Please Log In or Register
Guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Do you like a maximum of three copies of a card in a deck?
The Rope

Forgeborn
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 190
Member Since:
August 26, 2012
Offline
January 3, 2013
1:13 am
21

artrexdenthur said

As The Rope said, I would agree that commons being relevant is a good thing. I don't actually understand, though, how limiting the deck to 2 copies per card would make commons irrelevant… Could someone explain that? It feels intuitively sensible to me, but I can't articulate it..

It has to do with the digital nature of an online tcg. With only one playlet of a card I can put that play setinto an infinite number of decks. So every copy of a card over the playlet has 0 value to me for deck building purposes. Now some cards (mostly rares and up) will still have value because of trades, but commons trading rarely happens after a play set of each common is obtained. (One digital tcg I played it was common for new players to be gifted a full set of commons, or at least 1x of each common).

If I only need 2 commons for a play set it won't take a lot of packs before I have a full play set of each common. Hence, I will be less likely to buy packs to fill out my uncommon and rare wants and go directly to a secondary source.

Demnchi

Forgeborn
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 16
Member Since:
August 8, 2012
Offline
January 3, 2013
1:51 am
22

oh and dem unfortunately rarity always is an indication of power, I would expect the top decks to contain no less than 8 rare cards that's just the reality of tcg.

 

 

 

I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to say. Rarer cards are supposed to receive a boost. That's not what I was talking about. Making Rarity a game-play factor in the sense that it effects the game (other than the base) shouldn't be done. The OP was referring to limiting Rare+ cards to x2 while everything else can be x3, and THAT is not acceptable imo. That is Rarity dictating too much about what can and cannot be done in a deck. The cards themselves should dictate that and not a rule tied to rarity. Rarity should only play a factor when designing the card's base stats/effects, as the more rare it is, the more powerful it should be because its chances of multiple copies are lesser than the commons (obviously, of course, it should still be balanced as if someone were to have a maximum number of copies anyways).

 

Commons will/should still be useful, especially if a rare doesn't have an effect that a common has (such as a utility of some sort).

Noreil

Forgeborn
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
September 9, 2012
Offline
January 4, 2013
2:23 am
23

I had an idea about this. What if the number of 3 copies (henceforth referred to as 3s) you can play is relative to the number of factions your deck is made up of? For example:

  1. Only 1 faction, you can have all 3s (so you could play only 10 different cards if you want)
  2. With 2 factions, maybe a maximum of 7 3s (so that means at least 12 different cards)
  3. With 3 factions, maybe only 2 3s and 11 2s (so at least 15 different cards)
  4. And with 4 factions, no 3s and a maximum of 10 2s (so at least 20 different cards)

Just a thought…

Noetherian
Moderator
Members


Backer


Moderators
Forum Posts: 6134
Member Since:
September 10, 2012
Offline
January 4, 2013
2:36 am
24

Noreil said
I had an idea about this. What if the number of 3 copies (henceforth referred to as 3s) you can play is relative to the number of factions your deck is made up of? For example:

  1. Only 1 faction, you can have all 3s (so you could play only 10 different cards if you want)
  2. With 2 factions, maybe a maximum of 7 3s (so that means at least 12 different cards)
  3. With 3 factions, maybe only 2 3s and 11 2s (so at least 15 different cards)
  4. And with 4 factions, no 3s and a maximum of 10 2s (so at least 20 different cards)

Just a thought…

This is actually a really interesting idea.  (I don't know if your numbers are right, but this is a really interesting way to encourage players to play fewer factions, while still allowing for many-faction decks.)

Check out this year's Competitive Forge Watch Events!
The Next Forge Watch Qualifying Tournament is the Weekend of May 2/3/4

In addition to organizing competitive events, I also write articles on SolForge fundamentals.

Lidralyn

Forgeborn Elder
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 800
Member Since:
September 17, 2012
Offline
January 4, 2013
4:11 pm
25

Noetherian said

Noreil said
I had an idea about this. What if the number of 3 copies (henceforth referred to as 3s) you can play is relative to the number of factions your deck is made up of? For example:

  1. Only 1 faction, you can have all 3s (so you could play only 10 different cards if you want)
  2. With 2 factions, maybe a maximum of 7 3s (so that means at least 12 different cards)
  3. With 3 factions, maybe only 2 3s and 11 2s (so at least 15 different cards)
  4. And with 4 factions, no 3s and a maximum of 10 2s (so at least 20 different cards)

Just a thought…

This is actually a really interesting idea.  (I don't know if your numbers are right, but this is a really interesting way to encourage players to play fewer factions, while still allowing for many-faction decks.)

I actually like this way a lot as well. With more factions it forces less reliability since there are less copies of each card in the deck. But it's a very good risk vs reward system.

Badmoonz

Forgeborn
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
August 11, 2012
Ypsilanti, MI
Offline
January 4, 2013
8:44 pm
26

I'd prefer a limit of either 4 or 5 copies.  The game seems it would be too random otherwise.

Chaos62417

Forgeborn
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 109
Member Since:
December 20, 2012
Offline
January 4, 2013
9:04 pm
27

I really couldn't imagine 5 copies allowed… 6 different cards per deck, I really don't think that adds to the overall health of the game. But I do like the other suggestion basing on number of factions used. If not by factions used maybe you could do it based on totality, say you could have up to 4 cards with three copies and up to 7 cards with 2 copies. I don't know again just wanted people's opinions 

Badmoonz

Forgeborn
Members


Backer
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
August 11, 2012
Ypsilanti, MI
Offline
January 5, 2013
12:35 am
28

I was still thinking of a 40 card deck.  For a 30 card deck, I think 3 copies of a card is sufficient.  For limited play, there should be no restriction.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 396

Currently Online: gwenkung, Rootbreaker, bluepenguin, Alabit, evilweevil666, Melquiades, maximum crispy, Yogi393, spikeching, Setzwind, xeroze
64 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

grim2103: 2711

CerebralPaladin: 2514

SkyAnemone: 2225

Johnny C: 2211

Hoywolf: 1863

LordMagnus: 1635

EldrosKandar: 1501

Pion: 1500

SeomanReborn: 1366

mnmike2002: 1189

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 146122

Moderators: 7

Admins: 19

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 11

Topics: 6748

Posts: 100572

Newest Members: Mybigtaco, Breakdown, BadStone, darthballzq, moosebjk, mattby96, zer02, Jamie5, Drended, BOHICA

Moderators: Racecar0 (3338), Noetherian (5771), Kit (1117), philgapp (0), aallan (0), David_SBE (5), Justin Gary (3)