Resource system revsited (again)

[snowdrop]

While working on some concepts for Buildings I got a totally unrelated idea about a resource system that could totally replace the current one with how resource piles work. I need your input, and I need arguments for and against it.

Trinity

• Each turn the player may place one card face down into one of three piles: Military, Politics or Magic. (The names of these three piles can of course be exchanged for something more appropriate. Their names also don't matter at all when judging if the resource system is good or bad.)
• Each pile represents the players advancement, level, in that particular field. For example, 5 cards ion the Military pile makes the player Military Lvl 5.
• Since there is no gold cost of cards you need to match it's level requirement to be able to put it into play. An elf with Military 3 would require the player to have a Military pile with 3 or more cards in it.
• Piles are not depleted: If the above elf is played any number of new cards that cost Military can be played from hand as long as the player has attained the correct Military level. Example, if the player is Military Lvl 5 he can play any amount of cards from his hand that cost Military 5 or less.
• Re-allocation: One per turn a player may move one lvl form pile x to pile y. To do that she discards a lvl from x, and then takes another lvl from x and puts it on y instead.

Pros & Cons
It's hard for me to say why I find the idea appealing, and that is a sing of trouble since all sound ideas should be explainable and clear.

Pros I can think of is that it maybe leads to less mess on table, maybe frees up more cards to play with from the deck and - this is the only thing that is certain - it opens up a 3-universal-currency pricing model, where a card could "cost" any one of the 3 disciplines (let's not talk about combos yet). That said, it isn't apparent that that would be a good thing - what does actually become more interesting in the game by us doing it? Maybe resource management feels more meaningful with this suggestion, but is it really? If so, how? I'm not sure. Only other thing that also seems certain is that not-depleting the piles will enable players to get away with more action, and also value each card in hand more since that will be the main limitation eventually. (But the no-deplete rule can be applied to our current system already if we want it...)

Cons: The whole idea is a con if there isn't a good reason to add 2 more "currencies" than the current one.

[Q_x]

That's really neatly looking idea.

A question: How would you mark the cost on cards? I assume those would be like three numbers with the cost like 5/2/3, right? Not just one of tree?

What bothers me is the threshold now. It will serve basically no function. And no matter what faction the card is from - with threshold of 0 it can be in any deck, and there has to be some cards with 0 threshold to start any deployment. So maybe we could use threshold to remove a small number of faction-matching cards from those piles back to the deck or to hand?

[snowdrop]

That's really neatly looking idea.

Yes, maybe so. But that is the real problem here as well: Neat looking doesn't mean it's any better than what we already have. Although I know you're biased against our current system (as we have discussed many times over) I think it's important to explain this all from a rational perspective: What makes the suggestion a better one? How

A question: How would you mark the cost on cards? I assume those would be like three numbers with the cost like 5/2/3, right? Not just one of tree?

I imagine that a majority of cards, like 60% or so, would be mono-cost. Some would be dual, and very very few would be all three.

They wouldn't/shouldn't be marked out the way you suggest since it is 3 numbers and it is also already teh way we mark out ATK / DEF -values. I think it would be best to show it with icons/symbols of some kind, one for each cost type. Inside of them or next to them (if we would remove all text from containers and use symbols instead) a number would be displayed, telling player how much it costs in that discpline.

What bothers me is the threshold now. It will serve basically no function. And no matter what faction the card is from - with threshold of 0 it can be in any deck, and there has to be some cards with 0 threshold to start any deployment.

Yes, actually I scrapped the idea of how the Threshold currently works: My next suggestion was to relate threshold to number of buildings you control of a faction instead of number of creatures of it. It gives buildings yet another key role and weaves them in more seeming-less in the game. In essence it means that to play a treshold 2 Gaian creature you need to have at least two gaian buildings in play. If you do have that you also probably play with a Gaian deck since Gaian buildings are fine tuned for Gaian creatures... so, mission accmplished with thresholds orginal function -to balance decks so people don't play with all factions in same deck.

Also, putting plenty fo buildings in play is still a bad idea since it will enable the opponent to choose between more targets, meaning you get more to defend with your limited amount of units.

[Q_x]

Having fixed number of piles was the neatest parts - this will simplify our design greatly. What is also good is the way that decks will be balanced - adding one more dimension to it: that is, in most cases, towards not only certain (one or two) faction, but also towards certain group of cards and interactions.

[masda_gib]

I guess how much the "trouble" of having 3 different resources has effect on gameplay and variations will decide whether it's a good thing or not.

For example with the old system you could decide if you have one strong pile to play expensive cards or have many one-card-piles to spam cheap creatures. How will this new system give choices?
I fear a bit that some factions will be biased to one resource so that there will be only one "right" way to stack resources for each faction. (say, gaians nee much magic, nobles need politics)

If you can distribute the needed resources within a faction right, this might be good. Maybe all creatures with leadership qualities may need politics resources, so that even my large orc grunt army doesn't only need military resources if I want some warlords in it

Also these 3 resources could open the way for some special event cards. A spontaneous thought would be something like "ritual sacrifice" which takes an (previously defeated) enemy creature from the table and puts it on the magic pile (to fuel some powerful magic >:) ).

So, it sounds good but the 3 resources have to be used in a good way that opens up options.

[snowdrop]

Greetings masda! And welcome to our small community. What an excellent way to get started.

For example with the old system you could decide if you have one strong pile to play expensive cards or have many one-card-piles to spam cheap creatures. How will this new system give choices?

The choices it gives the player is still which pile to develop, which it shares with the original suggestion. In a sense the new system is the same as the old with the following difference:

• A max of three piles.
• Each pile produces a unique currency.
• Piles never deplete.

I fear a bit that some factions will be biased to one resource so that there will be only one "right" way to stack resources for each faction. (say, gaians nee much magic, nobles need politics)

Yes, I agree that what you describe is a terrible way to dev it. Actually I'd go even further, if it was like that, then there is no reason at all to have three currencies.

Although it may not have been all too clear from my description of "Trinity" I believe that each faction should be pretty mixed up cost wise, so there are three "paths" to go with each faction, so that the player could decide if he not only wants to play a Gaian deck, but also what type of Gaian deck: A military, political or magical, or a mix of some. Q_x already captured this when he wrote:

good is the way that decks will be balanced - adding one more dimension to it: that is, in most cases, towards not only certain (one or two) faction, but also towards certain group of cards and interactions.

If you can distribute the needed resources within a faction right, this might be good. Maybe all creatures with leadership qualities may need politics resources, so that even my large orc grunt army doesn't only need military resources if I want some warlords in it

Yeah, that is doable. I think. It doesn't necessarily translate to each faction having 1/3 of it's card costs in each currency, but keeping it proportionate with about +-10% might be doable.

Maybe all creatures with leadership qualities may need politics resources, so that even my large orc grunt army doesn't only need military resources if I want some warlords in it

Multi-cost creatures should probably be included, yes. I imagine the majority of creatures would however stay mono-cost.

Also these 3 resources could open the way for some special event cards. A spontaneous thought would be something like "ritual sacrifice" which takes an (previously defeated) enemy creature from the table and puts it on the magic pile (to fuel some powerful magic >:) ).

I'm not sure I follow: Such cards can be created no matter what the resource system is - they don't depend on multi-currency.

[masda_gib]

Greetings to you, too. And thanks. Although I already commented a bit in the news and on Diaspora

The choices it gives the player is still which pile to develop, which it shares with the original suggestion. In a sense the new system is the same as the old with the following difference:

• A max of three piles.
• Each pile produces a unique currency.
• Piles never deplete.

Yeah, thats right. But only works if there aren't practically right and wrong choices. But as you said you want to make shure that there are options within a faction.
(And the old piles depleted? Last time I checked the rules the resource piles didn't Oo Well seems I missed something)

Yes, I agree that what you describe is a terrible way to dev it. Actually I'd go even further, if it was like that, then there is no reason at all to have three currencies.

Although it may not have been all too clear from my description of "Trinity" I believe that each faction should be pretty mixed up cost wise, so there are three "paths" to go with each faction, so that the player could decide if he not only wants to play a Gaian deck, but also what type of Gaian deck: A military, political or magical, or a mix of some. Q_x already captured this when he wrote: (things)

I would even go further. If you design it the way that each faction has three paths to choose from, that also wouldn't really justify 3 resources. Then just let the player choose at the beginning of a game which path he will choose and just have one simple resource. (With maybe more expensive recruiting of cards using the other two resources)
I think the different resources are worth it when in addition to the "extreme" choices like "nearly only magic resources" choices like "3 equally strong resources" will also be viable.

I think you also already thought about that. Just want to share my thoughts on it.

Yeah, that is doable. I think. It doesn't necessarily translate to each faction having 1/3 of it's card costs in each currency, but keeping it proportionate with about +-10% might be doable.

Yeah, an exact 1/3 of each resource for each faction would be boring. A bit of thematic bias will be good and also neccesary.

I'm not sure I follow: Such cards can be created no matter what the resource system is - they don't depend on multi-currency.

No, they don't depend on it - they just feel better flavourwise if the affected currency somehow fits the effect of the card. As you said each resource will be a "unique currency". It just fits a bit better if a card that says "This card will bolster your magic!" really only strengthens your magic resources instead of a general resource.

[snowdrop]

Greetings to you, too. And thanks. Although I already commented a bit in the news and on Diaspora

Nice, even though the safest bet to get a reply from us is to use either comment field and/or forum (just as you also did).

The choices it gives the player is still which pile to develop, which it shares with the original suggestion. In a sense the new system is the same as the old with the following difference:

• A max of three piles.
• Each pile produces a unique currency.
• Piles never deplete.

Yeah, thats right. But only works if there aren't practically right and wrong choices.

What is the right choice would totally depend on the kind of deck you would build with a faction. Depending on what you field or not in the deck you would be able to make correct and wrong choices, which is a good thing Actually, every player choice should be of that type - it must always be a question of how to maximise utility for the player. Next question is of course is that she must ask herself, each turn, if she's going to do something that is short term or long term.

(And the old piles depleted? Last time I checked the rules the resource piles didn't Oo Well seems I missed something)

At first they didn't, then they did Given they did there would be greater incentive and harder choice for the player to balance between few powerful piles or several weaker.

I would even go further. If you design it the way that each faction has three paths to choose from, that also wouldn't really justify 3 resources //
. Then just let the player choose at the beginning of a game which path he will choose and just have one simple resource.

No, it wouldn't - just as you write it would be easier to handle that with just a rule saying "each deck may only contain cards from one path from one faction", for example. While possible, I deem it to be a bad solution due to card compatibility, as explained in the General Design Document (GDD). Such "hard" restrictions are good for games that want to artificially create more cards than necessary, where many will be bad siblings but of different paths. Many games utilize such solutions.

Since such games will require larger amounts of cards to be produced for the game to be as varying as for example MtG (where there are no such restrictions and you can build any deck you want) they are good ways to lure the players to invest more money into the game. For the player though it is usually a bad situation. For an open source project with zero financing/budget like ours it is also a very bad idea since it would mean we need to produce 5 x 3 = 15 times more cards to achieve same flexibility as we would have had without such a rule.

Yeah, that is doable. I think. It doesn't necessarily translate to each faction having 1/3 of it's card costs in each currency, but keeping it proportionate with about +-10% might be doable.

Yeah, an exact 1/3 of each resource for each faction would be boring. A bit of thematic bias will be good and also neccesary.

Yes, although the main reason to do x in a game is mechanics and balancing. Everyhting can be themed afterwards. Nothing should be included just because of theme in itself.

You seem to have plenty of ideas - join us in our quest, we have plenty of work for you and need more people that want to deal with rules. What background / experience do you have of CCG:s?

[masda_gib]

No, it wouldn't - just as you write it would be easier to handle that with just a rule saying "each deck may only contain cards from one path from one faction", for example. While possible, I deem it to be a bad solution due to card compatibility, as explained in the General Design Document (GDD). Such "hard" restrictions are good for games that want to artificially create more cards than necessary, where many will be bad siblings but of different paths. Many games utilize such solutions.

Since such games will require larger amounts of cards to be produced for the game to be as varying as for example MtG (where there are no such restrictions and you can build any deck you want) they are good ways to lure the players to invest more money into the game. For the player though it is usually a bad situation. For an open source project with zero financing/budget like ours it is also a very bad idea since it would mean we need to produce 5 x 3 = 15 times more cards to achieve same flexibility as we would have had without such a rule.

Good point with that absolute restriction. Multiplying the cards was not my intention, so yes that would be bad game-design-wise. (Also that's why I supposed that the other cards would still be playable although at a higher cost)

Yes, although the main reason to do x in a game is mechanics and balancing. Everyhting can be themed afterwards. Nothing should be included just because of theme in itself.

You're right. Got a bit off the hard rules
But now that you mention that I thought a bit and have some concerns about the Trinity concept.
With the old RPs, you could only bring into play one card per RP per turn, right? Then the RP would be unusable for that turn.
Does that restriction still exist with the new rules?
So can I only get one new card per resource type per turn or multiple ("infinite" or until the summed cost of played cards reaches the strength of that resource type or whatever)?

You seem to have plenty of ideas - join us in our quest, we have plenty of work for you and need more people that want to deal with rules. What background / experience do you have of CCG:s?

Errm, my experience with CCG in particular honestly only covers some playing with one of those YuGiOh computergames out of curiosity XD Besides of that I only browsed the cards and rules of some CCGs I discovered.
As far as games are concerned I play more various PC games and used to play pen&paper-RPGs. And I like to comprehend the design and the mechanics behind the stuff I play. So I'm generally interessted in game design but don't have much deep experience with CCGs.
I came to see this project via Battle for Wesnoth and found it interesting

[verbalshadow]

While trinity does sound like an interesting resource method I feel it fails on a few points.

1. Complexity not to the gameplay itself but for us the designers. Why have to balance 3 resources when you can easily express those costs in a single resource. Which could just be called Resources.

2. It will make the game play much much faster. The first 5 or so rounds i only put out creatures to provide defence. As soon as I hit my magic combination of Resources I flood the board with creatures and the win will quick. Of course the other player is doing the same thing. So what happens it becomes a race to the magic number very little strategy. Making each pile deplete fixes this but removes the point of have 3 different resource types.

3. Lastly this change is basiclly forces us to start from scratch to utilize it properly. I think we need to call the stats we have frozen and do gameplay testing.