Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
0
Who is the Real Driver—the Deck or the Player?
Aug 13 2012 04:00 PM |
Twn2dn
in Strategy
As some of you may know, I am a long-time A Game of Thrones cards (AGOT) player. I have enjoyed the evolution of this game from the first entrance of House Targaryen during the Ice & Fire era of the CCG. Over the past year or so, I have become simultaneously more excited about where the game is in terms of its diversity, and frustrated about where we are in terms of powerful effects (especially character removal). In short, every house has competitive options, but the decks at the competitive level increasingly feel like they drive the player, rather than the other way around.
To illustrate my meaning, here’s a short aside…
FFG launches a new LCG called “Netrunnerâ€
Recently I stumbled upon promotions for the impending release of another FFG game, Android: Netrunner. This game is based on Richard Garfield’s original Netrunner CCG, which was designed with the express purpose of giving players more control over the in-game experience. Magic: The Gathering (MTG), the collectible card game that made Garfield famous, has been described by many as a game that “plays itself,†once a player has their deck in front of them. This varies to some degree depending on the build and the level of competitiveness of the players, but frankly MTG tends to involve fewer critical choices past the deck building stage.
In contrast, Netrunner was designed to emphasize in-game interactions via a mechanic that requires players to regularly “bluff†to each other. The game does this by requiring that roughly half the cards that enter play come into play face-down, and most of these can be turned face-up only when the opposing player “encounters†them (“initiates a challenge against them†in AGOT terms). Moreover, in this two-player game, the two sides compete against each other for different goals—opponents play an asymmetrical but (mostly) still zero-sum game. I’m a newbie to Netrunner, but if I had to put this in AGOT terms, I thnk it would be similar if Targaryen “burn†decks were rewarded power for killing characters, then such a Targaryen deck were to face off against an extremely fast Stark rush deck with very large characters. Both decks are trying to get to 15 power, but players claim power in very different ways. Now factor in that all of the Stark characters come into play face down (hidden), and remain that way until the Targ deck tries to kill them. Only after the characters are revealed would the Targaryen player know whether the character is 3 STR vs. 5 STR, whether it is immune to attachments or events, etc. The Targaryen player would need to save resources and burn effects in hand to be able to adjust for these surprises.
Back to the question at hand…
So, looking at the two extremes—a card game that essentially plays itself once the deck is built vs. a game that aims to emphasize the in-game interactions. While gameplay is important in both cases, in-game decision making seems much more important in Netrunner, all things considered.
What about AGOT? I believe there are some mechanics that are extremely demanding of the player as the “driver,†while other aspects of the game are driven by the deck. For example, while it’s generally understood that you want to maximize the setup (play more cards), a good player may run a plot deck completely differently from a mediocre player. In a close competitive game, there are rarely perfect recipes for how to reveal one’s plots. That said, the increase of traited plots, and city plots in particular, reduce some of the strategy and thinking by requiring opponents to play “seed plots†early and “copy plots†later.
My concern for AGOT is that although the “driver†remains extremely important, the trajectory is headed toward a less driver-centric metagame. Certain houses or builds are somewhat more dependent on an experienced driver, but generally speaking the rise of faster rush decks and control decks that get their “lock†earlier, more efficient character removal, and increased “combos†all place much more emphasis on a good opening hand + round-1 performance. In short, the most successful players “optimize†their decks for early slam-dunks rather than depending more on their skill. Meanwhile, the rise of fan sites have made net-decking much more prolific, so that despite increasing house diversity, actual card variety feels unnaturally low. Increasingly, the environment as a whole is becoming more deck-dependent and less driver-dependent.
I don’t think we’re at the point where AGOT is stale past the deck building stage, but I am concerned that we’re headed in that direction. A few months ago I suggested a way to stave off some of the inevitable “power creep†with more frequent use of the restricted list. I still think this is a good suggestion, but no doubt I am one of the few.
To illustrate my meaning, here’s a short aside…
FFG launches a new LCG called “Netrunnerâ€
Recently I stumbled upon promotions for the impending release of another FFG game, Android: Netrunner. This game is based on Richard Garfield’s original Netrunner CCG, which was designed with the express purpose of giving players more control over the in-game experience. Magic: The Gathering (MTG), the collectible card game that made Garfield famous, has been described by many as a game that “plays itself,†once a player has their deck in front of them. This varies to some degree depending on the build and the level of competitiveness of the players, but frankly MTG tends to involve fewer critical choices past the deck building stage.
In contrast, Netrunner was designed to emphasize in-game interactions via a mechanic that requires players to regularly “bluff†to each other. The game does this by requiring that roughly half the cards that enter play come into play face-down, and most of these can be turned face-up only when the opposing player “encounters†them (“initiates a challenge against them†in AGOT terms). Moreover, in this two-player game, the two sides compete against each other for different goals—opponents play an asymmetrical but (mostly) still zero-sum game. I’m a newbie to Netrunner, but if I had to put this in AGOT terms, I thnk it would be similar if Targaryen “burn†decks were rewarded power for killing characters, then such a Targaryen deck were to face off against an extremely fast Stark rush deck with very large characters. Both decks are trying to get to 15 power, but players claim power in very different ways. Now factor in that all of the Stark characters come into play face down (hidden), and remain that way until the Targ deck tries to kill them. Only after the characters are revealed would the Targaryen player know whether the character is 3 STR vs. 5 STR, whether it is immune to attachments or events, etc. The Targaryen player would need to save resources and burn effects in hand to be able to adjust for these surprises.
Back to the question at hand…
So, looking at the two extremes—a card game that essentially plays itself once the deck is built vs. a game that aims to emphasize the in-game interactions. While gameplay is important in both cases, in-game decision making seems much more important in Netrunner, all things considered.
What about AGOT? I believe there are some mechanics that are extremely demanding of the player as the “driver,†while other aspects of the game are driven by the deck. For example, while it’s generally understood that you want to maximize the setup (play more cards), a good player may run a plot deck completely differently from a mediocre player. In a close competitive game, there are rarely perfect recipes for how to reveal one’s plots. That said, the increase of traited plots, and city plots in particular, reduce some of the strategy and thinking by requiring opponents to play “seed plots†early and “copy plots†later.
My concern for AGOT is that although the “driver†remains extremely important, the trajectory is headed toward a less driver-centric metagame. Certain houses or builds are somewhat more dependent on an experienced driver, but generally speaking the rise of faster rush decks and control decks that get their “lock†earlier, more efficient character removal, and increased “combos†all place much more emphasis on a good opening hand + round-1 performance. In short, the most successful players “optimize†their decks for early slam-dunks rather than depending more on their skill. Meanwhile, the rise of fan sites have made net-decking much more prolific, so that despite increasing house diversity, actual card variety feels unnaturally low. Increasingly, the environment as a whole is becoming more deck-dependent and less driver-dependent.
I don’t think we’re at the point where AGOT is stale past the deck building stage, but I am concerned that we’re headed in that direction. A few months ago I suggested a way to stave off some of the inevitable “power creep†with more frequent use of the restricted list. I still think this is a good suggestion, but no doubt I am one of the few.
- mischraum, Hastur360, OrangeDragon and 2 others like this
6 Comments
Bomb, I have the same problem. I am always forgetting to trigger abilities and responses. I'd be a better player if not for the absent-mindedness. =)
I am looking forward to the Android: Netrunner release, it's the only other LCG that appeals to me.
I suppose in A Game of Thrones there is a heavy focus on deck building, but with resets and strange cards like
Willas Tyrell (VM), Yezzan's Grotesquerie (CD), Underhanded Assassin (TWoW), Ser Lancel Lannister (CtB) and the like, it adds interesting problems for your opponent to solve. (And are also wonderful answers to problems like those big nasty armies.)
You could build a deck that you just throw everything out as much as possible, and has an amazing draw engine. Fill it with heavy beater cards like above, and load it with cancels to keep your opponent from being able to do anything about it, and to some extent it may "play" itself.
But, there are counters to the counters, location hate, stealth, deadly, kneel effects, etc! (Not to mention the upcoming naval enhancements.) Oh and shadows.
Back on point, Yes, you could maybe make and sort of balance a deck that "plays" itself. But all an opponent needs to do is remove a piece or two, choke your income, limit your draw, whatever, and things will fall apart. (Or even prevent your from claiming power....)
If an opponent is going to first or second turn pull a big army, punish them for it! Stealth, Deadly,
Wars Are Won with Quills (PotS), Terminal Schemes (LotR), Stark murder, They all work at killing or removing threats.
Don't forget outwit or valar ;D
These aren't even big meta things. Sort of would work against anything. (As long as your run some protection for your tools, like Brienne and/or Paper Shield.)
I think the developers are doing a pretty good job keeping it interesting.
This new game looks super cool though, I'll have to look into it.
Check out Citadels too. Great with lots of people. (Its FFG) It makes you really think about what you want to do.
Unless every card is exactly the same, some cards are going to be better than others and good players play with good cards. That's just all there is to it. Restricting half the cards in the game, as you seem to want to in the other article (I mean lost spearman, really?), won't change that fact, instead the good players will simply play with the best of what remains to them. That's the way it is in any card game where you have a choice in what cards to use.
And since some cards are going to be better than others, at some point, "good" cards are going to have to be printed. And you know what, its better that they're printed now, than say 4 years ago.) Do you know how hard it is to try and get ahold of cards printed back in 2008? Very. (Try getting Maester of War for example.) Not being able to get good cards because they're all out of print and unattainable is going to drive new players away faster than the fact that sometimes characters that aren't amazing in the books have good cards.
As to decks that "run themselves". . . Ya, right. Allow me to stray to another game for a moment: In magic, hundreds (or thousands) of people may play with the same deck, differentiated by only a card or two, but its never Joe Schmo from Alabama that wins the big championships, its the people from groups like Channel Fireball or the Japanese group whose name I can't think of that win. You know why? Because they practice, and they practice and they practice and they do that because they know that a single stupid move might mean the difference between winning and loosing.
That's true in MtG and its true here in AGoT.
All of these scenarios are driven by including the right cards and having a strong flop, ie the deck plays itself. In no way does it happen every game and even when it does happen it is not always an auto win. But the stronger decks are the ones that can set these scenarios up more often than not and it is incredibly hard to fight back after a less than stellar start against them. A year ago I didn't feel like this was the case, even against the onslaught of Martell Summer it took a couple turns to feel down and out of a game. And today I don't feel like this is 100% the case so nobody throw out yoru cards and lock yourself in the basement just yet but I certainly feel like the game is shifting more and more this way.
I would say I was in favor of a much larger Restricted List but I would be the first to say that it would be incredibly difficult determining what made the list to curb the first turn slam dunks but keep the amazing House competetiveness we have right now. Maybe you could include multiple cards off a larger restricted list but only x1 of the card instead of x3??