On card design

[-Griffin]

Joshy said that guides on design should go into AoC, but I really feel WC is a better place. People here are actually interested in being competitive and playable. Since we have two CCGs in here now, I feel it's appropriate to have a topic here on a few aspects of game design that I feel everyone should be aware of to make CCGs enjoyable to play. This topic isn't premeditated, just my own meandering thoughts.

[b]Foreword:[/b] Like the English language, I'm sure all rules to game and card design have exceptions. These are mostly guidelines of design, not laws. If you disagree with any particular statement, feel free to say so, but you don't have to go off on a rant about it.

[u][b]Player-Player Interaction:[/b][/u]
Why do you think Soltaire is not played at parties? If you have four people sitting around a table with four decks of playing cards, it's unusual that they decide to play Soltaire. Generally, when you're with another person and playing games, it's more enjoyable to play a game where you're interacting with them. This also means that it's generally not as fun in Yugioh to play a game where the opponent's actions don't influence you at all.
Exodia is an example of breaking this game design guideline in the extreme. When playing an Exodia Deck (based around drawing, not stalling) you might as well be playing with yourself - very rarely does your opponent interact with your Deck at all. It's just "who gets out a win first" rather than "who gets out a win WHILE PREVENTING an opponent's win". This is also generally the reason OTKs and FTKs are bad for the game - they're one-player things. Chances are that most players wouldn't say a game was 'bad' if it ended on the first turn, but they were somehow able to play half their Deck through various card effects and there was plenty of back-and-forth.

[u][b]Lame Ducks:[/b][/u]
A Lame Duck is a game design term that means a game can reach a point where only one player is at all likely to win (90%+ sorta chance) but the game can still go on for a while. In Yugioh, this can very easily happen. If you draw a terrible hand, and your opponent draws a great hand, then the entire duel might be completely pointless since both players could tell the outcome before any cards hit the field. Lame Ducks are, at the risk of redundancy, lame. No-one likes playing Lame Duck games as the loser, and often it's not even very fun as the winner, since you don't get any Player-Player Interaction - the opponent just can't do anything. To avoid Lame Ducks ruining the game or format, avoid inconsistent cards that can give dead hands, and avoid lockdowns that make playing pointless.

[u][b]Slippery Slope:[/b][/u]
Slippery Slope is a term in game design which means that when one player gains an advantage, it becomes easier to gain more advantage. An extreme of this in Yugioh would be that every time you destroy an opponent's card or deal damage to their Life Points, you draw a card and gain 1000 Life Points. That means that the first player to get a head start very quickly can put their opponent in a situation without as many options and where fighting back is very difficult. Generally, a Slippery Slope is a bad thing since it can very easily lead to a Lame Duck. To minimise Slippery Slope, try not to have cards that require you to be winning for them to work, that work much better if you're winning, or that punish a player with few cards/LPs.
On the other slide, be careful about removing Slippery Slope all together. Sid Meier is oft-quoted as saying 'A game is a series of interesting decisions'. While this might not apply to all games, I feel it very much does apply to Yugioh. If you reset the entire game except LP, like Fiber Jar had been flipped, every time a direct attack was made (to stop a player 'taking control' of the match) then the game would just be a disconnected series of mini-events and wouldn't feel like a single duel. Generally, the fact a losing player in Yugioh generally has less cards to fight back with is more than enough of a Slippery Slope to avoid this, but it's worth saying.

[u][b]Starting Conditions:[/b][/u]
My favourite writer on game design and one of my favourite game developers, Sirlin (whose [url="http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/"]articles[/url] you should read if you find this interesting), spends a lot of time during development making sure that all his game's match-ups are fair, and often stresses the importance of in-match and out-of-match decisions. The rule here is that when you start a match in a fighting game, both players should have as close to a 50% win chance (if equal skill) as possible.
It's important to note how this does [b]and does not[/b] translate to Yugioh. In Yugioh, I believe there might as well be more theoretically constructable Decks than there are atoms in the universe. I am not proposing that you balance all of those against every other one. People should be able to make losing Decks. Where this [b]does[/b] apply is when two [b]good[/b] Decks are matched up with each other. This means that if both players are equally good and have equally good Decks, a match shouldn't start as a lame Duck.
That means that Zombies and Macro shouldn't both exist in the same game - zombies are playing a Lame Duck game from turn 1 a lot of the time. That doesn't mean you can't have Graveyard effects and RFG effects in the same game - but no archtype should have every monster RFGing stuff from the opponent's Graveyard in the same format that the Graveyard is useful. In the TCG, Macro vs Zombies isn't much of a problem because Zombies won't face Macro that often and it can often be blown away with MST or something. The time this is a serious problem, though, is anti-cards. Yes, Chimeratech is the worst offender here. If someone has a Cyber Dragon in their Main Deck and Chimeratech Fortress Dragon in their Extra Deck when the game starts, a Machine-using opponent can start at an unfair disadvantage. Avoid anything like this that puts players at too much of a disadvantage from turn 1. It's unaviodable sometimes, but do your best.

[u][b]Representation:[/b][/u]
While writing this, I stumbled upon an article that does this section better than I would.
[url="http://blog.ihobo.com/2010/08/slaying-the-first-colossus.html"]http://blog.ihobo.co...t-colossus.html[/url]
Basically, Cloudians would be a lot less fun to play if their names were "Archtype 12 Monster 1" "Archtype 12 Monster 2" [...ect] and their types were all "Type 4" with "Attribute 2". They would be exactly the same game-design wise, but they wouldn't be as fun because there's simply no visualisation of what they are. In Written Cards, we can easily fall into the trap of having a good, fair, game without any story, image, or anything of the sort. Preceding sets and archtype with a few paragraphs of flavor text, or adding it to the end of a card, can make a world of difference in making a card come alive to the player. It might seem trivial to some people that want nothing but balance, but it makes a world of difference to having an enjoyable set and format.

More to come when thoughts wonder into my head. This is just ideas jotted down, but I doubt I'll ever find time to tidy it up.


EDIT: A 'part 2' of sorts can be found here: [url="http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/287934-on-game-design/"]http://forum.yugiohc...on-game-design/[/url]

[Buttercup]

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2010/11/4/football-helmet-clown-shoes-guy.html

There's a lot of cool stuff on Sirlin's site.

[-Griffin]

Something more specific to Yugioh:

[b][u]"Generic Card X should be banned because it's OP'd" is a fallacy:[/u][/b]
Fact: No generic card should be banned because it's OP'd.
To most people, even people who are very good at card design, this might seem absurd or just outright wrong. Some might think I'm trolling. I'm being entirely serious.
The only valid reason to ban a [b]generic[/b] card is that it's bad for the game. OP'd cards are often bad for the game, but they are not bad for the game by definition. Before anything, let's look at some cards and weigh up if they're OP'd, and if they're bad for the game:

|Ultimate Power|
|Normal Spell|
|You win the duel.|

If you cannot tell this is OP'd, please stop reading.
But is it [b]bad for the game[/b]?
Yes. Why? It makes the game "who can draw Ultimate Power first?" and destroys [b]Player-Player Interaction[/b] (see first post). Therefore, it should be banned.

What about real Yugioh Cards?:

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_Dragon

Is this OP'd?
No, not really. It's a fairly standard card that can only do anything if you tribute 3 monsters for it's Normal Summon and it does the final damage - not to mention it's got no self-protection.
Is it [b]bad for the game[/b]?
Yes. It interferes with something outside of the current duel - which shouldn't ever happen.
(Note: This example is not generic, but examples don't need to be to argue the difference between the two points)

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Hole

Is this OP'd?
I'd say yes. It can wipe the field for no cost and it's not hard to imagine getting a +2 in advantage from this, and you can then declare a direct attack?
Is it [b]bad for the game[/b]?
This might be hard to convince some people, but my stance on this is [b]NO[/b]. I believe that Dark Hole is [b]good for the game[/b]. It discourages people from putting too many monsters on the field when Dark Hole could be played. It adds a layer of psychology to the game which highly encourages [b]Player-Player Interaction[/b] and makes players have to [b]think[/b] about the best number of monsters to put on the field. If [i]all[/i] monster removal is +0 monster removal, then there is no need to [b]think[/b], which makes the game less interesting. There is no denying that Dark Hole has some influence on the way a good player plays the game [b]and I believe it is in a positive way[/b].

Even if you don't agree that Dark Hole is a good example, please understand the last sentence there. If a generic card that any Deck can use (like Dark Hole) affects the way a player plays the game positively, it shouldn't be banned for being too powerful.


Some notes on 'bad for the game':
Defining what cards are bad for the game is a matter of some debate, here's a list of some possible reasons a card is bad for the game:
[list]
[*]It discourages Player-Player Interaction (cards that cause OTKs/FTKs fit here)
[*]It causes Slippery Slope and Lame Duck situations
[*]It causes too much luck. "Too much" is subjective, but the reason that too much luck is bad is that it makes the game "you vs luck", breaking down Player-Player Interaction
[*]It interferes with something outside the current duel
[*]It interferes with the way a good player plays [b]negatively[/b] (e.g. makes players not attack for a long time out of fear, so duels take too long)
[*]It makes Starting Conditions uneven too much, by making some Decks unplayable (a 'super-macro' would do this by killing all Graveyard Decks)
[/list]

So should a format be nothing but good-for-the-game generic cards where all Decks are identical because other cards are obsolete?
It can be, and it's not definitely bad. If you haven't noticed, people don't usually auto-quit mirror matches because "the same Decks fighting is boring" and some games, Poker, Uno, Yomi, Dominion and others, can be perfectly good and successful without different Decks for different players. Identical starting conditions isn't a big problem. I heard Chess had been around for a while, and that wasn't dropped by the public for 'being too darn identical'. When adding or removing staples, you're moving a slider between 'customised Decks' and 'identical Decks' [b]neither end is bad[/b]. Most Yugioh players like customized Decks, but it's stupid to make 20 different Dark Holes so that every Deck can have the good-for-the-game card that is Dark Hole. Staples can be good for the game, but most Yugioh players enjoy the game being NOT all-staples, so strike a balance.

To end this random thought, let's look at why Pot of Greed & one other card is banned, you all know the effect, I hope.

It's OP'd, yes, but we know that doesn't matter now.
Does it hit the first bullet-point, discouraging player-player interaction?
One could definitely argue so. OTKs are faster with it, and so are lockdowns (which often discourage Player-Player Interaction, although not as much). This point alone could ban it. Does it hit other points?
It doesn't cause Lame Duck or Slippery Slope. Quite the opposite, it gives the losing player a better chance if drawn! Sure, it can push a winner into winning more, but the ratio of winners cards:losers cards is going to be affected more in the loser's favour most of the time.
Does it cause luck? Yes! The player who draws Pot of Greed is very lucky. The +1 to a lucky player is quite useful, but it might not be enough to ban it if it has enough reasons it's [b]good for the game[/b].
Does it interfere with something outside of the duel? Nope. Simple to tell this one most of the time.
Does it make people play in a negative way? I don't think so - most good players aren't going to take stupid risks because "I might draw Greed"
Does it change starting conditions? Slightly, Spell Counter Decks get more than Dark Scorpion Decks, but nothing worth mentioning.

So Pot of Greed is banned mostly for the first reason, and slightly for the third.

Let's look at one last card:
Black Luster Soldier - Envoy Of The Beginning.
It's not generic, this doesn't apply. Remember this is generic cards only.

[Ginko]

i played a lame duck game once
he put stardust dragon on the field

[Kuri]

[quote name='Picklehead47' timestamp='1292297332' post='4850989']
i played a lame duck game once
he put stardust dragon on the field
[/quote]
You must be talking about a one turn sync. ei. Yusei does this a lot.[/obviousness] Reason why is because game's focusing good cards on good cards. This is the cause of a Lame Duck imo.

[Ginko]

well, he did that to me but with a different monster
my humorous comment was supposed to mean that stardust dragon is WAY to good for how easily it ccould be summoned

[-Griffin]

Adding Compulse to your Deck isn't difficult. Knowing common cards and having easy answers is part of the game. If your Deck doesn't use the easy answers to Stardust, then you should really be expecting the losses. Most people I know don't even bother synching it over Scrap Dragon these days - it's just too easy to get around.

[Ginko]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1292446061' post='4855006']
having easy answers is part of the game. If your Deck doesn't use the easy answers to Stardust, then you should really be expecting the losses. [/quote]

well i am constructing a new deck now. what cards would you suggest to defeat a monster such as stardust or the scrap dragon?
i have one card (i don't remember the name) but its effect is essentially "if a monster's effect is activated, discard one card to destroy the monster"
it worked well, until he put it back on the field because the original monster i destroyed was the assault mode stardust dragon

[-Griffin]

[quote name='Picklehead47' timestamp='1292458210' post='4855706']
well i am constructing a new deck now. what cards would you suggest to defeat a monster such as stardust or the scrap dragon?
i have one card (i don't remember the name) but its effect is essentially "if a monster's effect is activated, discard one card to destroy the monster"
it worked well, until he put it back on the field because the original monster i destroyed was the assault mode stardust dragon
[/quote]

Compulsary Evacuation Device, Dimensional Prison, Penguin Soldier, Solemn Warning, Solemn Judgment, D.D. Warrior Lady, Neo-Spacian Grand Mole, Penguin Soldier, Caius the Shadow Monarch and Brionic Dragon of the Ice Boundary are some of the first few that come to mind.

[Ginko]

lol, you said penguin soldier twice
i may have extra of these cards lying around, i'll pursuade my little brother to let me have them
and by pursuade i mean steal them from, lol

[CDDRodrigo]

This example of player dominance happened to me today. I'm playing WC 2008 and still am at the world of Sunlight. My deck's not very good and is absolutely GENERIC. DOES NOT revolve around any theme or strategy, simply because I don't have enough cards to do a themed .deck And, I've got few "turn-breaker" staples, like BTH and Sak Armor. I've just unlocked D. D. Warrior Lady in Free Duel, and she doesn't play fair. She's got TOO MANY Dimensional Prisons, BTHs and Karma Cuts. And I've got NO Heavy Storm! How am I supposed to defeat a duelist like her, who plays a lot of traps to control the game in her favor? I do have Jinzo, but these Assailants, Warriors and Warrior Ladies of D. D. just remove it easily, and when she manages to summon White-Horned Dragon, she becomes unstoppable.

That's why I don't like FTKs, OTKs and control decks. You guys can guess my style by checking my Username (CDD stands for Cyber Dark Dragon, if someone didn't notice). I like beatdown, not by controlling my opponent's actions, but by beating them with my own strenght.

This may all sound to childish, but you guys gotta agree that, as the first post states, Player to Player interactions are better than playing an one-sided game.

[byak]

"My deck's not very good"

There's your problem.
How do you lose in WC10? the AI is terrible..

Anyways, I found a thread on DGz about what does a theme need to be competitive. You need to be a member to actually see the thread, so instead of linking, I'll just paste some important parts.

[quote][quote]qualities of a good deck:

flexibility/versatility - [b]able to handle many different gamestates/scenarios/matchups/playstyles.[/b] this format you are going to play a LOT of different decks at any tournament you go to. even if sabers/infernity are the best/most popular decks, you will still only play maybe 3 or 4 MAX of one of those in 10 rounds. [b]you have to be able to handle being on the offensive as well as defensive. you have to be able to handle your opponent swarming you, but also your opponent being extremely conservative and not committing.[/b] this is the reason why AntiMeta decks often fail. they set up well, but when this set up is broken, they can have trouble getting back into the game. [b]a good deck should be able to swing control of the tempo, so that you can counter when your opponent tries to do the same thing[/b].

outs to your counters - if there are certain cards that can hurt you, you need to have outs to them. preferably ones that can gain advantage off of said counters.

'guessing games' - idk if i would say all the top tier decks have had this, but i have found this to be a really important part of ygo, and my playstyle. last format, you had zombie decks running goblin zombie and sangan (you want to attack and kill these usually, to prevent a caius/synchro play) and also running tomato and pyramid turtle (you don't want to atk as they search for their combo cards) as well as numerous cards like reaper, plaguespreader and mezukis that can also be set. [b]together, these cards make it hard for your opponent to get a solid read on your set cards. they will be asking themselves, "should I attack or not?" and you want to exploit this, as they will be making mistakes/misreads sometimes, which you can take advantage of.[/b]

explosivity - i feel it is always advantageous to have certain plays/cards that will just gain you a huge advantage if the time is right or deal a ton of damage. [b]it is important to note that these aren't sitauational combo cards.[/b] this is why I have often liked cards like Limiter Removal and Ultimate Offering in gadgets. Your opponent is never truly safe, because you can explode at any time. if they draw a bad hand or make mistakes, you can punish them with an explosive play.

traps/defense - you need to have some kind of defense if you want to do well. those stupid all or nothing decks, probably running reckless greed, simply do not work. you need to have some defense to fall back on when they sack you.

ability to side deck - you don't want your main to be so clogged with little combos that you can't take out anything when you want to side deck. especially this format, side decking is really, really important.

[/quote]

I liked your post Jimi.
I don't think that every competitive deck needs all those qualities, but that was not the context of how you wrote that. You were merely writing "what makes a deck good", and I agree with you

I'll add my input as well;

flexibility/versatility - Very important for the grind advantage type of victory. Not as important for the OTK type decks

outs to your counters - see above

'guessing games' - this is an interesting point. Basically, this distinguishes the difference between the good and the poor player. By using a deck that forces the opponent to make correct plays, you increase the likelihood of beating weaker opponents.
Nonetheless, it is not a pre-requeste for a good deck and once you narrow your competition to "good players only", ie. top16 of a YCS or top cut of a regs, it becomes a far smaller factor

explosivity - bread and butter of OTK, but can be important for the control deck as well. It seems counterintuitive that a control deck would require explosivity, but without it, one cannot mount a comeback when down

traps/defense - There are some forms of OTK that don't need any ability to counter-respond to the opponent, ie. FTKs. But they are rare

ability to side deck - imo this is purely a mark of a players skill + the context of the current format and not the mark of a good deck type. The ability to side 15 cards in a 40 card game is not a limiting factor [/quote]

Typically a competitive card set would reflect most if not all of these factors

Although some of this applies to irl premier events/the current format, most of the information here is pretty valuable when trying to make good, competitive cards.

[CDDRodrigo]

It's WC 2008, and I CANNOT make a good deck, because I don't have enough cards. Remember, I'm still at the beggining of the game.

[-Griffin]

@CDD - WC08 is pretty easy. Maybe you should just not tackle the higher level CPUs until you get better cards? Your point that one-sided duels are boring is right though, so yeah.

@That Cat - Seems to be some valid points there, although it's important to note that a card set doesn't need anything like all of those traits, since generic cards can often fill in the gaps, just keep in mind which generics fill the gaps so that the Deck can actually work well with them.

Also, I was reading up on game design again like I do. Decided to mention something from MTG:

[b]Something MTG got really, really right - Split Cards or w/e they're called[/b]
I can't say I've played MTG all that much, but I did read some notes from the designers today and found out about a concept in MTG I'd never heard of. It's a card that shows two small cards on it, and can be used as either. I don't know if the examples of these cards that made it into the game were well designed, or any use, but the concept is marvelous! It's an example of a fairly streamlined solution to problems of inconsistency. Lame Ducks can be caused by cards that can't be activated, and in MTG this is really possible if you don't draw enough lands, and it gets even worse in multi-colour Decks because you can draw lands, and not have them being the right colour. Naturally, MTG players build Decks that don't get useless hands that often, but the system can still give more dead hands that it should. Split cards allow the designers to make a card with a higher mana cost but that can still be used if you didn't get loads of land or if you need to do some more stuff early duel. The times when they have different colours on each of the split cards also allows multi-colour Decks to be more consistent since it can work if you draw EITHER colour.
Naturally, this is a YGO forum about making YGO cards so not getting enough mana cards or however MTG works isn't an issue. That doesn't mean dead hands don't happen though. Any card that has activation conditions/Summon conditions or even that just isn't good to use in many situations can be dead. Monsters have a psuedo-fix built in, in that they can often be used for tribute/synchro fodder, or even just blocking an attack/a beatstick. That isn't the case for spell/traps/high level monsters though. It isn't hard to fix this for s/ts: If it's likely it will be a dead draw sometimes, make it have two effects that you pick between - with one being less likely to be a dead draw, like Split Cards in MTG.
For high-level monsters, it isn't so easy. One answer is cards like Trade-In which give them a use through a different card. You can also give them effects that can be used somehow from the hand, or if it's used for discard fodder. Really, though, as long as the rest of the cards in the Deck aren't likely to be a dead draw, high-level monsters can usually be left, since you won't get entire dead hands.

[CDDRodrigo]

Yes, maybe I should face her later, but I wanted to make everything in sequence >.<

[-Griffin]

Random thought, gogogo.

[b][u]Impracticality.[/u][/b]
So Sirlin (yeah him again) made this game called Puzzle Strike or some jank. It seems really well designed, but something that makes it stand out is that it uses wooden chips instead of cards. This isn't a gimmick (well, maybe a bit, but practical too). The reason for this is that you have to shuffle so much, and the size of the Deck can vary so much, that shuffling cards is really impractical. It's much easier to just put the chips into a bag, shake it, and pick some out. Simples. This is important because things like shuffling and searching the Deck can interrupt the flow of gameplay. By and large, Konami make this not much of a problem, I find, but it's worth remembering. Making players turn the Deck over and find the 5th-to-bottom card without looking at any of the other cards at the bottom of the Deck could really get annoying. Not many cards get this problem, but something that activates every single phase, or every single time any card effect is activated, could really interrupt game play, which isn't fun.

[-Griffin]

[b][u]"Cyber Dragon promotes bad play." cry the TCG members.[/u][/b]
The above sentence is idiotic. If having no monsters while your opponent controls monsters is rewarded, then [i]that becomes good play[/i]. If letting your opponent hits you directly is rewarded by letting you drop Gorz, then [i]that becomes good play[/i]. Good play isn't just defined by what can be extracted from the rules - such as "having card advantage is good" - it's also defined by the cards. It is literally impossible for a card to promote bad play or punish good play, it just changes the definitions. There are too [u]valid[/u] arguments for things that are usually pinned with these titles, which is as follows:

1- The card creates a Nash Equilibrium - game design talk for a situation where neither player wants to make a move, because it would put them in the losing position, so the game just becomes a test of patience. (e.g. a version of Cydra so good that neither player would summon due to the risk of their opponent dropping it, or a version of Gorz so good that neither player would attack unless they'd used Mind Crush first or something.) There doesn't seem to be any current YGO card that does this, so it doesn't apply.

2- The card is good enough that whoever draws it gets too much luck - This point could be argued as an actual reason for banning Cydra/Gorz, just make sure you're actually using the right argument.

On the subject of 'rewarding bad play', it's also worth noting that TCG players use this as a reason to ban a card or something - that's silly. It is a [u]good[/u] thing to reward a player in a losing situation (which is usually what they mean) since it helps to prevent slippery slope. Saying that whoever gets an early advantage should be rewarded so they never lose it makes everything after the first +1 pointless. Of course moderation is needed so that point 2 doesn't take priority when deciding list position, but rewarding a losing player is certainly not an argument for banning, quite the opposite.

[Mehmani]

But playing conservatively on purpose so you can drop CyDra or Gorz makes the game boring, no? I don't like to play against an opponent who just waits until they can drop Gorz or Trag, and I'm pretty sure that no one does.

[-Griffin]

Which is a lesser-extent Nash. I agree entirely that it's a downside, which is why point 2 comes in and, while they should be good enough to provide some swing, they could probably do with being just a notch weaker than they are now, so that the pay-off for putting yourself in that situation doesn't outweigh the setup your opponent gets in that time.

[Mehmani]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1298108785' post='5018458']
Which is a lesser-extent Nash. I agree entirely that it's a downside, which is why point 2 comes in and, while they should be good enough to provide some swing, they could probably do with being just a notch weaker than they are now, so that the pay-off for putting yourself in that situation doesn't outweigh the setup your opponent gets in that time.
[/quote]

Often it does. Your opponent will be too anxious to do much as they fear you will drop Gorz. Think of BWs - they need Shura to attack and destroy to make a big play, and they can't do that if you control no monsters. Besides, even if they do set up an OTK, as soon as they attack you summon Gorz and get a powerful token. They will have to run over Gorz and the token (which they often will be unable to do) leaving you with a turn to take stuff out with Gorz and the token or pull off some Synchro Summons.

[-Griffin]

So yeah - Gorz can probably be said to break point #2 by being too damn good, but the argument there was that the reason [i]is[/i] that it's too damn good, and not that it promotes 'bad play' - (promoting boring play would be a valid reason too, but I think its "too-good-ness" is the bigger issue).

[Horu]

That's some great advice for creating a CCG! I'm working on my CCG and it has a lot of evolution based monsters. My CCG also has Level 0 monsters (things that can't logically attack, such as eggs or seeds). While I will have to create more cards Yugioh-wise, my initial game will need less cards to play. I apolgise for the rant but great advice should be put to great use.

[Darkest Hour]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1298110083' post='5018477']
So yeah - Gorz can probably be said to break point #2 by being too damn good, but the argument there was that the reason [i]is[/i] that it's too damn good, and not that it promotes 'bad play' - (promoting boring play would be a valid reason too, but I think its "too-good-ness" is the bigger issue).
[/quote]
Generally I think Gorz might implement the same psychological effect Heavy Storm and Dark Hole does when it comes to hitting the opponent with their biggest monster while the field is completely empty.

[-Griffin]

Personally, I think psychological effects are generally good for the game. They're a strong form of player-player interaction, and don't impact theoretical best plays, meaning that not attacking when you should becomes the sign of a bad player, and things that actually show up skill like that is cool.

[Cody Frost]

Hmmm, then what about +1 Summon effects from the Deck while still giving up a cost like life points, remove a card from hand/Deck from play for the summon, or conditions such as "the monster Summoned by this effect cannot be used for Synchro/Fusion/Tribute/Ritual Summon" or something along those lines. Would that set a horrible player-to-player interaction?

The reason I'm asking this is because I've reviewed several of my cards AND have read up on what is considered a good game/bad game/good card/bad card etc, and am considering revising several of my own created cards, like my Flame Barrier monsters which seem to be (or at least I think) they are breaking Player-to-Player interaction while providing +1(s) (or more).