Command & Conquer: Broken resource system patch

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:
Command & Conquer: Broken resource system patch

Post by snowdrop » Tue Nov 22, 2011 22:29

In Command & Conquer I conclude that I would want to use a resource system that is non-exhausting. I don't think that's a wise idea any longer for the following reason -

Such a system makes every low tiered card in the deck, with the cost range of 1-3, become almost totally meaningless the longer the game goes on. Consider the following scenario.

P1 field only cards that cost just 3. He doesn't do anything for 2 whole turns other than drop resources. When it's turn 3 he drops his 3:d resource. He now plays 6 cards form hand, all with the cost of 3. Meanwhile his opponent, P2, played creatures of cost 1, later on cost 2. Even if P2 did get to attack undefended against P1 and did some minimal damage, I'd argue that P1 is in a much better position now and will continue to be so since he has no low-tier creatures in the deck that eat valuable deck slots. Meanwhile P2 will continue to draw a card from his deck that costs something in the range of 1 to 3 every now and then, since he put such cards in the deck.

And the inverted is also true, as pointed out to me by aspidites today: Pretend that P1 fields only Cost 1 cards in all of his deck. On turn 1 he can then play all of his 6 cards. He can the continue swarming the board i whatever tempo the card drawing allows him. He can also ignore wasting additional cards as resources since 1 resource card is enough, which gives him a further advantage. In part this situation is negated by the fact that an opponent with 2 resources would be able to do the same, just one turn later, and another one with 3 the same, just one turn later..etc etc. Even if that's true, that just shows us the scope of the problem and how it makes pricing both problematic and almost meaningless in the game.

The problem is unsolvable unless something is changed. I see either one of the following two things that would solve it:

a) Keep resources un-exhaustible, but in additon let every card cost an Action Point to be put into play. Give the player 5 AP:s per round that are replenished.

b) Make resource cards exhaustible: Mark one, and you have used one up. They are still colourless and still in 3 piles. It's still their total sum that counts in the end, but now it's very very meaningfull once again to have different costs of different creatures and all above problems are solved.

I'm more in favour of B.
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts:334
Joined:Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: Command & Conquer: Broken resource system patch

Post by Q_x » Wed Nov 23, 2011 16:47

Yaay! Finally someone has noticed same thing I did looong time ago and told it half dozen of times already...

Yes, piles alone are meaningles and all they do is to regulate how long one has to wait before playing a given card, without any further effects. Resources are drowned there. Of course you can take some cards back to hand in what CC2 document proposes, but still...
I've proposed some stuff to make piling cards more meaningful. Those ideas are now obsolete, due to series of rule changes.

Don't think what to do exactly yet. "Why?" is more important.
Problem no.1 is what's the currency. And the answer is: cards. Cards are drawn and played in the way we can affect.
Problem no. 2 is what costs should be paid for a creature that's played onto the table, or any card in general, or even more general, what types of action should cost (that is, impede future development). Who and when should pay more, and what for, what action and in what situation should be more expensive. The real question is how do we want our game cycle (from the start to the end) to look like. The second important question is how to acieve the goal. Where are the places we should put our fingers and make the flow of resources a bit impeded, and how much do we want to impede it at all?
There is yet another question - what types of action should help growing faster? For example losing battle - is losing VPs enough or not? Should creatures be buried, turned into resources, healed at a given rate (like one card per turn, or all cards for one round) or just like so be left in play? How to help player to recover after being defeated in a battle?

Now, the less interesting part.
What should influence the cost is how much given player already has on his table. That's my opinion. More power => slower development, that's the idea that serves as an example. You may not share it.
Example rule - you can only play one resource card per turn.
Example cost - taking cards out of pile of resources back to the hand.
Card count (so playing cost) is equal to cost written on the card plus number of cards of same cost already on player's table. This will promote some diversity you want so much, plus it will add some more of the quality you call "meaning". Add a rule that cards taken back have to be faction-matching and you have threshold solved.

It's like I'm repeating myslef again again, and that's obviously due to the fact that I'm out of fresh ideas in terms of rules for at least six months now.
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
Post Reply