Why TCGs Are Impossible to Balance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Why are some cards in Trading Card Games so much better than others? In this episode of TCG Design Academy, I look at why balance is impossible, why that's not necessarily a bad thing, and how you can design your game to be more balanced.
Blog / Transcript: remptongames.com/2022/10/29/w...
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
00:55 The Math Ain't Mathin'
03:47 Design Space is Limited
05:13 Power Level Depends on Context
07:46 The Designers are Outnumbered
08:52 Balance is a Moving Target
10:07 Cards are Designed for Different Audiences
11:49 Some Cards are Intentionally Weak
12:44 Bad Cards Make the Game Better
13:58 Designing for Balance - เกม
In my perfectly balanced card game, each player gets one card that deals one damage. Both players only have one health. The player who wins a coin flip goes first. The coin must be flipped in an extra-universal vacuum.
Just buy starter or structure decks. Play for fun
@@ChosenOne-il4bm but even those are not that well balanced. some are stronger than others.
reality of the world, some people are stronger than others. then its a battle of out thinking your opoment @@FrancisYorkMorganFBI
Games don't need to be 100% balanced they need to be fair to both player and seem balance. At the end of the day as long as players enjoy the game...
I prefer quantum state. Much less biased. Probably.
Fun fact: According to the designers of Magic, an ideally costed counterspell would be 2 and a half mana. To counteract that, counterspells tend to be 2 mana but not hit all card types, or cost 3 and have a small bonus effect.
(U)(U) Spell Shatter. Instant - Counter target Spell. This can be the only spell you've casted this turn. /There I just managed to make one, your move WotC/
Goes in my Moderation deck. @@rmydra9219
@@rmydra9219 who let bro in the kitchen
@@wigglytuffgamingwait. Lemme cook.
@@rmydra9219 funny enough this is literally unplayable, as another spell needs to be cast before you can counter it, and the wording implies only one spell can be cast.
You'd need to make it: "you cannot cast spells this turn" or similar.
You don't mention an important aspect - business. Designers don't want new cards to be balanced with old cards. They want new cards to be a tiiiiny bit better, to keep players buying new sets.
Great video!
IMO, the focus should be less on perfect balance and more on each card having its own purpose, even if it's niche or not optimal.
I think what's most important to avoid is "strictly worse" cards. That's a big part of why I'm not a fan of vanilla creatures.
Cards can be weaker than other cards, but still have their own purpose in the right deck. That's what I'd shoot for if I were designing a TCG.
One other thing to be taken into consideration, TCGs are more often than not a commercial product. By having rare, powerful cards and lots of useless trash, and by making newer sets stronger than older ones, it incentivizes sales of new products in a way that's not dissimilar to lootboxes.
I wouldn't consider the Pokemon TCG to be a perfect example of balance (DO THE FUCKING WAVE!), but it did manage to stave off power creep for a long time, which each set maintaining a relatively average power curve (in fact, the original Team Rocket set could be considered negative power creep as the cards in that set, apart from a couple trainers, were consistently below the average power curve at the time). Some new card types were added that did bump things up a bit, but those powerful cards (EXs and LvXs) came with severe drawbacks. The severe power creep we see today in the Pokemon TCG is a relatively new thing.
The Yugioh path to balence is more power. Every new set is like an episode of dbz.
Yu-Gi-Oh "balances" around how much money Konami can make with new releases.
Cough fire king snake eyes
Sometimes designers seem to forget to balance in a way that is fun for all players in a given game, not just the one playing that specific effect. Magic seems to be slipping into a period of doing this with its removal effects; dealing damage is easier to interact with using cards that one would already like to play than destruction and exile effects are and thus encourages more interesting play patterns. Unfortunately, the last year has seen the design team acting as if the opposite was true. The results of this are plain to see in the decline of the Standard format which, when they focus more on damage based removal, is the most interesting and varied format in the game.
Yugioh is absolutely rife with this type of issue in its 'balance', either you have a 'meta' deck that can play through a whole board of anti-interaction or you don't get to play against many decks and against many others it feels like the opponent is stronger after you destroyed everything than they were before. Then there are floodgates...
I think the problem is also tied to how the game is made. Magic is a game where you cannot attack a creature directly, but rather the other player decides whether that creature defends attacks or not. There are powerful cards at a low mana cost, that are dangerous for the opponent in the medium and long term, so there are low-cost removers to respond to them. Also a problem comes when removers are so effective that they also work against high mana cost creatures. All this gives too much value to removers because they are cheap and powerful, making them essential in any deck. So It can be fixed? Yes, but it requires eliminating existing removers from the game and adding new ones with counterbalancing effects according to the benefits they provide.
@@johnmacoAbsolutely, this is one of the reasons I prefer damage based removal (such as Lightning Bolt) over "destroy/exile target creature" effects. You often, in later stages of the game, need two or even three such damage based effects to remove a major threat. A single toughness buff may completely stop all of those resources without the need for anti-interaction effects like Indestructible or Hexproof. The primary reason those are so common is the reliance on Fear and its relatives, which often have minimal or no downsides (and occasionally extra upsides) at this point in the game's history.
You brought up a bunch of stuff i had to figure out through trial and error.
You're having a discussion nobody else is having.
Basically nobody is advocating for close to equal card-by-card balance. What people are generally are looking for is that no single piece dominates the meta and that powerful cards and decks have ways to play around them.
With this definition, balancing is fairly straightforward, if still difficult; Playtest in development, buff and nerf outliers, ban cards that warp the meta around them.
Thank you, your videos are great sources of information helping me day after day on my own game project, keep the good work.
Great video! Excited to learn more about balance :)
You give me different take why 'bad' cars need to exist even in competitive deck.
To give that moment of drawing power card
I think he refers to a set/expansion. In Magic: The Gathering weak cards that don’t see play in competitive decks are used and pretty good in limited environments like draft/sealed or in low power formats like pauper(Only common cards allowed).
I would consider a card balanced if in practice it would see play and not completely prevent another card from seeing play. It is absolutely ok for some cards to see play more than others, so like as the others are at least situationally valuable enough that you would sometimes pick them over the more generalist card.
Awesome video, I learned a ton!
This channel is dope. I'll give you 1.2 subscriptions (rounded down, of course).
in making my own tcg I found this also to be true. What I realized is to not solve this problem but to play around it.
Is there a game you created and if so I’d like the story behind the idea to its “birth” to the changes you made over time and the lessons you learned
DAMN IT!! I wished i seen this when it dropped.
I'm a mathematician not even the best one but any thing involving numbers can be balanced.
There are no card games that bring unique mechanics that regular chess hasn't all ready done.
Chess doesn't have randomness and hidden information lol (unless you bring up some fan variants)
extremely subscribed!
I like this series, please make more content.
I’m working on it haha, I work full-time so it take longer to make videos
@@RemptonGames I appreciate the reply 😁 I’ve been working on a card game for about 3 years so I like this type of content to help out. My last break lasted for about a year so I definitely want this new version of my game to be way better so I’m trying to do better research
Which is the best ways to balance cards? exist a tool or a way to proceed?
One word: Money. Money at the expense of literally everything else.
>red-eyes darkness dragon in the intro
do you... play yugioh??
He might have meant to put Red-Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon, which was a real menace
Great video info. I found the background music very distracting tho
I know you might not answer but what are those books on the top left under the camera
Why did the mic quality drop ?
That's why I play ECGs instead of TCGs. They tend to be more balanced.
Ecg?
@@OdelyxRa TCGs without rarity or booster packs. you just buy whole sets as they come out.
Ok but what is the audience for linear or simultaneous equation canon
Even video games where you can use updates to balance characters and abilities aren't even close to being balanced, so it's impossible to produce an idealized "balance" game. In fact, the only way to produce a "balanced" game is to have every single characters and abilities do the exact same thing, which means the game isn't very interesting at all.
There's also a question of skill level balance.
At low skill level, the queen in chess is a hilariously busted piece. The 9 points of material often quoted way underestimates the threat level posed by it when it can often just wreck an opponent's position and clear half their board while completely shutting down their attack.
Meanwhile, at high level, that 9 point value is probably completely accurate.
Another example is Chinese in AoE2. They start with less resources and more workers meaning that you need excellent early game mechanics and civ specific build orders to play them even remotely well. Masters of the game win above average playing Chinese, but most beginner and intermediate players struggle.
Short term "Balance" is a myth. In a system with multiple moving, easily exchangeable parts like CCGs there will be better and worse strategies. It's also fact that different players want different experience so it's hard to point what is "strong enough" for everybody. Also card designers are just people and may just not see "broken" interactions that players may find.
Instead of "right now, right here" mentality designers should think more about long term ideas and balance - Aggro strategies just got multiple toys and can easily squash any control-based decks? In next set buff midrange by giving them tools to prey on small creatures and throw one or two new toys to control. There's combo deck ruining game for everyone? Focus on what kind of plays it makes and release set of cards punishing it. The game is literally falling apart due to powercreep and broken interactions? Introduce banlist or press the magical reset button and note errors you made.
In my experience, it's VERY easy to see which cards are broken in a whole format after playing a couple of months. A creature that increases its power based on the number of permanents in the graveyard, flies, has a low cost, and is in a game where I can freely use cards to send dozens of permanents to the graveyard, is obviously something that will get out of hand. And this is just an example (from Magic). There are clearly effects that you know will break the game. If developers ignore it, it's because they have vision problems or they don't care.
7:45 : Side Boarding is a very bad mecanic IMO. I disallow it in every game I create xD .
Late to the party - but why not balance in the same vien of fighting games. 5/10 system?
I’m not sure I understand the question, could you clarify what you mean?
@@RemptonGames
Modern fighting games balance fighters out against the pool of other fighters in a best of 10 games.
So character A wins against character b 9/10 times and loses against character c 9/10 times.
Sometimes this is more complicated than I'm placing it. For example a fighter by be considered balanced 50/50 win loss but is considered slightly stronger against the selectable options. Or a character may have a 7/10 game ratio against everyone but most likely loses to the bottom 2 worst characters of the game.
Ultimately the characters have a 50% win ratio - not because they're balanced - but because they just have answers to them.
If MtG was more closely balanced this way, then the cards would look more like rock, paper, scissors.
Instant beats sorcery, sorcery beats creatures, creatures beats instants.
From there it doesn't matter what ratio you play looks like.
-
You would have to replace the concept of "character" in a fighting game. Against the idea of balance in a tcg.
By using the same formula as a fighting game, you just significantly reduced the effort need to balance a tcg.
I'm even later to the party - it is impossible balance a tcg like this because decks are mutable.
If I make a Dragon deck that beats a warrior deck 9/10 times, and the warrior deck beats another deck 9/10 times, and so on...
This all goes to waste then dragon cards are combined with the warrior deck and creates a crazy interaction. When a tcg gets like 100+ cards, it gets to a point where you cant balance them anymore unless it is through reprints. But constant reprints kind of kill the essence of a tcg
@@nkm7489 I think that is mentioned in the video although it is not discussed in depth. In cases like the ones you mention, they can be solved by restricting the use of cards to more specific groups, and this is achieved through synergy. For example, you could combine dragon decks with warrior decks for sure, but if you make a full-dragon deck, the dragons could have more synergy and bonuses with each other because they are dragon-type cards.
12:00 Yogg PTSD
Ah this is the reason why I stop playing TCGs. No TCG is balanced. There will always be cards that just too useful not to use in decks. There will also be cards that wont ever see play because there are better alternatives. Bans, errata, and restriction lists are infuriating on the wallet (I paid for these cards, so I should be allowed to use them). Errata, and clarifications in general are a pain to need to keep in mind, and having to print out a tome to refer to is extra tedious.
13:14 I disagree. Strongly disagree. It's a money scheme to fill tcgs with garbage. There is no other resaon for it but money. Fill a TCG with enough cards to get players to buy more of them. That is the primary goal there.
I feel it is a waste of resources to have bad cards in any card game.
I also highly desire balanced games. It is mostly to make the game accessible to anyone, not just those with money to throw at a hobby. It is also so any deck could beat any other deck based on skill more than randomness.
I'm glad you quit
@@mujigant35 My wallet is certainly happy. To say I've completely quit the scene would be a lie. I have at least one reviving TCG around that nobody locally collects which provides me with the greatest power to control what decks to make iso they are roughly equal in terms of strategy without being samey.
Proxies are the best considering I can edit them before print so they reflect all changes/errata that was done to them.
Tabletop Simulator is also a great boon for playing against people not local, which also grants access to all cards.
I've actually been looking into TCGs and CCGs no longer in retail print. There's about 4 so far that have caught my interest, and non of these are being played locally in any broadcast way. Deck building all for myself to enjoy!
Easy way to balance: the weak cards are necessary stepping stones for the strong cards. Strong YGO monsters require tributes. Strong Pokemon cards need to be evolved. Strong spell/trainer cards require discards. Etc. Just like a capitalist society requires a working class and a bourgeoisie, so do card games require weak cards that are easy to play and strong cards that are difficult to play. One is not "better" than the other; they depend upon each other in an interrelationship like predator and prey.
I don't think the point you make, about bad cards being good for draft is valid. Look at cubes. People design these cubes intentionally, to ONLY contain good cards. And they are incredibly fun to draft, because suddenly you are faced with wondering which of these good cards you want to play.
I think your point is the equavalent of limiting options during a game. Or showing the solution or a hint if the player dosen't find it after a certain time. You might just wanna help the player not being stuck, but in reality, your taking the players option away, to be stuck and really using their brain to solve a difficult problem.
Giving a player ONLY good cards will increase their creativity, because they don't HAVE to pick the one obviously good card in the pack, and thats now the only way they can play. They have more options and can therefor explore more what they actually want to play.
I think there was a misunderstanding. I wasn’t trying to say that drafts need bad cards - I was just saying that cards have different values depending on format. Some cards might not be good in constructed but are good in draft, while some constructed cards are bad in draft because they require building around.
.
Play spades
First.
The dark magician has always been bad
The main monsters a garnet from
DM era to now he has had no relevance
Blue eyes had 1 YCS and that’s exclusively due to Konami forcing it through a generous support release time
Full agree that perfect balance isn't even desirable. True perfect balance means uniformity. Imagine a deck of 52 but every single card is the Ace of Spades. Pretty useless for playing. That said, I despise thoughtlessly broken cards ruining games. I tilted out of MTG thanks to trash like Scute Swarm and various auto-win decks that don't let you play the FKin game. Get that garbage outta here.
why a balanced game should allow a deck of 52 Ace of Spades? i don't understand the point
@@vonakakkola Perfect balance (Thanos meme goes here) would require ZERO difference between all the options, simultaneously removing the options. There will never be a fun game that has 100% "balance" -- with balance here representing "every option is equally viable." A game in which every option is equally viable without any differentiation between the options is not interesting nor worth playing, and I would argue that in the process of making more options and interesting decisions to choose from, the game will inevitably have some options be superior to others at least a majority of the time.
@@danielpayne1597 that's not what balance mean, if a character is characterized by speed and another character is characterized by raw power, they can be both balanced withouth having the same skill, but what you said is that they would become both speed based or raw power based which is not true
and the fact that ususally unbalancing happen, doesn't mean it's a good thing
@@vonakakkola There are different definitions for game balance. My statement is a commentary on a particular viewpoint. I similarly prefer to treat proper game balance as a curation of generating options while making sure most options are viable (as equally as possible) and also fun. Just like if you play a fighting game and some moves are 1-frame OHKOs while others are 20-frame gimpy hits, the only true options are the 1-frame OHKOs. Gotta avoid that kind of thing.
Well, I really like your videos but then I saw the one on Quidditch. It's a prime example of maybe it's okay to say nothing at all. I probably can't see myself subscribing considering the vast majority of people seem to have a fairly spineless take on a very nuanced conversation that actually seems to point towards the invalidation of individuals who both menstruate and give birth. I believe... there used to be a term for them... but I can seem to recall it.
This is a an unfortunate case where, much like fans of the sport "Quidditch" do I still enjoy the artist (in this case your very wonderfully put together and thought out videos that I do enjoy) even though I strongly disagree with blanket statements that invalidate a very valid argument that most people in the opposing camp seem to have only read cliff notes of? Sheesh, I don't know what I'll do and I hope this is received with an open mind rather than a "fear the woke mob" response.
Right. One would think that someone that could use logic very well in one part of their life could use it equally well in every way. Unfortunately it rarely seems to happen. A lot of people are under the impression that progress is tied to deconstruction and look right past the part where some of the things they’re dismissing have essential functions which are worth the downsides. Conversely some of the new proposed concepts have downsides that are outrageously steep for the potential benefit or just downright unacceptable for civilization. Something proposed as progressive and benevolent is enough to initially fool a lot of people because they don’t expect the Trojan horse. It’s less about intelligence than an ability to be cynical enough to see the other side. Don’t be afraid to have your opinion there might be someone who feels something is off who’s just waiting for someone to say it out loud.
What are you two even talking about?
@@wtfox8206 A lot of folks had a very chicken take on JK's comments and a very narrow view. As someone who's beliefs wouldn't sit neatly into one category I know I run the risk of painting myself a certain color by even engaging in discourse on the internet but here we are.
People think Rowling said stuff that was transphobic but I read what she wrote and what she's said. It wasn't transphobic and to denounce her is just silly. BUT
I agree you may feel differently and you have the right to voice your own opinion.
I won't keep you here all day but I was trying to voice my opinion without clogging up this guys comments because I don't like his take on it but I see he does good work. I hope he keeps making videos but I can't get behind him on this issue and there's too many other creators that fit what I'm looking for.
I think you are being too harsh to yourself.
It's okay to not know for sure what to do and even contradict oneself with your stance and actual behavior. People aren't perfect and make mistakes all the time. If this were a court that passes a law, that justifies a critical look. Otherwise in this platform of sharing and bouncing off ideas, we should allow for growth.
For an extreme take, one could say your comment is a prime example of maybe it's okay to say nothing at all. I'm sure your intentions are not full captured in the 2 paragraphs. I personally see this youtube channel as the same. I think in this imperfect world with imperfect people, we can make it better with grace and understanding. Cheers
Na I hurt my brain reading this
I disagree with all this rambling nonsense. Balancing cards is irrelevant. Balancing decks is the only thing that matters. In most new formats (and I have seen hundreds) all the good decks are discovered in one day. All they need to do is run the new cards on digital for a week then re-balance for final release. Would solve 99% of the bs one deck formats we have been forced to ensure.