I think fragility means how easy it is for your opponent to deny your card. Imagine a very cheap card with a very strong power and it works without needing any other cards but you have to tell your opponent if you have it on your hand. It's very efficient, consistent, and not conditional, but is very fragile because your opponent can easily deny you with discard effect or the likes
"Try to start with as clean a board as possible." I think this means not having a ton of things already in play at the start of each game. Like, you have a deck and maybe a hero card, but then don't add six other cards and a bunch of dice in the middle of everything. Having as empty a table in front of you at the start of the game helps you get used to it as it all builds up.
With the tip: "Card balance has many axes: efficiency, consistency, conditionality, and fragility. Each card provides context for the rest" I think the point Eric was making was actually two points in one: #1: There are many different "levers" you can pull when it comes to adjusting card balance. A card that is too powerful doesn't have to just be more expensive to balance it, you might instead make it more situational, or less consistent (adds a random element so it's not always at full power), or more fragile (meaning less health or defense so it's a bit easier for the opponent to destroy). Also, if you make a card more expensive, you are also making the card more situational because there are now less situations when they can afford the card #2: "Each card provides context for the rest" I believe means that as you adjust card balance, you are also in a way adjusting all the other cards by context. If I make the most expensive monsters a little less expensive because they are underpowered, I am now making the rest of the monsters feel a bit MORE expensive by context! Card balance is always affected by each card you add or adjust!
When I’m designing rare cards, I like to think of them as “Cornerstones”. As in; players will put other cards in their deck, specifically because it plays well with this card. This also gives new players an anchor to help focus their deck building
22:00 Ya you're miss reading it. He's saying EVERY card has axis/spectrum of each of those aspects; efficiency, consistency, conditionality, and fragility.
0:00 Intro 0:49 Minimize Complexity 1:29 Boring Cards 2:42 Designing Cards not the Game 3:57 Factions 5:50 Clean Board 7:50 Negative Space 10:10 Rarity 12:24 Cards over Ego 13:17 Separate Victory and Resource 15:20 Cost to Deploy 16:25 Complicate with Cards, not Rules 18:18 Collecting Cards 21:39 Card Balance 23:44 Design Cards to be Loved rather than accepted
13:18 is funny to me because my home TCG in its current design state runs in complete opposition to that, but with a twist. The victory condition is tied to the resource system, because crushing the opponent's 5 Spirit Orbs wins you the game, and Orbs are the resource mechanic of the game. The thing is, my game has ways to counteract Orb Crushing being this huge snowball: - First, a player that hasn't taken their turn can never be Orb Crushed, so that cuts off FTKs and burning face on turn 1. - Second, a player always recovers 1 of their crushed Orbs each turn. Functionally that's life regeneration, but that also means the resources are not gone forever. - Third, every card (almost) can be channeled. Functionally placing them in a resource zone where they give you a functional equivalent of an orb per turn. In short, even the player going second has the opportunity to place a card in channel. In short, yes, the victory condition affects resources negatively, but it's functionally impossible to be completely cut off from playing the game without some extremely questionable decision making (not channeling cards on your first turn means you practically cannot play outside of a few cards).
There are plenty of videos to look through. Let me know if there's a topic I haven't covered that you would like to see a video for in the future. Thanks.
At the time of this comment, I've spent 2 years on my card game, I'm on draft 4 and things are going pretty well, on the other hand this video helped give me extra thoughts about my card game and what to improve on it, thank you, you've earned a sub for that.
I always appreciated the approach that Sabertooth Games took to card rarity: The most widely useful cards were all common, while rare cards would be those with a cool effect that you wanted to build a deck around.
This is a good system to adopt. Card complexity related to rarity is also a good system. But most people fall for the trap of higher power levels equal rarer. cards
Great video. Random thought you look like Former UFC Champion Stipe Miocic. It's a compliment I just had to say something never I just saw Stipe the whole video😂.
13:19 Ah, an interesting point. This is an interesting choice for me personally, as this is kind of something that my entire game fights against. To explain the basics, Skyscape -- the game I've created and am heading -- uses your own Life Total as a Resource to play cards. You can also be dealt damage by your opponent attacking you, and you can deal your opponent damage too. It's an interesting thing, because in this example both players are chipping away at that Resource instead of trying to build it up. The exchange is board presence for that Resource. It's definitely been a balancing act to make things fit for this kind of game, and funnily enough, hearing about what negatives can happen from making victory tie in with resources only makes me want to explore it more. Here's to the challenge! I'm gonna try to make this work! Skyscape did start with this in mind, after all, and that's what the entire game is based around. So here's to making it work and having it be awesome! Oh, and great job with the video as always! Aim high, and pierce the skyscape!
I see. It's funny with life, but that is a fixed resource and not something you constantly need to generate per turn. So it is easier to design a game that's works with this better. In terms of balancing, you would just increase the starting life until the game feels as if it is at the correct pace for your players.
@ShardTCG Very true! And yeah, that's definitely something that came up at the start of Skyscape. I knew I didn't want to do Life Decking, or include Resource cards. And since Life is a fixed number for each player at the start of a game, it's not like you're losing cards. Instead, it's like the game telling you how much gas you have left. You can burn it fast with a lot of high cost cards, or have a slow and steady burn. Can you regenerate some Life throughout a game? Definitely! But at the end of the day, it's all about the strategy of knowing when to go all out and when to be a little more reserved. Can't wait to make a video on this concept, too! You've inspired me to make some TCG Design videos of my own now! Keep up the great work! :)
In my little game I am trying to design, rarity is being used as a card cap. Like if a card is common, you can have 3 copies, if it's uncommon 2, and rare 1. I'm still trying to learn some design basics but I like how it works so far in my limited (mostly solo) testing.
I like it for limiting use on some cards, which means your players should have e more varied decks rather than copy-paste meta. This can still happen, but it makes the process a little harder to pull off. I personally would prefer a controlled ban list after cards have been public. Limiting cards prior to release is a tough one to gauge accurately. But the two strategies can work hand in hand.
~ 17:30 I just want to say most games have the alternative win condition of Decking out your opponent although it rarely comes up unless you build your deck around it
Ah. Cards melding together seamlessly doesn't need to be prevented through anything so aggressive as multiple factions and complete incompatibility. Just making enough friction between card mechanics that you wouldn't combine them
What about a game that is similar to the mechanics of the Redekai TCG but without the heartache of the plastic design. I think a couple of tweaks to that formula could create an amazing game.
For me rarity is more of an ecuation. It is determined by what a card does in relation to its cost or resource consumption. So most of the cards, say the commons would have an effect for x where a rarer card would have either that effect for x-1 or that effect plus another for x
for fragility, think he's talking the ease with which an opponent can interact with a card. a creature with 1 toughness dies to more things than a creature with 4 toughness, so 's more fragile. a card that says 'this can't be countered' or 'costs 2 to target' is harder to answer, and thus less fragile. he's pointing out that fragility is a set of knobs that can be used for balancing, either to strengthen a weak card or to dial back a strong one.
The implementation of Factions isn’t essential in and of itself, but rather, it’s the most common way of addressing a fundamental design problem in any TCG; What’s to stop a player from using a deck that has all of the best cards in the game?
I've seen a few homemade creators try to address this with card scores, where a deck will have to be below a certain score threshold. This forces players to get more picky. The issue with that system is the counting up the score for your deck to make sure it is usable. Also it relies on the creators being certain that no card or card combo will not in fact be more powerful or broken, and that is basically impossible to be certain about. So yes, faction is the popular choice but it is fun to try new things.
Ok so, I've been working on my TCG for a while now and I always had a problem on handling simplicity. My game is similar to Cardfight Vanguard and is mostly reliant on luck and your ability to adapt to the situation. You have to use resources wisely and be creative with what's on your hand and field. For example: "Arc of the Angels" is a Level 4 card with a cost of 7. That means it can only be played if you have at least 7 energies and a Leader with at least level 4. (But it's not that hard to do it since you're guaranteed to reach level 4 on turn 3.) It's effect is simple: search the deck for an angel card with level 3 or less, summon to the field. Shuffle your deck. "Arc of the Angels" even has low attack, defense and power because it brings out other creatures. (For balance sake) Now, you, person who read this. Do you see the problem? It SOUNDS complicated. But it's one of the simplest cards in the game (outside of vanilla of course). Does anyone have some tips on how to make stuff less complicated?
I think the answer is in 2:43. The card isn't complex. It is great! But it has taken 5 sentences to explain how to summon the card. Once people understand it, it is fine. I would focus on streamlining the play mechanic or work on a way to explain it more simply. I hope this is what you were after, and thanks for sharing 👍
5:30 This is terrible advice. I have seen so many card games get stubborn when a Tier-0 deck comes about and they're like "But look, these like two or three cards can counter it," and I'd, like, bro. One or two cards (which often don't work) is not enough to offset a tier-0 deck. Thinking you have plans and contingencies in place for obviously powerful cards is not a viable solution if you want a healthy meta.
I see what you mean. Obviously we want to avoid these extremes. But having a faction that thematically fits a style of play will naturally counter another style of play from another faction if you're making a game with enough variety of factions. Obviously I am against unmixable factions but I still believe factions can help restrict certain combinations in a good way, if done correctly. Big fan by the way.
I did a quick video on this a while ago. It is okay to draw inspiration from other TCGs. Find one unique mechanic for your TCG. Then, everything else can be formats that others have tested and perfected. This way, you know you are working with something that is proven to work, and you get a fun new gimmick to entice players.
@@ShardTCG I only have played magic and that is it I want to play flesh and blood since it has a neat gimmick, I want to create a TCG with criminals or villains instead of the cliche heroes.
I feel like stripping back over complexity and making boring cards are 2 seperate things..I agree with the stripping back complexity, but boring cards that no one will use should always be the first to go. Im not saying a know a lot, that's why I'm here, but if no one is going to play the card, whats the point of making it? To make the other cards look better? Good design should stand on its own imo & everything should be cohesively impressive.
10:56 Hearthstone limits you to 1 copy of each Legendary in a deck (normally you can have 2 copies of any card in your deck). This means that the rarest cards are also the cards you need the least off. Gameplay-wise, this also allows Hearthstone to create cards that are problematic at 2 copies (ie. Cards that are frustrating to play against, or cards that might be too strong if consistently drawn. Though it doesn't completely erase the problem. See: Prince Keleseth), or have no reason to need to play more than 1 copy (ie. Cards that permanently give you some effect that can't be stacked. Or if they can be stacked, then they might be problematic at 2 copies), and create them as Legendaries without needing to rely on a keyword, which feels more elegant. The player already knows the 1-per-deck rule and thinks about it subconsciously rather than consciously. Legends of Runeterra also limits you to 6 Champions total per deck (3 copies of any card in your deck). Typically, you'd run 3 copies of 2 different Champions, or 3-2-1, or 2-2-2, the latter two typically for control decks who last long enough to draw their top-end Champion even if it's only a 2-of. Which Champions you bring are shown to your opponent at the start of the game. They typically define your strategy even if they aren't very complex, though they all have some innate complexity from the ability to level up, and are also more powerful than normal cards - but bringing one champion means you aren't bringing another. That's why a good portion of decks are named after the two main Champions in them.
I would say a card that requires a ton of other cards should be Rare, as incentive for the player to attain the prerequisite cards which should be Super Rare - and powerful enough on their own.
Factions isn’t really something I’ve thought much about since my card game is currently just shared among friends, meaning we all just draw from one big deck from the center of the table, though I may look into it if I ever do decide to stray away from that. I’ve even got some great lore I can see being used to make factions, that being the different knights in the world, though it could definitely use some refinement. Here’s a few ideas I’ve got; • Milocs: warriors of past. Focuses on undoing or meditating opponents actions. • Future: warriors of future. Focuses on seeing cards that will be played later on. • Montrol: well working warriors. Focuses on cards that work well in multiples. • Crolz: knights of ability. Focuses on using abilities and items. • Trapitt: self reliant knights. Focuses on sacrificing other cards for bigger output.
Some very nice factions for starters. I hope they aren't closed off from working emwith each other. Your players might want to build a deck that taps into the past and future simultaneously.
Chapters would be helpful to break up each of the tweets. However I appreciate the commentary. I think I recall reading this tweet thread at the time and definitely have it as a reference point.
It's a personal feeling that attacking resources doesn't sit right with me. I believe there should always be one thing that your opponent can't influence so that you always have a slim chance of turning the game around. I understand attacking resources can come with penalties to balance, but it just seems easier to say you can't attack.
The cost to deploy was early Yugioh biggest hurdle and the reason tribute summoning was never worth it. Why waste 3 resources for Blue Eyes if my opponent can just Raigeki it?
Another factor to consider with Rares, especially rarities above Rare like "Super" or "Secret" Rares that only appear a few times per Booster box is that these kinds of cards should never be OP staples that every player will need a playset of in every deck to compete at a competitive level. Instead the "Boss Monster" of a specific archetype within a faction can be a Secret Rare, cards only a small subset of players will need 1 or 2 copies of to place as the crowning jewel of their deck. If you don't play a "Dragonsaur" deck and you pull their Secret boss monster, you'll still be pleased, because its a rare card some players will trade/pay a lot for, so the card is still very valuable. Another good idea for high rarity cards are "Alternate Art" versions of cards that exist at lower rarities, especially popular, fan favorite cards. Card game players love to "bling out" their collections and decks with cool, shiny cards whenever possible. Again, if you don't play a deck with the alt art card you pull, you'll still be pleased, because its still very valuable. Best of all, its ok if players who want them can't get full playsets for cheap: that's the point. They can always just use the low rarity, cheaper versions instead. If they want to build a competitive deck, they can acquire the needed cards on a budget without any issues. The alt arts are just a shiny collector's item for those willing to trade/pay more for them.
Let's be honest, your "rarest" cards, assuming your card game becomes main stream, will be the ones with the highest price tag on the 3rd party market. So just decide which cards you want to be the most expensive.
For boring cards you mean, taking MTG, the cc1 2/1 or the vanilla version that can be a cc2 2/2 lifelink or trample ecc.. in order to give an easy context to the different abilities
I think fragility means how easy it is for your opponent to deny your card. Imagine a very cheap card with a very strong power and it works without needing any other cards but you have to tell your opponent if you have it on your hand. It's very efficient, consistent, and not conditional, but is very fragile because your opponent can easily deny you with discard effect or the likes
That's an excellent observation. I feel like I've learned something today, thank you.
"Try to start with as clean a board as possible."
I think this means not having a ton of things already in play at the start of each game. Like, you have a deck and maybe a hero card, but then don't add six other cards and a bunch of dice in the middle of everything. Having as empty a table in front of you at the start of the game helps you get used to it as it all builds up.
That's a great way of looking at it. I totally agree. You don't want to start a game and have to check a dozen things before you draw your first card.
I immediately thought of flesh and blood lol
With the tip: "Card balance has many axes: efficiency, consistency, conditionality, and fragility. Each card provides context for the rest"
I think the point Eric was making was actually two points in one:
#1: There are many different "levers" you can pull when it comes to adjusting card balance. A card that is too powerful doesn't have to just be more expensive to balance it, you might instead make it more situational, or less consistent (adds a random element so it's not always at full power), or more fragile (meaning less health or defense so it's a bit easier for the opponent to destroy). Also, if you make a card more expensive, you are also making the card more situational because there are now less situations when they can afford the card
#2: "Each card provides context for the rest" I believe means that as you adjust card balance, you are also in a way adjusting all the other cards by context. If I make the most expensive monsters a little less expensive because they are underpowered, I am now making the rest of the monsters feel a bit MORE expensive by context! Card balance is always affected by each card you add or adjust!
I think you're onto something here. It's definitely better than what I had to say about it 😅
When I’m designing rare cards, I like to think of them as “Cornerstones”. As in; players will put other cards in their deck, specifically because it plays well with this card. This also gives new players an anchor to help focus their deck building
22:00 Ya you're miss reading it. He's saying EVERY card has axis/spectrum of each of those aspects; efficiency, consistency, conditionality, and fragility.
0:00 Intro
0:49 Minimize Complexity
1:29 Boring Cards
2:42 Designing Cards not the Game
3:57 Factions
5:50 Clean Board
7:50 Negative Space
10:10 Rarity
12:24 Cards over Ego
13:17 Separate Victory and Resource
15:20 Cost to Deploy
16:25 Complicate with Cards, not Rules
18:18 Collecting Cards
21:39 Card Balance
23:44 Design Cards to be Loved rather than accepted
13:18 is funny to me because my home TCG in its current design state runs in complete opposition to that, but with a twist.
The victory condition is tied to the resource system, because crushing the opponent's 5 Spirit Orbs wins you the game, and Orbs are the resource mechanic of the game. The thing is, my game has ways to counteract Orb Crushing being this huge snowball:
- First, a player that hasn't taken their turn can never be Orb Crushed, so that cuts off FTKs and burning face on turn 1.
- Second, a player always recovers 1 of their crushed Orbs each turn. Functionally that's life regeneration, but that also means the resources are not gone forever.
- Third, every card (almost) can be channeled. Functionally placing them in a resource zone where they give you a functional equivalent of an orb per turn. In short, even the player going second has the opportunity to place a card in channel.
In short, yes, the victory condition affects resources negatively, but it's functionally impossible to be completely cut off from playing the game without some extremely questionable decision making (not channeling cards on your first turn means you practically cannot play outside of a few cards).
I'm currently designing my own card game and just found your channel, time to watch a bunch of videos!
There are plenty of videos to look through.
Let me know if there's a topic I haven't covered that you would like to see a video for in the future. Thanks.
At the time of this comment, I've spent 2 years on my card game, I'm on draft 4 and things are going pretty well, on the other hand this video helped give me extra thoughts about my card game and what to improve on it, thank you, you've earned a sub for that.
Great stuff in this video, well done mate!
Making a custom TCG to play with my friends rn and this video has really helped with the process so far
There's nothing better than making your own. I hope your TCG is fun for all of your friends, and you'll talk about it for years to come.
Yes! Your back in your corner!
Ha
Where I belong!
Thanks for the overview!
I always appreciated the approach that Sabertooth Games took to card rarity:
The most widely useful cards were all common, while rare cards would be those with a cool effect that you wanted to build a deck around.
This is a good system to adopt.
Card complexity related to rarity is also a good system.
But most people fall for the trap of higher power levels equal rarer. cards
I would love a video dedicated to rarity or general set design. these discussions are great
I'll have to do some research to see if I can add anything from my old rarity video, as that was very personalised for Shard.
Thanks.
I NEED THIS VIDEO
Great video. Random thought you look like Former UFC Champion Stipe Miocic. It's a compliment I just had to say something never I just saw Stipe the whole video😂.
13:19 Ah, an interesting point.
This is an interesting choice for me personally, as this is kind of something that my entire game fights against.
To explain the basics, Skyscape -- the game I've created and am heading -- uses your own Life Total as a Resource to play cards. You can also be dealt damage by your opponent attacking you, and you can deal your opponent damage too.
It's an interesting thing, because in this example both players are chipping away at that Resource instead of trying to build it up. The exchange is board presence for that Resource.
It's definitely been a balancing act to make things fit for this kind of game, and funnily enough, hearing about what negatives can happen from making victory tie in with resources only makes me want to explore it more.
Here's to the challenge! I'm gonna try to make this work!
Skyscape did start with this in mind, after all, and that's what the entire game is based around.
So here's to making it work and having it be awesome!
Oh, and great job with the video as always! Aim high, and pierce the skyscape!
I see. It's funny with life, but that is a fixed resource and not something you constantly need to generate per turn. So it is easier to design a game that's works with this better. In terms of balancing, you would just increase the starting life until the game feels as if it is at the correct pace for your players.
@ShardTCG Very true! And yeah, that's definitely something that came up at the start of Skyscape. I knew I didn't want to do Life Decking, or include Resource cards. And since Life is a fixed number for each player at the start of a game, it's not like you're losing cards.
Instead, it's like the game telling you how much gas you have left. You can burn it fast with a lot of high cost cards, or have a slow and steady burn.
Can you regenerate some Life throughout a game? Definitely!
But at the end of the day, it's all about the strategy of knowing when to go all out and when to be a little more reserved.
Can't wait to make a video on this concept, too! You've inspired me to make some TCG Design videos of my own now! Keep up the great work! :)
Awesome! I'll keep an eye out for it.
In my little game I am trying to design, rarity is being used as a card cap. Like if a card is common, you can have 3 copies, if it's uncommon 2, and rare 1. I'm still trying to learn some design basics but I like how it works so far in my limited (mostly solo) testing.
I like it for limiting use on some cards, which means your players should have e more varied decks rather than copy-paste meta. This can still happen, but it makes the process a little harder to pull off.
I personally would prefer a controlled ban list after cards have been public. Limiting cards prior to release is a tough one to gauge accurately. But the two strategies can work hand in hand.
~ 17:30 I just want to say most games have the alternative win condition of Decking out your opponent although it rarely comes up unless you build your deck around it
Ah. Cards melding together seamlessly doesn't need to be prevented through anything so aggressive as multiple factions and complete incompatibility. Just making enough friction between card mechanics that you wouldn't combine them
True. Our game, Shard TCG, does this where a card can be played on any creature, but it will give a bonus to certain types or elements.
0:19 the man of the hour
The man, the myth, the legend!
@@ShardTCGno he is not a legend he is not a king he is a god!!!
What about a game that is similar to the mechanics of the Redekai TCG but without the heartache of the plastic design. I think a couple of tweaks to that formula could create an amazing game.
What I do instead of card types is just make a bunch of archetypes, so instead of types, players have a large pool of archetypes to chose from.
For me rarity is more of an ecuation. It is determined by what a card does in relation to its cost or resource consumption. So most of the cards, say the commons would have an effect for x where a rarer card would have either that effect for x-1 or that effect plus another for x
for fragility, think he's talking the ease with which an opponent can interact with a card.
a creature with 1 toughness dies to more things than a creature with 4 toughness, so 's more fragile.
a card that says 'this can't be countered' or 'costs 2 to target' is harder to answer, and thus less fragile.
he's pointing out that fragility is a set of knobs that can be used for balancing, either to strengthen a weak card or to dial back a strong one.
I like this and it makes sense, thank you!
The implementation of Factions isn’t essential in and of itself, but rather, it’s the most common way of addressing a fundamental design problem in any TCG;
What’s to stop a player from using a deck that has all of the best cards in the game?
I've seen a few homemade creators try to address this with card scores, where a deck will have to be below a certain score threshold. This forces players to get more picky. The issue with that system is the counting up the score for your deck to make sure it is usable. Also it relies on the creators being certain that no card or card combo will not in fact be more powerful or broken, and that is basically impossible to be certain about.
So yes, faction is the popular choice but it is fun to try new things.
Ok so, I've been working on my TCG for a while now and I always had a problem on handling simplicity. My game is similar to Cardfight Vanguard and is mostly reliant on luck and your ability to adapt to the situation. You have to use resources wisely and be creative with what's on your hand and field.
For example: "Arc of the Angels" is a Level 4 card with a cost of 7. That means it can only be played if you have at least 7 energies and a Leader with at least level 4. (But it's not that hard to do it since you're guaranteed to reach level 4 on turn 3.) It's effect is simple: search the deck for an angel card with level 3 or less, summon to the field. Shuffle your deck. "Arc of the Angels" even has low attack, defense and power because it brings out other creatures. (For balance sake)
Now, you, person who read this. Do you see the problem? It SOUNDS complicated. But it's one of the simplest cards in the game (outside of vanilla of course).
Does anyone have some tips on how to make stuff less complicated?
I think the answer is in 2:43. The card isn't complex. It is great! But it has taken 5 sentences to explain how to summon the card. Once people understand it, it is fine. I would focus on streamlining the play mechanic or work on a way to explain it more simply.
I hope this is what you were after, and thanks for sharing 👍
Make a keyword - tutor & cast a
Thanks for the feedback. That helps a lot!
Vtes breaks the engine rule
Then theres yugioh
5:30 This is terrible advice. I have seen so many card games get stubborn when a Tier-0 deck comes about and they're like "But look, these like two or three cards can counter it," and I'd, like, bro. One or two cards (which often don't work) is not enough to offset a tier-0 deck. Thinking you have plans and contingencies in place for obviously powerful cards is not a viable solution if you want a healthy meta.
I see what you mean. Obviously we want to avoid these extremes. But having a faction that thematically fits a style of play will naturally counter another style of play from another faction if you're making a game with enough variety of factions. Obviously I am against unmixable factions but I still believe factions can help restrict certain combinations in a good way, if done correctly.
Big fan by the way.
How to create your own trading cards I think my ideas are stupid and I think I keep ripping off others.
I did a quick video on this a while ago. It is okay to draw inspiration from other TCGs. Find one unique mechanic for your TCG. Then, everything else can be formats that others have tested and perfected. This way, you know you are working with something that is proven to work, and you get a fun new gimmick to entice players.
@@ShardTCG I only have played magic and that is it I want to play flesh and blood since it has a neat gimmick, I want to create a TCG with criminals or villains instead of the cliche heroes.
Looks like we have had a few Eric Lang fans in the comment section 🫶
I feel like stripping back over complexity and making boring cards are 2 seperate things..I agree with the stripping back complexity, but boring cards that no one will use should always be the first to go. Im not saying a know a lot, that's why I'm here, but if no one is going to play the card, whats the point of making it? To make the other cards look better? Good design should stand on its own imo & everything should be cohesively impressive.
10:56 Hearthstone limits you to 1 copy of each Legendary in a deck (normally you can have 2 copies of any card in your deck). This means that the rarest cards are also the cards you need the least off. Gameplay-wise, this also allows Hearthstone to create cards that are problematic at 2 copies (ie. Cards that are frustrating to play against, or cards that might be too strong if consistently drawn. Though it doesn't completely erase the problem. See: Prince Keleseth), or have no reason to need to play more than 1 copy (ie. Cards that permanently give you some effect that can't be stacked. Or if they can be stacked, then they might be problematic at 2 copies), and create them as Legendaries without needing to rely on a keyword, which feels more elegant. The player already knows the 1-per-deck rule and thinks about it subconsciously rather than consciously.
Legends of Runeterra also limits you to 6 Champions total per deck (3 copies of any card in your deck). Typically, you'd run 3 copies of 2 different Champions, or 3-2-1, or 2-2-2, the latter two typically for control decks who last long enough to draw their top-end Champion even if it's only a 2-of. Which Champions you bring are shown to your opponent at the start of the game. They typically define your strategy even if they aren't very complex, though they all have some innate complexity from the ability to level up, and are also more powerful than normal cards - but bringing one champion means you aren't bringing another. That's why a good portion of decks are named after the two main Champions in them.
Eric Lang is the Man!
I would say a card that requires a ton of other cards should be Rare, as incentive for the player to attain the prerequisite cards which should be Super Rare - and powerful enough on their own.
Factions isn’t really something I’ve thought much about since my card game is currently just shared among friends, meaning we all just draw from one big deck from the center of the table, though I may look into it if I ever do decide to stray away from that. I’ve even got some great lore I can see being used to make factions, that being the different knights in the world, though it could definitely use some refinement. Here’s a few ideas I’ve got;
• Milocs: warriors of past. Focuses on undoing or meditating opponents actions.
• Future: warriors of future. Focuses on seeing cards that will be played later on.
• Montrol: well working warriors. Focuses on cards that work well in multiples.
• Crolz: knights of ability. Focuses on using abilities and items.
• Trapitt: self reliant knights. Focuses on sacrificing other cards for bigger output.
Some very nice factions for starters. I hope they aren't closed off from working emwith each other. Your players might want to build a deck that taps into the past and future simultaneously.
😼
Chapters would be helpful to break up each of the tweets. However I appreciate the commentary. I think I recall reading this tweet thread at the time and definitely have it as a reference point.
I usually put in chapters. That's a slip-up on my part with the previous couple if vids. I'll hop on it when I have my days off.
I finally got around to adding the chapters!
Thanks.😅
2:42 Haha Nice plugging the subscribe button lol
I honestly have no idea how that got there. I really hope such a mistake doesn't happen in the future 😅
@@ShardTCGMhm sure 😏
Played Battletech CCG. There, you have an option to attack the resource, at a cost of unable to max your damage on the Stockpile
It's a personal feeling that attacking resources doesn't sit right with me. I believe there should always be one thing that your opponent can't influence so that you always have a slim chance of turning the game around. I understand attacking resources can come with penalties to balance, but it just seems easier to say you can't attack.
The cost to deploy was early Yugioh biggest hurdle and the reason tribute summoning was never worth it.
Why waste 3 resources for Blue Eyes if my opponent can just Raigeki it?
Another factor to consider with Rares, especially rarities above Rare like "Super" or "Secret" Rares that only appear a few times per Booster box is that these kinds of cards should never be OP staples that every player will need a playset of in every deck to compete at a competitive level. Instead the "Boss Monster" of a specific archetype within a faction can be a Secret Rare, cards only a small subset of players will need 1 or 2 copies of to place as the crowning jewel of their deck. If you don't play a "Dragonsaur" deck and you pull their Secret boss monster, you'll still be pleased, because its a rare card some players will trade/pay a lot for, so the card is still very valuable.
Another good idea for high rarity cards are "Alternate Art" versions of cards that exist at lower rarities, especially popular, fan favorite cards. Card game players love to "bling out" their collections and decks with cool, shiny cards whenever possible. Again, if you don't play a deck with the alt art card you pull, you'll still be pleased, because its still very valuable. Best of all, its ok if players who want them can't get full playsets for cheap: that's the point. They can always just use the low rarity, cheaper versions instead. If they want to build a competitive deck, they can acquire the needed cards on a budget without any issues. The alt arts are just a shiny collector's item for those willing to trade/pay more for them.
Let's be honest, your "rarest" cards, assuming your card game becomes main stream, will be the ones with the highest price tag on the 3rd party market.
So just decide which cards you want to be the most expensive.
For boring cards you mean, taking MTG, the cc1 2/1 or the vanilla version that can be a cc2 2/2 lifelink or trample ecc.. in order to give an easy context to the different abilities
This is great advice awesome video as always.
Eric Lang is a very smart man.
Thanks!