while some people do create *additions* to existing games like new Monopoly cards or a mini-board...

I think it's a lost exercise. I personally would rather say that I am designing a NEW CCG/TCG/LCG as opposed to trying to improve upon another existing game.

To me, Magic: the Gathering has it's following and no matter how you try to design your game, you are NOT going to convince people that your game is BETTER than Magic: the Gathering. That's not to say that some people may find your game interesting and play it... But generally speaking you will not de-throne MtG as being the leading CCG/TCG. Especially when the genre of the game is so similar to Magic.

I would however encourage you to design a NEW game that may correct certain issues with Magic. But I would not sell your game creation as a Magic-Knock-Off.

The other thing is CCG/TCG usually don't work by indie designers. The market is hard to penetrate. Unless you have a CRAZY strategy like starcat's "Legacy" (the guy is a genius).

What is so special about "Legacy" is that he has found a way for people to work on his card game without paying anything in advance... He designed the contracts to allow people to work for the project - but they don't start earning money until the game starts selling and he (starcat) is the LAST ONE that gets paid...

But the guy is much smarter than just that, his own design company subcontracts professionals in all areas of game design and he is the broker of said projects.

I discussed with him how that works and he says (Very smartly) it works on a budget. So basically he gets all of his stuff DONE FOR FREE (nothing upfront) and HE CHARGES others if they want similar needs.

He does have some nice artists and graphic designers that produced nice looking layouts and artwork. However I am a little bit worried about the second part of his business: working on a budget.

To me, this sounds a little predatory. But as he puts it, you just ask what you are looking for and how much you can pay, and they will see if it's do-able...

It's a different way of doing business for certain...

So the conclusion is you need some crazy strategy to get the artwork done for a CCG/TCG. And even starcat has concluded that his game will be a LCG not a CCG/TCG!

Note: His website is http://www.legacytcg.com

JohnnyDavids13
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2016
Mana issues

Mana has always been my biggest annoyance with MTG.

Someone mentioned earlier that it might be nice to be able to have a land/mana deck, and a spell deck, but that it might discourage low curve decks. I think if you made it so that there are cards that enable that play style it would still be ok, say you get cards in certain colors that allow you to lay a creature card that is 1 mana cheaper than the 1 you are laying, or something of that nature. It would still allow aggressive play.

This would need to potentially have a down side of slowing your ability to build mana up though. So if you are running this aggressive deck with quick creature creation you have a down side of maybe getting your next mana a turn slower than the other player.

A counter arguement to that though could be that there would need to be a way to stabilize, you would have to fine to the play two type of cards to be weaker overall, but would still allow for aggressive play, with lower mana ramping capabilities.

Of course with the ability of slowing your mana ramping there would be a way to increase it to help deal with these more aggressive decks.

The idea of ramping and slowing mana is still good I feel, as long as you have a steady stream of mana it is affecting so that is it isn't just pure random draw.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Blizzard's HearthStone

Now with the existence of Blizzard's HearthStone and the ever increasing pool of Mana per turn, you don't need LAND cards, get MANA Screwed or play ridiculous Combos...

All this is controlled by the Mana you receive per turn. The first turn you get one (1) Mana, the second turn you get two (2) Mana, etc. And there is a limit on how much Mana you can get on your turn (Hard Limit).

And you have different classes of characters you can play. Some are stronger versus some opponents, others are weaker. So the game encourages you to play all of the classes before unlocking more of the game.

Personally I have played HearthStone - and I can't say that I am overly impressed. There are some interesting concepts in the game like "Taunt" which forces you to target one creature over an another. But generally speaking I did not like the SOLO game option... The game feels too alone in terms of game play.

That's my take on it...

Update: I still have not played enough to unlock all nine (9) classes of the base game. I played a couple game tonight and increased my number of classes to eight (8). I have one (1) remaining class to beat... before unlocking things like the Arena, Adventure series (like Blackrock Mountain), etc.

To be real honest - it's a major pain defeating all the classes. And I'm not that big of an avid gamer to say I spend all my time playing the game. Quite contrary - this is my first few games in about 6 months.

The top amount of Mana per turn is ten (10). And it is very BATTLE-oriented: your goal is to defeat the opposing player (even if it is AI).

But I can't say the game is not well designed. It's pretty good. The one thing that disappoints me is not being able to play versus another player. That's in the Arena - but I have to beat all nine (9) classes.

So the game initially is BORING - forcing you to play ENEMY AI only. It's like practicing against AI... And some classes are harder to beat! I guess I'll try one more game tonight. Just to see if I can beat that LAST class...

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Wow...

There's a lot here to read...unfortunately, I don't have time to read all of it (I did skim through it), so I'll just say this:

1) "Fixing" Magic is not a new idea. Games like Ascension, Epic, Legend of the Five Rings, Force of Will, Game of Thrones (pretty much every LCG out there), Dominion (and every other deck building game out there), Buddyfight, Cardfight! Vanguard, Pokemon, Yu-Gi Oh, and a bunch of others...all incorporate mechanics that supposedly "fix" Magic.

2) No game is perfect. The nature of card games is to have some kind of fixed deck with a random sequence in which it draws...that alone opens up an almost infinite combination of things that simply cannot be tested out. We have an alphabet of 26 letters, but our whole language is based on those 26 letters, don't think that you can make a perfect game that not only has card text, but may have decks in upwards of 50...yeah, you can kind of get it now.

3) I see the attempt. The only thing I suggest is to really see your competition. There's a lot of big dogs out there doing some kind of fantasy card game; at this point even if you have a good idea, the likelyhood of even being on Magic's radar in terms of competition is laughable. Can it be done? Of course, but it CANNOT be one person; you'll have to have trust many people and invest a lot of money to do that.

4) Be different. I highly suggest you don't create a fantasy-like game that fixes Magic issues. Rather, do something completely different. Try a different theme, think up new mechanics. The reason why Magic hit so hard and has lasted so long is that for its time, no one had ever seen a collectible card game before. Regardless of what we see as flaws, what we criticize about Magic came about because the game was and still is loved so much. I created a card game...it's space themed with completely new and different mechanics that's NOT Magic. Even with that, it is still a bear and a half to get going...and I got my idea through a publishers route.

So don't think that because you have the "fix" for Magic means that it will equal big sales or even a big interest in your game. The reality is that there are tons of card games on the market and many would rather stick to a tried and true game than play a game that's similar with a slight tweak.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut