MArcomage

I opened a new thread as I can't get through to you.

I see a worrying trend. It appears the game designer suffers from "zero cost disease".
Symptom: The more special/funny the card is, a higher tendency to put a zero-cost tag without second thought or proper price comparison/balancing...

We have seen a few "(way) overpowered" born in this way, haven't we?

A better price evaluation of a card is important to avoid the following problems:
* Overpower: The card (usu rare) has big influence to screw up the whole game. When the card is too cheap or even zero, it magnifies the problem further.

* No Brainer: Due to the usage/scope of the card (usu common/uncommon), it won't screw up the whole game as what the above can. Together with the way under-evaluated cost, nearly all good players are going to pick it. It becomes a definite at worst. It makes the game repetitive and boring.

(cont'd)

* Overly Attractive: A weaker version of "no brainer". Similar concepts but may be harder to discover, can't compare directly etc. But you will see this card is overly attractive than others with proper research. No competitive candidates (practically) make the selection process monotonous and less challenging.

Most players will complain for the first issue but they often overlook/ignore others. The second/third issues are more of a concern to the game designer (this is what makes a good/challenging or bad/boring card game).

Examples of overpowered cards:
* old Necropolis
* Order of the white lotus
* Prince of thieves

My comments: The problem can be solved if we make a proper price evaluation on those cards. Necropolis is much weakened by price increase and gift cancellation.

Well I think the usefulness of Order of White Lotus is too wide if it can balance everything. I would like to see a split:
A: Building Balancer: Average tower and wall
B: Production Balancer: Average facilities and stock

This change will bring in more thinking. Should you take both (but this will occupy 2 valuable slots), or either one? If either, which one?
Other shield/lifesaver cards still cost really something to play. It shouldn't be an exception. The card is still interesting even at a cost of 10-20 or so.

Examples of no-brainer / overly attractive:

If the purposes of the card fit your strategy, I would say they are very likely the no-brainer choices (no competition at all!):
* Pegasus / Wind / Militia
* Black Market / Tribute
* Reuse the rubble

I especially want to see a price revision / power reduction of Pegasus / Wind / Militia. Currently they are too attractive that even people who don't really see the true value will pick them. Make them worse (eg Wind: -1 wall only; Militia: discard one card from your hand only. No wall bonus) AND even costs something to play. The revision will scare many people away. This will distinguish the good players and average players. ;)

In other words, if the game designer can noticeably increase the price and still it's the card to pick, the card is actually way under-evaluated. A price revision is welcome.

Quite a few zero-cost cards are in big sales. :D

"Together with the way under-evaluated cost, nearly all good players are going to pick it. It becomes a definite at worst. It makes the game repetitive and boring. "

I don't think it's wrong when all 'good players' like the same card because they all find the card useful.
If you don't like the fact that opponents have the same cards in your deck, (therefore repetitive and boring) maybe you can consider to change your own deck and win with ways other player can't, now I think that will define a better player, being able to overcome obstacles or even play well while being handicapped (I assume by excluding those cards you will think you are being handicapped)

Order of the White Lotus

The concept to balance everything is so that the player that use the card will not receive the sole benefit of the card.
It's very hard to have all your tower, wall, stock, facilities less than your opponent, so to play this card you will most likely lose something

If the card cost resources to play, it might be extra useful when you want to reduce opponent's resources, since the total resources between you 2 will be less after subtracting the cost to play.

If as you said to split into 2 cards (tower+wall vs stock+facilities), I believe it will be too easy for the card to be one sided like Prince of Thieves, too easy to control
If you really have both tower + stock < opponent, that's when Last Hope comes in

Pegasus / Wind / Militia

Pegasus might be a little too useful right now. I mentioned somewhere else minor nerf could work well.
However, I do think the existence of these quick cards (referring to Wind, Militia) in everyone's deck adds a whole lot more excitement. Simply because everyone's hand becomes less predictable. You won't know for sure what your opponent have on their hand when they have quick cards, you can't make a 100% strategy. It makes the game unpredictable in a good way.

Black Market / Tribute:

They cost nothing because they can be risky to play when you discard / exchange cards. When you discard, it's only 50% to discard the one you want, and in the process you could discard your own card you would like to keep.
Same thing with exchange, it's possible to exchange your good card away to your opponent, and it's only 50% chance to obtain the actual card you want from opponent hand as well.
They cost nothing because they are random and hard to control.
Once I tribute 3 times in a row but just can't discard the card I want!

Reuse the rubble:

I think this card is fairly limited since it only works with Unliving cards, and it takes extra turn to play an Unliving card before this card can work.
Furthermore I think the concept of 'reuse' is nice, it fits with the theme.

===============
I don't think it's wrong when all 'good players' like the same card because they all find the card useful.
...
If you don't like the fact that opponents have the same cards in your deck, (therefore repetitive and boring) maybe you can consider to change your own deck and win with ways other player can't.
===============

In terms of competition, strictly I agree it's nothing wrong since all players can pick the same card, even overpowered.

If you can overcome the obstacles and win, it may mean:
* your analysis is wrong. This card is not really important
* your opponent is weak so you can still win with handicaps
* you simply win by pure luck. You won't be able to win in the long run. Winning by pure luck is not challenging/fun.

AFAIK TCG designers usually revise/ban cards which are dominant among good players. One element of TCG is "variety" so they dislike it. For example:
"…Decks with Sneasel were winning almost every major tournament, making all other decks uncompetitive." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Trading_Card_Game

Similar concepts apply to other games. An multiplayer game called AOE2 (AOK): There are many civilizations to choose but particularly Teutons civ is the strongest (first ver). Good players knew why but average players might not understand nor utilize its problems. Don't be silly to think you can win by other civs IF your opponent is also a good player. This civ was banned among players until revision.

============
They cost nothing because they can be risky to play when you discard / exchange cards.
============

You missed one fact. It's you to determine when you use this card, so...

It's similar to say White Lotus is risky because your stock/building can be higher or lower than your opponent, but it's not in reality.

BTW you will often see there are other "mutually affected" cards. Still they cost something while these two not. What a discrepancy!

After all this card game is brilliant despite the problems. I like it! :D

I don't know about that card game you mentioned, but AOK is another kind of game, I don't think it's valid to use it as an exmple for Marcomage where.

AOK is similar to chess, where every move can be looked at and all possible moves can be calculated, in an extremely unrealistic case, 2 equally strong player (let's say you play against yourself in a world where you can be cloned), result will probably be a tie.
Or an easier example will be you running in a race against yourself.

However, in a game like poker, even if you play against yourself, the result will not be predictable due to the randomness (2 players can not have the exact same hand since there's only 1 of each card!). Sure everyone want to have Full House etc, but what if you don't? You bluff, you intimidate, you trick your opponents. Of course if your opponent gets Ace high flush every hand you have no chance to win.

"You missed one fact. It's you to determine when you use this card, so..."

Yes of course it's you to determine when you use this card, but it is still possible that you lose your own precious card and not get the result you desired. It adds in the randomness and pissing people off opportunity..


"BTW you will often see there are other "mutually affected" cards. Still they cost something while these two not. What a discrepancy! "

Two Tower? Difficult Times? Tax? (okay Tax is a bit different but I think it can be included here)

If you don't like the example of AOK (it's to demonstrate the concept not saying they are the same thing blah balh... which you seems to think), read the link. It's also the TCG.

TCG involves luck but they would still ban/revise cards for the reasons stated above.

PS: As a matter of fact AOK does involve a bit of luck.

I love 0 cost cards, and the space in the deck or turn spent playing them, or rarity is sometimes the cost, most of them are absoloutely fine. Order of the White Lotus however, is broken, sure, that's the only place we agree.

i think its stupid to have cards that are an absolute MUST HAVE

pegasus is so good that it will fit ANY decks and there is no argumentation possible
not picking this card is an handicap

even if it didnt do any damage i would still pick it.....

@deception

I would say that that is true about Wind and Militia, but with Pegasus it's a bit more questionable.

A common 0-cost quick card that does nothing would be unquestionably useful, because I'm sure that we can agree that Rare and Uncommon cards are the most efficient, powerful, and generally desirable in a deck. A zero-cost quick common card essentially increases the chance of getting a rare or uncommon, regardless of its other merits.

Normally you have a 65% chance of a common, 29% uncommon, 6% rare. If we treat a 0-cost common quick as a free "draw again", having one in your deck gives you a 63.5% chance of a common, a 30.3% chance of an uncommon and a 6.2% chance of a rare. At no cost to you! As you add more, those odds get better, faster. A card like militia that lets you discard ANOTHER card gives you incredible control over the composition of your hand.

But with a 0-cost quick uncommon you're actually increasing your chance to get a common, which is not a good thing. A card like Pegasus has a pretty strong ability, but even then I'm not sure it would be considered a no-brainer to have in every single deck (it is taking up a valuable uncommon space and, in some ways, uncommons are the most important cards in your deck). If it didn't do any damage, it would be an even tougher sell.

Pegasus may be unbalanced, but Wind and Militia are even bigger culprits in my opinion. Don't Be Hasty may change that, but in my experience so far, it still seems like they're valuable even against a deck that uses it (which is probably fewer than half).

Edit: I should add that the percentage figures up there are just rough calculations. Your chances of getting a common is actually the limit of an infinite series, something which I don't have nearly enough patience to work through more precisely.

==========
Pegasus may be unbalanced, but Wind and Militia are even bigger culprits in my opinion.
==========

Never under-estimate the card. Selfishly speaking I don't want it to change at all because many players don't realise the true power of such a little card. Thanks to this card, I can finish off someone as few as 12 rounds. LOL

==========
Don't Be Hasty may change that, ...
==========

No way. I still keep playing quick cards even I see this card. Players must think I'm crazy. LOL
(Hint: Think about the cost of a quick card and the so-called penalty)