Talk about your essential stuff in card games

[Sleepy]

So I've been working on a custom TCG for a while but  this is not the thread to showcase it yet. More so it made me wonder what other members of YCM deem as "necessary" in this sort of project's "base set" pools. I ultimately am trying to get intel that could benefit my project but I don't need to bore you with those bits here, and it doesnt matter if you lack experience in these fields, the feedback is still valuable.

Lets use Yugioh here for the sake of having some tangible ground to stand on, something that most people here are familiar with in terms of essentials for a good experience. If you did ever or would ever participate in a "let's make our own format" efforts, what are some cards/effects/functions you'd definitely be looking to cover?

How good/generic/abundant/absent you'd make something like draw power or search/toolbox?

Would you aim for a pace like 2002 yugioh format ( yugi vs kaiba starter decks + LOB) or jump straight to Shaddoll v Qli format-like power and speed? Perhaps you don't have enough experience to say " like x format in the game's history and would rather elaborate a little more plainly.

What do you enjoy doing or what do you like of other TCGs more if any?

 

[Dokutah]

Maybe i can start with yugioh could use  a variant of the MTG keyword of copy/copies as in making duplicate of effect or card (in form of token) the term is flexible and can be used to shorthen quite number of text while also create new kind of interaction. Given yugioh already have "copy" term for counting physical copies of card, maybe the adopted term would be "Duplicate" 

[Sleepy]

1 hour ago, Dokutah Jolly said:

Maybe i can start with yugioh could use  a variant of the MTG keyword of copy/copies as in making duplicate of effect or card (in form of token) the term is flexible and can be used to shorthen quite number of text while also create new kind of interaction. Given yugioh already have "copy" term for counting physical copies of card, maybe the adopted term would be "Duplicate" 

I wholeheartedly agree that Yugioh in general could use such a short and simplifying wording as "copy/duplicate" to state a Token-creation process in a multitude of effects. I am actually in favor of the game in general adapting keywords that can simply be explained in the rulebook. Take some subtype words for instance... when they released ABC Dragon they updated Union lore for the XYZ trio so they can now allow more than 1 Union equipped at a time each and they protect against any destruction (instead of just vs battle destruction). Problem is it would have been neat if that was a blanket update to all old school Unions. I in fact wasn't 100% sure if they just updated the XYZ ones they reprinted, or if they updated Union mechanics in general but judged the old ones so underpowered/obscure/old that they deemed nobody would be bothered with them anyways (My guess is no but would have been cool). Now next update to Unions would be making the protection effect optional (currently it is mandatory so even if you have 5 unions equipped to something, on the first sign of destruction all of them will pop themselves at the same time to protect what they are equipped to, and that kind of sucks).

Something that unifies Toons or also addresses playing around with Spirit's subtype would have been nice as well. Gemini monsters are always like 70% generic Gemini rule text and leave very few space for the actual meat in the effect box. Not only those but the game already does use the word "piercing" even if it still bothers with saying "when it attacks a defense position monster" even though "Piercing" doesn't apply in any other way anyways....


In this thread I am looking for effects and niches that people would deem essential for a "restart the game pool and make it successful with these essencials" kind of deal, rather than trying to discuss about the entirety of the IRL card pool of the game in its decades of expansions. I do suppose token creation is always useful. Be it meatshields, Tribute fodder, extra attackers, and eventually material fodder. Especially if a copy mechanic allows for the game to give us extra names to be supported by a specific theme ( making something like an E-HERO Avian token is always gonna be better than something like a Lamb token that has no attachment to as much support for example)..... hmmmm

[Dokutah]

Ah i also agree to buffs + errata to subtypes (toon, gemini, union) in general. Although some of the buff instead is implemented on game ruling instead card text as long its easy to understand which is a low bar actually.

While i like link monster equally as other summon type, ultimately the format i most comfortable with is the aforemention Shaddoll-Qli era. With enough limitation on certain powercards pendulum can be made in check without Link limitation. There still board-making race but not as fast nor demanding as the current era. 

So maybe MR6 that basically MR5 with some banned/limit on certain power decks of link era while in return maybe allow pendulum summon from extra unimpeded much by link ruling.

[HQCardmaker]

Properties have to be defined in a simple manner. With Hearthstone, you can get away with calling things immediately from the deck because it was built that way. With Magic the Gathering, the system is so interwoven, you can make a Turing Machine. And with Yu-Gi-Oh, any rule that you find on a card becomes the normal play because it was built that way. Build your game the way it is supposed to be. You don't want someone drawing 5 apples in a hypothetical Minecraft card game if they are just going to turn into Golden Apples unless there is a reason for it.

Write what you know.

[Rayfield Lumina]

Tons of waifus + angry sheep = Profit

~~~~~

Alright, alright. We've already discussed your TCG personally, but I don't recall that question, "What do you enjoy doing or what do you like of other TCGs more if any?" was brought to the table. I enjoy a mid-speed paced game in which the tide of the battle can turn more than once, the thrill of constant interchange of attacks, both players having to struggle to win. You already know what I think about modern YGO: Spend a ton of money in your Deck, go first and establish omninegators = 95% win. As for me, that's terribly boring. A game with a decent duration, in which you got to pause once in a while while considering your options, is what I love. A relatively high, but not exaggerated affluence in resources each turn to have different possible plays in front of you sounds very appealing to me.

Hope this helps n.n

[Sleepy]

8 hours ago, Rayfield Lumina said:

Tons of waifus + angry sheep = Profit

~~~~~

Alright, alright. We've already discussed your TCG personally, but I don't recall that question, "What do you enjoy doing or what do you like of other TCGs more if any?" was brought to the table. I enjoy a mid-speed paced game in which the tide of the battle can turn more than once, the thrill of constant interchange of attacks, both players having to struggle to win. You already know what I think about modern YGO: Spend a ton of money in your Deck, go first and establish omninegators = 95% win. As for me, that's terribly boring. A game with a decent duration, in which you got to pause once in a while while considering your options, is what I love. A relatively high, but not exaggerated affluence in resources each turn to have different possible plays in front of you sounds very appealing to me.

Hope this helps n.n

The thing is that I thought this is the kind of subject that'd be better off put out in the public to hopefully get as much feedback from different people as possible, instead of cornering somebody one on one about this elaborate question. 
Yes that is the dream/goal, to achieve an interaction of back and forth and variety. Deciding what sort of thing to include in a card pool in order to specifically achieve that is the tricky part. There are 2 specific things that actually got me to look for opinions:

- - -

#1 You've seen a more detailed version of my TCG and most of the current cards I've made for it.... Well at some point I also showed them to Darj and he's not very keen about the idea that I don't really have searching power anywhere to be seen. I think it can come off as jarring for somebody that wants their strategy to be a super streamlined combo of efficiency and is used to the sort of pace Yugioh has had for the past huh... decade? I also can see how it can give off the impression you are entirely up to fate's whim with what you draw and that such a thing doesn't sound very skillful. 

Though I'm not very keen on starting off the game with speed plays and deck-thinners that accelerate things from the get go into "got my best combo in the opening hand all the time, so if your opening hand is suboptimal GG". I don't meant to say skilled players shouldn't have an edge over total newbies but I am under the impression this would only widen the gap between the power levels and more swiftly cause the learning players to be stomped all the way into getting turned off by the game. I also might be a bit biased but I'm a fan of games that allow a little bit of sub-optimal numbers of combo pieces that can still salvage a combo without that costing you the game right there as a result.

- - - 

#2 Continuing on the previous reason, it is hard not to think of "your combo can be sub-optimal when you are playing through hand-traps". Which brings me to the next bit: Disruption. Yugioh seems to make it interchangeable with the term "interaction" and sometimes could lead to what you described with omni-negators. I've even sometimes thought if it is even all that necessary for a game's success because I look at Pokemon's TCG and they don't have such a thing as a trap... their energy distribution + hand sorting/setup + repositioning of mons to disturb losing patterns of damage intake has been more interesting than it looks. Even back in the Yugioh Synchro era I recall sometimes deck would be about enduring a push and then hit with your own push next turn. Now, I don't pretend to have 0 intercepting plays like Pokemon's TCG does, but there's a hard balance between "opponent won't be able to play" and "they have so much to fall back on that your disruption was pointless.

- - - 

Do you think something like a Pot of Greed or a RotA-like effect is something essential to have right away in my TCG? or what about disruption? 
I probably butchered some of my ideas because I allowed it to become kinda late again and am feeling sleepy already xD
 

[Rayfield Lumina]

12 hours ago, Sleepy said:

am feeling sleepy already

This tells me you don't have identity problems, that's good to know :v

~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, then. All the previous explanation leads us to one critical intention: finding the perfect middle ground. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a shortcut to victory, but to collect as much info as possible from testing and testing and testing. If I may, I have a suggestion as to how to tackle disruption.

 One would be what we know and love/hate, which is direct disruption to a particular action/effect/invocation. I can't picture cards negating a Familiar Summoning right off the bat, but perhaps you can play this by "negating a movement", either by stopping it altogether, or targeting a particular area and negating any zone with its respective familiar from moving over there. In addition, you have the choice of disrupting not actual actions, but kinds of effects. In YGO, as we know too well, we got stuff like Ignition, Continuous, Trigger effects etc. In terms of negating something, YGO goes for the activation of cards OR the activation of effects, and can further divide negations by going after activations and negating continuous effects. Depending on your needs, you can also clearly divide the effects in categories, (to name examples, I use those categories in my own game, Freewill / Reaction / Continuous / Power Up / Critical) and give Zones or Familiars disruptive effects over 1 or 2 categories. This would allow you, I hope, to adjust the level of disruptive capabilities in your cards, instead of... I negate your effect, you're screwed.

The other method I'm thinking of would be "Attack the Mana". Again, there are many ways to go with this. For instance, you can make it so hurting a Leader will disrupt your Mana Reserves instead of inflicting LP damage, essentially cutting on your resources. Other way would be to go after the mana used for activating an effect category. When a player declares they're going to use x effect, you react and disrupt, hurting your opponent's mana. I'm thinking you have two methods of implementing this, and they can be both usable as a choice for the player disrupting: the actual effect gets cancelled, or the effect goes through, but a damage in the mana resources is inflicted in the opponent. This grants you flexibility. Aware as you are of your own disruptions, you might not be able to react against certain kind of effects, but you can activate a card in response of those you can work against, and hurt your opponent's resources to prevent further actions.

Well, I'm not sure how useful these suggestions are, but hopefully they can help you, or at least spark an idea based on them.

[Sleepy]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:09 PM, Rayfield Lumina said:

This tells me you don't have identity problems, that's good to know :v

~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, then. All the previous explanation leads us to one critical intention: finding the perfect middle ground. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a shortcut to victory, but to collect as much info as possible from testing and testing and testing. If I may, I have a suggestion as to how to tackle disruption.

 One would be what we know and love/hate, which is direct disruption to a particular action/effect/invocation. I can't picture cards negating a Familiar Summoning right off the bat, but perhaps you can play this by "negating a movement", either by stopping it altogether, or targeting a particular area and negating any zone with its respective familiar from moving over there. In addition, you have the choice of disrupting not actual actions, but kinds of effects. In YGO, as we know too well, we got stuff like Ignition, Continuous, Trigger effects etc. In terms of negating something, YGO goes for the activation of cards OR the activation of effects, and can further divide negations by going after activations and negating continuous effects. Depending on your needs, you can also clearly divide the effects in categories, (to name examples, I use those categories in my own game, Freewill / Reaction / Continuous / Power Up / Critical) and give Zones or Familiars disruptive effects over 1 or 2 categories. This would allow you, I hope, to adjust the level of disruptive capabilities in your cards, instead of... I negate your effect, you're screwed.

The other method I'm thinking of would be "Attack the Mana". Again, there are many ways to go with this. For instance, you can make it so hurting a Leader will disrupt your Mana Reserves instead of inflicting LP damage, essentially cutting on your resources. Other way would be to go after the mana used for activating an effect category. When a player declares they're going to use x effect, you react and disrupt, hurting your opponent's mana. I'm thinking you have two methods of implementing this, and they can be both usable as a choice for the player disrupting: the actual effect gets cancelled, or the effect goes through, but a damage in the mana resources is inflicted in the opponent. This grants you flexibility. Aware as you are of your own disruptions, you might not be able to react against certain kind of effects, but you can activate a card in response of those you can work against, and hurt your opponent's resources to prevent further actions.

Well, I'm not sure how useful these suggestions are, but hopefully they can help you, or at least spark an idea based on them.

Hmm that's some suggestions that are very specific on my TCG since you've seen the rules and cards and helped me with stuff there, xD
The "attack the mana" is a possibility but not the way you are suggesting it exactly... The mana of my TCG doesn't come from your avatar, but from the lands (or as I call these types of cards, the "Leader" and "Zones"). 

Stuff like classifying types of effects is something I am trying to keep as simplified as possible. Quick vs non-quick and "use and waste" vs continuous, are the only bits I'm concerned about. If further types or specifications are to be added, it'd be out of sheer necessity more than anything else.....

Umm yeah I guess I need to do it the hard way xD
Hmm I think I got a couple ideas actually... gonna go do some testing.

[Dokutah]

there a thing that i kinda like in yugioh compare to other tcg is that the "deck identity" is kinda fluid. while this fluidity did cause another problem of archetypes torn apart as engines to other decks but at least it will avoid rigid identity based design.  for example MTG, colors is perfectly tied to the kind of playstyle but then as the result when facing your enemy color you odds of defeat pretty much snowballed already (even before mana screwed happen) and some cases your build will completely devoid of any tools needed to combat your enemy color unless you adding other colors which also means more potential build problem. hearthstone manage to almost succeed this problem by making both the mana separate from the deck (and making it neutral) while their identity design is not so rigid (all class have can have their own style of similar tools across classes, ex: mage style aggro is discounting cheap spell while other "melee" class having their own style of minion spamming)

its also contribute to aesthetic as well, mixes of cards create a wacky kind visualization. VW deck is basically robot that have Chinese guardian spirit digitize on them but also capable of calling a literal rank 9 viral-bioweapon personification of Satan, melphys the overly cute forest creature combo with racoon samurai and big ass manticore-like lion