MArcomage

I'm wondering if it could be possible to have a game mode where both players don't have their own deck but rather draw cards from all the available (600+) cards in game. It could be something like a huge shared deck...

I think that the game would be too random. I don't think it's a good idea.

I foresee that it would be almost entirely luck of the draw and nearly zero strategy, devoid of a sense of accomplishment. Also, what tokens would be set?

there was a similar topic long agoand i was surprised that it met such opposition

if both players are affected by same rules - then it's fair
strategy could be built around any situation, using everything from frozen fish to a rusty nail as a weapon.

current game system is also very much based on luck, starting with draw of rares and ending with mismatching of used decks.

with little tweaks that could be interesting. Some buttons or cards to bind next draws to current cards (if you have 3 holy - you have a button of summoning prevalent keyword card with next draw, and can use that button like 5 times a game)
Or maybe all tokens are set, and accumulation rate is increased by 2-3
and so on

even without hose tweaks i would surely play megarandom mode out of boredom for sure
even with disabled statistics

Damalycus wrote:
strategy could be built around any situation, using everything from frozen fish to a rusty nail as a weapon.

Using improvised weapons cannot be compared to strategically building a deck with particular plans in mind and then playing the match by weighing the odds to draw the cards you hand-picked and playing what you have in the correct order to get the most out of them with regard to keyword triggers.

Granted, your analogy does work for the concept of looking at the eight cards you have and deciding which one to play, one turn at a time, without much call for planning ahead since you can't count on your next draw being useful. But I see that as being the opposite of strategy.

Your suggestions to manipulate card draws based on what you have in hand, however, those sound interesting. Perhaps for token keywords, they would be empty until such time as a token is gained, so the first three token keywords you play would set themselves for you.

I think for newbs it's a good idea, because:
1.) They don't have to get an idea about deck structure (rarity, number of cards, probabilities...) before playing different games.
2.) Opponents deck is not stronger -> they have a chance, not to loose every game.
3.) They get to know the cards by playing, not by theoretical deck-creation.
4.) They don't have to learn about keywords toooo early.

Also for "veterans" it might be a good variant, because:
1.) They might reconsider about cards, they thought, that are crap.
2.) They see "new" cards for their decks, they haven't found the regular way, because they used filters, creating them ;-)
3.) They aren't bored, because of winning every game ;-)

Both ideas, the "if-three-identical-keyword-cards, then"... as the "keyword-setting-is-done-by-playing-the-first-cards" seem good to me, although I think, that there will be "good" keywords (such as alliance or holy) and "bad" ones (such as burning), because of the different basic-gain :-/

However, I suppose, it will be quite hard work to implement such a game easily... depending on how dynamic the whole game has been written ;-)