about loyalty

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
User avatar
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Re: about loyalty

Post by snowdrop » Thu Jun 13, 2013 21:04

Erundil wrote:
I disagree with the fact of having restrictions in the mixture of cards.
No, it is actually important to have that sort of restrictions, otherwise anyone would just play the strongest cards as they go. If you are limited to some factions, because each factions has some weaknesses, it will improve deck buidling/picking much more.
I agree with you Erundil, but then again, none of us two or copono suggest that there shouldn't be a restriction to mixing of factions/cards. we all see the need of that. What I and copono are not totally sharing the view of is how restriction is best done.

I believe his solution, to have a steeper cost punishing the player is 100% usable and ok. That said, I also belive that what I write in my previous post (by snowdrop » 05 Jan 2013, 15:00) is also valid and achieves some other stuff. All in all coponos claim is true though and what he suggest does offer more combos. My approach is just a tad more conservative and gives somewhat more control to us as developers. Both solutions have their merits, but on different ground.
Mtg has the same, only they use lands.
However in Mtg, the limit is not hard-ruled, simply it becomes inefficient to play more than 2 colours for an average deck.
Yes to the first two: They use lands it is not hard rules. Instead it is a (bad) part of the resource management of the game. (I claim MtG land-system is bad since it leads to about 30% of cards in your deck being dead resource cards with usually only singular usage scenario, and because of bad land draws)

I also agree with the third claim that a deck becomes more inefficient the more colours you have in it. Inefficient in the sense that it becomes very hard to play it due to you not having the correct resource around. This is particulary true for pre-Ravnica standard-block.

It becomes less and less true the more blocks you include, meaning that the bigger the cardpool you have in MtG, the less problematic it becomes to actually play 3 - 5 colours in one and the same deck. It is so since it becomes inherently and exponentially more or less impossible to maintain balance in a CCG when you have such a huge card pool and such an allowing deck building system that MtG uses. There are a zillion cards that can produce 1, 2 or even 3 or all 5 colours of mana in one way or the other. The only thing stopping most real players from using them is that they are pricey and have been limited by made up "rarity" factor and the distribution model of MtG.

We need to count also decks that will have 3, 2 or 1 copies of each card, you can use the same formula as above, but r N!/(N-4)! + N!(N-3)! + N!(N-2)! + N! will not give you a right answer, because N! contains all possible decks already, N!(N-2)! contains N!(N-3)! and N!(N-4)!, and so on.
While I master words fairly well in Swedish I have only very basic math knowledge and the !-sign is not someting I understand or know how to use on a calculator, so I'd need a step-by-step with real numbers as example :P

What complicates things even further is that the above is totally blinde for factuions, which cards are not compatible with which etc and what makes sense to put in the same deck and never makes sense to begin with. In theory a player can build a deck from all kinds of random cards from the pool, but a rational player will never do that. He/she would be restricted to like 5 - 25% of the pool at any given time since he/she builds around a specific theme, faction or mechanic.
Post Reply