Define Good Design

[Aix]

Just in case I miss something from simply reading through YCM, what is a well-designed card and why, what is good design. What makes a card well-designed?

[Mysty]

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/231964-on-card-design/

Not to advertise, but somebody once made a post on good card design. It might be outdated (if that is possible), but it still gets the point across.

EDIT: The sort-of Part 2

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/287934-on-game-design/

Written by the same guy, this also goes a bit in depth in this idea as well. Do note that they weren't written at the same time, so some views may be different.

[newhat]

It's probably impossible to encapsulate because the game keeps changing, and because there are different cards to fulfill different roles.

 

From the owner's view, a well-designed card is useful. This should be obvious, but it's important that all cards be strong in some context or they aren't worth having.

From the opponent's view, it should be combatable (unlike Exodia FTK), or have a relatively minor effect on the game, such as Allure of Darkness.

From an overall standpoint, a Deck's moves should not take a long time (unlike Spellbooks or Fire Fists), nor require memorization of the state of the game a long time ago.

 

Unrelated: The most "fun" card I know is Solar Recharge.

[Sleepy]

Well, generally speaking:

 

-It has to encourage player interaction.

An example of lack of interaction is Exodia. When you play Exodia, you usually want to protect yourself and draw until you get your win condition. A game is not fun for both players unless you have a situation where you care about your opponent's moves and adjust your play accordingly. No matter what the opponent does, your only course of action is to keep stalling and drawing regardless. It is obviously bad.

 

-It has to NOT promote a slipery slope effect.

This is mainly what you'd call "come-back cards" done wrong, because they are just as effective when you are already winning, grounding your opponent even further down. For the game to be interesting, comebacks have to happen. An example would be BLS,, which can turn the game around, but can also be Summoned when you already have the advantage, preventing your opponent from even being able to defend while they try to draw an out for what you already had.

 

-It allows for options, but not too many options.

If a deck has too many options, it is harder to think how to counter it because you know they'll always have a way around it. There are many examples. Inzektors pop your entire field and select whatever they want to search or swarm with while doing so, Blackwings were also too versatile for their time back in the day.

I don't mean "toolboxing". Toolboxing and consistency is ok. The problem comes when instead of having to choose what to do, you can just do everything and mindlessly keep playing.

 

Too little options also happen, from the so called "one-trick pony" decks. Interaction or not, your deck is just one big combo that plays out pretty much the same. Those get boring fairly quickly, and that's about the worst part about them, really.

 

-It has to evade limiting future design as much as possible.

For example, Rescue Cat. It limited how good Beasts could be back in the day, until G.Bs and X-Sabers were able to use it, (and archfiend Marmot lol). Cards like Uniflora only appeared afterwards. REDMD worked like that for Dragons for a while, too, between other cards. Of course, powercreep seems to have sent this principle to hell, and to an extent it did, but I still like the idea of adding it.

 

 

 

-Finally, your card has to have a purpose.

Sometimes you'll see these really cool effects from cards that you look at and think "I wanna use it, but even after thinking for a while, this doesn't really belong anywhere". Pseudo casual cards that are actually filler. IRL, those CAN turn into part of a future strategy that turns out pretty good, but for this thread's purposes, yeah, don't.

 

 

 

 

 

That's all I got, Though I think you should look for the member "Griffin". He is no longer active, but his threads about card design are pretty awesome. I recomend it. He in turn, links to another source that will keep you entertained for a while.

[Mysty]

That's all I got, Though I think you should look for the member "Griffin". He is no longer active, but his threads about card design are pretty awesome. I recomend it. He in turn, links to another source that will keep you entertained for a while.

Ninja'd by my links.

I would also like to add that winmoar cards are also bad design. A winmoar card, from my experience, is a card that you only want to use when you're winning and will probably win you the game. This is bad design for two reasons:
• It's only useful when you're winning, dead draw every other time.

• It removes the opponent's comeback chance, usually to 0.
A big example I find is the Rage Train, Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Gustav Max. To summon it, you have to get rid of two Level 10 monsters (usually boss monsters that are probably winning the game by themselves). Why would you do this? Probably only because your OTK was about 2000 points short.

[Aix]

Black told me that Griffin's thread was somewhat accurate however relatively outdated. And yeah, I've read them before.

 

 

-It allows for options, but not too many options.

If a deck has too many options, it is harder to think how to counter it because you know they'll always have a way around it. There are many examples. Inzektors pop your entire field and select whatever they want to search or swarm with while doing so, Blackwings were also too versatile for their time back in the day.

I don't mean "toolboxing". Toolboxing and consistency is ok. The problem comes when instead of having to choose what to do, you can just do everything and mindlessly keep playing.

 

Hm, that's something I haven't really thought about as I really hate Deck-killers like Macro Cosmos, Skill Drain and Ophion, though I suppose that's not what you mean. But what if a Deck was weak, but it's shining point was it's extreme versatility?

[Sleepy]

Black told me that Griffin's thread was somewhat accurate however relatively outdated. And yeah, I've read them before.

 

 

 

Hm, that's something I haven't really thought about as I really hate Deck-killers like Macro Cosmos, Skill Drain and Ophion, though I suppose that's not what you mean. But what if a Deck was weak, but it's shining point was it's extreme versatility?

I mainly was talking about cards that you use that give you too many options, as opposed to the cards that just take out options.

I personally hate deck killers too. Necrovalley, Macro, Skill Drain, Shock Master, but mainly in opinion. Wouldn't know what to comment regarding design.

As long as there are decks that absolutely require the condition you are negating to survive, they don't really look good to me. These probably are hard to balance, but the aim should be to make the card restrictive enough that it still allows your opponent to try to play around with the restriction, but not weak enough that it's worthless to use.

 

I'd say limiters are graded in a one by one basis, and depend on how much you can at least still do around the restricting effect, or how easily you can really get rid of it. I'd prefer the former choice to be considered.

 

 

 

I'm also sure there are some factors that I'm also overlooking, as I don't claim to be that great in card design myself.

If a deck can make many different things, but they are all overwhelming uses that other decks can individually focus on and do better, that's another factor that has to do with balance, which I somehow overlooked.

I can see how a card can sacrifice versatility for a better focus, but can't be helped when the whole deck is built like that. Decks that can lose more often than others will always be a posibility at the time of building, as much as the game tries to balance itself.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

Hm, that's something I haven't really thought about as I really hate Deck-killers like Macro Cosmos, Skill Drain and Ophion, though I suppose that's not what you mean. But what if a Deck was weak, but it's shining point was it's extreme versatility?

 

Gadgets are an example of this. They can be used in Stun, Machina/Gadget, R4 Control, etc. It's not bad for you to make a form of consistency engine, but you have to make sure that it doesn't break or lead to bad design. Gadgets aren't really a problem since they viably make for a form of consistency. Making this engine work for you for even better results vary. Machinas use them as R4/Machina Fortress food + Speed. R4 use them for Gear Gigant/R4 Xyzs + Speed, Karakuri uses them as well, etc, etc. Just make sure to see what the deck can effect and what it can lead to. Knowing this before hand aids in avoiding making broken cards.