Deck Size, and number of cards?

Importing a relevant trello card posted by Anon: (rook bolding my comment's as a response to yours)

______________
**Limit**


When building a deck, you may place X copies of this card into your deck.

So:

Limit 1 = Hearthstone Legendaries
Limit 3 = Default for all cards. (This text would be implicit)

This mechanic opens up lots of room for exploration I feel. We can counterbalance powerful cards by reducing the number of copies and potentially buff weaker synergistic cards by increasing the limit.

We can also take single cards and turn them into a deck onto themselves. Consider for example Duelysts "Replicant". Notice how adding limit: 30 to the card turns it into a deck (albeit a weak one).

With a bit of tinkering and more thought, you could create a combo deck:
3x Kujata
3x Feralu
3x Twin Fang
21x Replicant

___________

@deathsadvocate I think we maybe splitting hairs at this point.

Let's worry about this when we have a game worth playing

Reply
Jim Reed Feb 21 at 4:02 AM
Dunno, I always had most fun in duelyst when I had cards that had synergy, that combo of each other, while had least fun with cards that are op by themselves. Saurian finality was one such card. You get to 7 mana, you drop it and that's that. No need for careful shuffling or deck building that gives you the most options. Obliterate was kinda like that, but you had to work for it and the opponent did have some chances to negate your creep tiles even if most factions lacked enough ground changers. Nobody liked to see the enemy placing a makantor down, but we had to adapt. It's still one of the most hated cards in game. I'm not sure how to put this differently and I hope you understand what I mean. My most fun deck was lilithe creep, because it required a careful balance between making creep, making creep with wraithling, making a swarm and trying to find the end game depending on what I had on the board.

Reply
DeathsAdvocate Feb 20 at 9:32 AM (edited)
@smash_the_hamster There are certainly neat mechanical fringe cases where it makes perfect sense. While they were not exactly popular, trials are such a case. I am totally fine with 1 ofs for mechanical reasons but NOT balance reasons.

I still do not see limiting 1x for balance as fixing, that is just creating crapshoot games which is the last thing I want.

Edit - Delete
Chris Feb 20 at 9:26 AM
@deathsadvocate
There is an important distinction between balance decks and balancing cards. Its entirely possible to image a case where card X is oppressive in one deck, but totally fun in another (e.g. Decimus without Tectonic spikes). If you nerf the mana/stats, etc you may ruin both the fun and OP deck that used this same card.

Changing the limit to 1 or 2 may fix this problem. The top tier deck is less oppressive in the meta since its combo happens less often/later. Meanwhile the fun deck may be unaffected because it was a one-of anyway.

If we want limit 1 to be a potential balance option then you kind of need to set a precedent in game that says limit 1 can happen. I don't want hearthstone legendaries, but I do want to explore limit 1 and limit 2 type cards and well as limit 20

Another argument that I just thought of is that for some effects limit of 1 just makes sense.

e.g 20 mana 1/1 "this card is always the last card in your deck"

This would be an example of a card where limit 1 actually makes sense mechanically.

Reply
DeathsAdvocate Feb 20 at 9:12 AM
@smash_the_hamster If a card is so strong that putting it to 1 is the solution, you have not solved anything you have just increased swing turns and games decided on whether or not people draw these one ofs. This is awful. Reducing consistency is just in general a bad thing.

Now the lore thing is another matter, and I can get behind it. Limiting the number on field or taking the LOR approach of having extras converted to a powerful signature spells is awesome.

Edit - Delete
Chris Feb 20 at 3:48 AM
@deathsadvocate
I hear the point, but I think there are a few reasons why "one ofs" make some sense:

As a balance option. If "X is too strong when played on curve" then limiting the number of copies is a way of reducing consistency.

Lore reasons. (MTGs legendary rule has some of this flavour). By limiting to 1 copy some cards may just make more sense. It makes playing some cards feel just that bit more special.

Fyi, I envision 2-4 copies of a card being the norm. I do think giving the option of more/less opens up some design space. How we then use that design space is up to us. But for the record, I don't want limit 1 to be common.

Reply
DeathsAdvocate Feb 12 at 8:07 AM
I am firmly against limiting Legends to one. It encourages front-loading the card to much and leads to swingy top decks or games decided by IF they get their legends. I think it is very poor design.

Now allowing certain cards to break the 3x cap Relentless Rats style is fun. But I stand by the hard rule of more can be ok but never less.

1
Edit - Delete