Why I Think "Blocker" Is Harmful for Game Design in TCGs
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- Giving cards "blocker" as a skill creates a different design environment than allowing blocking as a universal game mechanic. We've seen "blocker" in games like Kaijudo, Chrono Clash, Duel Masters, and the Digimon Card Game (Coming soon in English). But is that design environment better or worse than the environment created by universal guard mechanics like Magic, Vanguard, and Universus have? Sound off in the comments whether you agree or disagree and let's talk about defensive counterplay in TCGs!
Twitter: pidgipotato
Twitch: twitch.tv/pidgipotato
Facebook: pidgipotato
Insta: pidgipotato
Be sure to subscribe and hit the bell so you are notified of my upcoming videos! - Hry
I feel like having to design around abilities and balance it is part of every game, and doesn't inherently make it bad for game design. Balancing blocker is no different than balancing any other ability.
So, I do prefer inherent blocking in game, which is surprising how less I am seeing it now in games. I think games are try to expedite gameplay but going more aggressive.
I think one concern of mine would be the fact that the winning person just wins more when there are fewer defensive mechanics (and often, that comes down to who goes first). But considering defense as a card skill rather than it being part of the game seems harder to balance well in my mind (because defense is less common in the former, so everything from removal to multi-attacking has to consider the pool of Blockers rather than being made with general defense mechanics in mind).
@@pidgipotato7458 my assumption is you design with the idea of general blockers in mind, not any individual ones. But, I can see how not having more inherent defensive mechanisms in the game can feel like someone behind will have more difficulty catching back up. It does sort of feel like luck of the draw (literal draw or security flip) will play a stronger role in this game (as I believe it did in Chronoclash).
I definitely prefer more inherent defense in a game, like blocking in Magic/Argent Saga/Ashes, patrols in CODEX, blocking lanes in Warhammer Champions, using resources for Defense over Offense in Star Wars Destiny, etc. I like the thought that goes into whether going on the offense or holding back is the right choice. Unfortunately, TCGs seem to be moving toward the faster game format, which tends to favor aggressive strategies.
But its a hard line to walk on...
If its effect/cost is too good, it becomes that much better otherwise its likely a bad card
In a universal blocking mechanism you can always give a skill by taking the block from certain cards
In Yugioh you choose what you attack, not what you block with.
This allows the "Goblin Attack Force" mechanic, where there is a monster with high ATK but 0 DEF, and it switches to Defense position after attacking.
It would be very difficult to incorporate this mechanic into MtG.
making a creature lower toughness doesn't quite make it as immediately vulnerable as having a low def monster forcibly switch to def, but giving a creature say 10 power and 1 toughness makes it very strong, especially if it has a fairly low cost, but if they block with so much as a 1/1 token, sure they'll lose the token, but unless it has trample, all the damage will be absorbed and a 1/1 was traded for a 10/1, so the defender actually still got the better deal, despite the attacker having the better creature. plus, low toughness like that does make it far more susceptible to pinging, so unless it has haste, it could be dealt with as easily as a 0/1 (i.e Birds of Paradise). This makes me wonder what the minimum cost for a generic vanilla 10/1 would need to be to make it balanced.
@@codyhanson13441 mana but can only taget creatures and dies
2 if it doesn't die
5 or 6 for trample but it dies during your next or second to next upkeep
7 or it 8 if it can't be blocked
can't bring up yugioh as an example of balanced mechanics bruh... topic of course has nothing to do with yugioh, but with mtg type of gameplay
I think that ultimately it depends on health mechanics of particular game.
In Duel Masters for example you have only 6 or less hits to defeat opponent and Shield recovery effects are rare. There's also no trample-like offensive abilities and "cannot be blocked" is rare. Having blocker on every creature in setup like that would create very slow, non-dynamic game where any form of attack would be discouraged.
Having game where players are afraid of being offensive unless they can ensure overwhelming field advantage sucks.
So how does one balance Aggressive Trains and Heavy Duty Bunker?
Blocking is an excellent mechanic, it gives the defending player an advantage which creates a design space for cards to break parity and end games. An absence of blocking (or selective blocking like the blocker mechanic) usually means that there is a bigger design space for cards to prolong games or answer threats. Hearthstone has this problem with its "attacker chooses" combat system. There are hyper aggressive decks that burst people down or hyper controlling decks that weather games out for an eternity because the design space of the game doesn't have a stop for when one player starts snowballing their board out of control.
When balacing a game you want to balance card vs each other and vs TIME
How long do you want a game of your game to last? 10min, 15min, 30min, 45min? Magic have creature power creep in the 2000 because they wanted faster game
More you make your kill condition strong, less time its gonna take to player to kill each other...
More you make your defensive mecanic strong, game are going to last longer...
Good point! I'm thinking of re-addressing this video so that I can talk more about the reasons certain game designers choose different defensive mechanics and also my personal experiences playing different games with casual TCG players.
I think you bring up a key part of game design. Every mechanic should serve the feel and atmosphere of THAT game specifically, and balancing means tuning cards so they match each other. Over powered cards in one game might be balanced in another.
Most of the tcg's I've seen have you attacking creatures first, and only after clearing those creatures from the board are you aloud to attack the player.
Magic the Gathering however has you attack the player first. Magic doesn't need a blocker mechanic because blocking IS the mechanic in that games combat system.
If the game has you attack the player first and the defender has to choose how to defend against incoming attacks then you have to make blocking a game mechanic.
If you attack creatures first than you can make a blocker mechanic, creating a priority as to which creature needs to be defeated first, but you don't HAVE TO.
This is what he failed to even address in his video because it makes the whole argument fall apart. In DCG you can always attempt to attack a player first, but you risk hitting security and having your monster killed on the crackback the following turn. You can instead choose to swing into their suspended monster and remove it from the field. In MTG a monster is equally safe being tapped or untapped. In Digimon the act of attacking makes your field more vulnerable for the following turn and makes you consider defensive options on your own turn. The games are designed so wildly differently that they are bound to come up with different answers to problems and keyword blocker was Digimon's answer.
I don't think either is correct or incorrect I think exactly as you said, the decision to implement keyword blocking or universal blocking is going to relate more to the base mechanics than anything.
Blocking should be preemptive not something done on the fly. Doing otherwise takes away the pre-planning aspect of strategy which defensive decks are more known for and why people choose defensive decks.
Honestly you just made it sound like Digimon is a terribly designed and balanced game.
It is a VERY well balanced game and the top deck results from major tournaments is always very diverse. This guy failed to mention all of the different core design choices that are present and separate it from Magic. The games are wildly different.
I disagree with this take in pretty much every point. I get your premise, and I'm an avid MtG player, but I also think that these points were really stretched.
First point, the blocker mechanics is usually (but not always) counteracted with abilities that give your opponents memory. I love the universal blocking mechanic in MtG, but that game has a huge aspect not present in DCG, which are instant speed interactions. That aspect adds a whole new dimension of defensive options and balancing not present here. Also creatures in general are way easier to balance in this game than in MtG. If you want to make a blocker that has slightly more offensive capabilities, or the exact opposite and you just wanna make absolute WALLS, DCG can and has done both pretty well already. The problem is that we don't have a critical mass of these cards to make it feel as impactful as it could be without a universal guard, but that's no fault of the keyword mechanic itself.
The argument to have to build a deck with blockers in mind is basic deck building. You do the same thing in MTG by adding targeted removal, counter magic, or large bodied creatures. I literally don't see the problem with having to build your deck to react to a meta. The argument to have more versatile decks is true, but also the argument that carrying blockers makes a deck instantly defensive is just incorrect. I play a playset of blockers in my Imperialdramon deck, which more often than not hits people 3-5 times in a single turn while staying on the offensive from the literal first turn (shout out to Jamming Veemon).
I think the underlying issues are the overall lack of defensive options in the early game, not the blocker mechanics itself. The game was built to be faster paced and aggressive as a whole, and while I even am in favor of universal blocking mechanics, but I don't think it's a problem itself, bit just highlights what needs to happen to make the game more stable.
I like this game, and your video had interesting points as to what I could see what you wanted to convey, but the individual points just didn't hit for me. Hopefully that didn't come off as negative!
Interesting. My overall take is that aggression is king in the way the game is designed in its mechanics, but that can change depending on what Bandai designs later on. I like longer, more defensive kinds of games. And I get others don't. But I think without a defensive counter-action and an increasing number of aggressive decks, then every deck becomes some variation of the same thing and games end to quickly for me to feel satisfied (again, personally).
@@pidgipotato7458 I get that sentiment, but this game has enough depth in its system mechanics to warrant solid defensive options, and we're already beginning to see it in newer sets with Security Digimon and cheaper removal. Bandai is taking slow steps to ease into these options, which IMO is smart for such a fresh game. You can make a game that offers a plethora of offense while still giving players unique defensive options as well. I think the bigger question is how Bandai will go about doing this, and whether or not it's fun. The thing about Blocker in particular is that it adds a layer of depth to creatures without going to Magic levels of depth, which is fine because this game doesn't need to be another Magic (This is coming from the Izzet control and Gifts Storm player. Believe me, I love options). But you can tell just by looking at the systems in place that the game has room to be FAR more diverse than something like say Pokemon, because to me this game feels like a happy medium between Pokemon and Magic (mechanically), with some Chrono Clash sprinkled in. Bandai can further experiment with the Security cards and abilities, have conditional board clears and removal that favors the player on the back foot (IE destroy ___ creatures if your opponent controls ___ more than you, or this spell costs X less if your opponent has 2 more security cards than you. Random ideas, don't take them at face value), the memory system and manipulation of resources, card advantage and manipulation, tap/stasis effects, the list goes on. The point is that while the game lacks SOLID defensive options at current, this isn't something that they can't address, and it's also not the fault of Blocker. The video would've probably had less backlash if you would've stated this point rather than pin the issue on Blocker specifically
@@VincentVeak well said dude
@@TheBeastlyBomber thank you, friend!
A lot of my reason for making this video the way I did is that I think Blocker itself can point to a more stingy philosophy of defensive game design. However, I do see your point. At this point, I am waiting until I have set 4 stuff in hand because I understand that set has become more defensive than the first three really were. If I'm wrong about what I put here and Bandai actually grants defensive mechanics, then I'll definitely make a video tagging this one and show that I was way off and my concerns were unwarranted. As it is, I think Chrono Clash has me nervous because they made it extremely hard to make new defensive mechanics using the symbols and I could simply be shell-shocked from that experience (specifically in the Godzilla Card Game expansion which was absolutely rife with problems lol).
All this to say, the Digimon Card Game will be awesome with or without Blocker. And I will play the heck out of it. Even if games end up lasting one turn in the end (as I heard DBS did at some point) lol.
Im not sure whether blocker is bad as a skill in digimon because depending on the games your playing if you brick or your opponent spams out units like rookie rush (when prevalent) blockers assist as the counter for aggression and a lack of blockers can be the determining factor if you loose or survive
I do see the point if your blocker gets popped but i think thats a good mechanic to have in order to balance them.
I agree with your take on this wholeheartidly. Digimon has some great design elements to it, digivolution with drawing and inheriting is a king design choice, the memory management is great too. But not having universal blocking leads to really bad play pattern consequences such as rookie rush and cards designed to combat those play patterns at the expense of a more intuitive playing field. It was a purposefully design that way to make games speedier and less crunchy for 2 reasons; 1. For the player to want to play more games and interact more with the deck building aspect of the game, and 2. To prime the meta into accelerating card and booster sales, with the advent of tying abilities to sets that you need to buy into to get access to them on the basis of more deck building. The problem is that this is at the expense of the game as a whole and at the utility of each card. Removing universal blocking in a game about combat is removing the most important vector by which to interact with your opponent and stem their advantage, having a basis tempo wall for the opponent to get over, the only other way to protect yourself is by racing, improving your tempo, or removing your opponent's cards, degrading their tempo.
Probably one of the most respectful comment sections I've ever seen. Almost nobody is straight up hating and saying stuff like: "I disagree with your opinion and therefore you are indeed trash." and everyone is actually giving constructive criticism and presenting their opinion without acting like yours is wrong or bad.
In the TCG I'm designing winning happens by gaining a type of point, rather than defending a health pool. So in this there is nothing to block other than other cards, so the blocker cards in my game basically mean that they have to be prioritised when being attacked. Do you think this has the same problem? Do you have any angles on this?
There are a lot of missing details. How do you gain points? Do you have a "Blocker" as a card skill or a game mechanic? I think it's pretty neat when cards must block, essentially causing the decision to play a Blocker to become a risk/reward estimation for the player who controls it. My issue with Blocker here is that it frustrates new players. It causes a feeling of, "If I only had a Blocker on the field, I would've survived to do X." And a feeling like that, where the game's design has decided you've lost instead of allowing you to play around with various strategies and combinations of strategies is extremely frustrating (especially considering most players will come from one of the big three and Magic is the big kahuna).
I don't agree with you fully, but is a great and valid point of view, keep up the good content
Honestly, I don't know what you were trying to achieve with this video. Trying to make a case for blocker as a universal mechanic versus a keyword is so ridiculously broad in scope that it generalises so much about card games. It's like saying that having shuffled decks is bad for TCGs because it ruins the consistency of the play-style.
Your first point is honestly just trying to view a natural part of TCGs in the weirdest light possible. Yes, Blocker as a keyword makes balancing cards more difficult, obviously, because you're increasing the amount of design space in a card. That doesn't mean it's bad! That's like saying any new keyword or mechanic is a bad thing because it makes cards more complex! Sometimes, blocking opponent's attacks is completely necessary for a card game, but sometimes it's an important part of deck design; weighing up the safety blockers give you versus the consistency that not including them brings. Again, completely futile to try and generalise the mechanic.
Your second point just seems very poorly worded, and doesn't help your argument at all. I would argue that universal defensive mechanics is a bad thing. The 'trade-off' of ignoring your opponent's cards while attacking is handled differently in every game, but giving every card the ability to block enables passivity and poor decision-making by giving yourself the 'panic button' of blocking attacks. To intertwine your third point into this argument, I wouldn't say that giving the option to include blocking stifles deckbuilding; in fact it stimulates deckbuilding choices. Your previous point was in FAVOUR of forcing important choices in game, and the inclusion (and frequency) of blocker inclusion does exactly that. It forces you to think about how well your deck handles aggression, and whether or not that needs to be addressed. Just because it makes YOUR deck less consistent, it doesn't mean that it won't also make your OPPONENT'S deck less consistent, as they ALSO have to consider how their strategy falls apart if blockers are included in the opponent's deck.
Your fourth point is funny in how backwards it is. How is the ability to remove blocking in a game with universal blocking any different than the ability to block attacks in a game with universal direct attacks? In fact, block-removing abilities are a LOT more destructive in card games, and usually force an include-or-lose environment in the card games that include a lot of them. "No matter what, I can guard against things, but if they have a skill that shuts off my guarding, NOW I have to think strategically." Is a really funny quote, since it works exactly the same in the favour of blocker as a keyword. "No matter what, I can attack the opponent directly, but if they have a skill that stops me from attacking, NOW I have to think strategically." I hope this shows how flawed the point is.
Finally, having a wide design scope and narrowing it through effects seems to be a poor design choice versus having a narrow design scope that is widened through effects. In the former case, you will reach a point where the narrowing of effects forces long, unfun grinds of matches where the negation of mechanics is a necessity in order to have a functional deck. Look at Yu-gi-oh, with its prevalence of effect-negating effects forcing interesting cards into the realm of non-viability. Eventually, that scope will become too narrow, and you will run out of design space. The opposite case, at least, will have the space to introduce new things to the TCG without stepping on the feet of pre-existing cards. Neither strategy is dominant of course, but nothing you've said in the video looks at examples of specific cards, strategies, etc. in specific card games to build up your case! You're just shouting into the wind about how you don't like it when your opponent doesn't play the way you play.
To your first point: shuffling decks is part of every TCG as is some form of defense. However, there are different methods to defensive mechanics in TCGs that achieve different results. Using a different method to shuffle doesn’t achieve different results at all. So, your comparison doesn’t really hold up since I’m talking about a method of defense, and you’re talking about a universally shared part of TCGs.
Second: Granting a skill that other cards don’t inherently have lowers the design space left on the card if it’s to remain balanced. Basically, you can assign point values to skills and cap your different rarities with particular point values. If you take up two points of a five point card with Blocker, then it has three points left. If you don’t have to grant it blocker because it’s universal, then it still has five points to work with, opening up your options to make it either defensive, offensive or even a mixture of both.
Your third and fourth points: Blocking does allow for stalling, but that’s where card skills come in. Rather than removing something like defense-by-card-on-field, I can give everything Blocker and deal with it through card text. This lets the player feel like they are able to do something rather than being limited by the rules of the game. Removing universal blocking is *by definition* limiting to the player, making it feel like the player has been put in a helpless situation even if they runs Blockers and happen not to draw them. And having to have 4 to 8 blockers in a deck in order to even have the option to guard is stifling to mid-tempo deck building. You can’t be too versatile without losing out. Forcing the player to conform to full-on aggro or else you have to consider 4 to 8 of your cards as just brick walls is much less stifling than triggers in Vanguard or climaxes in Weiss Schwarz. However, it is still more limiting than Magic (in terms of creatures, at least. Lands still exist) or Final Fantasy. But, in the case of Blocker, if I draw mostly Blockers for some awful reason, then I have to drop them and try to defend while not attacking, forcing a stall-out just because the game made me do it with card skills. But if I could attack even with my defensive cards without punishment, then I could still try to be a little aggro even if I draw all my defensive cards early. As far as punishments for attacking directly goes, I think Argent Saga does it best since you KNOW that the towers will slow your opponent down somehow. But not being able to block with five things in front of you that could without the game saying, “No” just feels bad (to me and a lot of other casual people I’ve tried to get into similar games).
Fifth: having your opponent remove options from you feels like they built a deck well and played well against you. Having the game’s fundamental mechanics remove options from you feels bad and unfun when put into a bad situation by the rules. I think I only feel this way (and other casual players I know) because Magic has universal blocking and basically every TCG player goes through Magic at some point. So, the first time you encounter Kaijudo or Digimon and have stuff in front of you and can’t block, you feel kinda cheated. The ways you can give cards that deal with creatures on board is through removal, stasis, debuffs, buffs to a card on your side when on the defense, etc. You don’t have to just “shut off blocking.” But you can deal with blocking in so many different ways when it exists universally. If a select few cards have it in the game, then removal, debuffs (if cards die via debuff), stasis, and similar effects become significantly more impactful, making them less frequent (and making the game more vanilla) and more expensive (making them have to wait until late game to be played which feels even worse for an opponent who was well on their way to a healthy board state only to have it yoinked away entirely. Meaning he just lost to one card and spent all that time building a board with zero payoff.
Finally, I have no idea how having a wider design scope is worse. I’m not talking about granting everything the ability to generate resources or anything outside the scope of what we’ve seen before. The very first TCG had universal blocking. As far as the games I’ve played, more games let cards on board defend than remove that option in favor of a skill. But all of this video is about my opinion and why I think that way. My mind could easily change when presented with a game that changes my perception of Blocker (which will hopefully be Digimon because Kaijudo and Argent Saga definitely didn’t).
How about 2 horizontal lanes?
The front can only attack.
And the back can only defend.
And card abilities will add attacking from back row and blocking in front row.
Please brutaly critic this, I need answers.
I like the consent and idea, I do feel like the script was repudiative. Idk if that’s a bad thing but I tune out after hearing the same words in the same order a third time. I like to watch your other stuff, because these are interesting topics. Keep going
I think at least with Duel Masters the game making each card playable as mana lessened the issues of some cards being more useless against certain strategies. The game had overcosted spells that could turn the tides if they ended up in your shields that really worked because you could always use them as mana if you drew them naturally.
I always find it weird that you can’t block when you have a another card on the field that’s like seeing your friend get hit but you can’t help because you’re not allowed to
"Limiting the scope of an ability to certain creatures == limiting game design" is suuuuuuuper backwards
It is, by definition, a limiting factor in game design. If blocking could be done by every creature, but we decide to allow only specific creatures to block, then we have limited one aspect of game design.
@@pidgipotato7458 mmmmm i think we have different definitions then. Limiting game design, in the way that I'm using the phrase, means that you are limiting the options you have when designing cards. And therefore reducing the scope of an ability to certain creatures opens your game design for more options
Ahhh, yeah, I think we were talking past each other. As you define it, I agree it can open some options up. However, I do think finding that value to assign to Blocker can be increasingly difficult as time goes on since its value will be constantly changing.
Let recap, games with universal blocking have the blocking as a punish by attacking without thought like magic and legends of runeterra, meanwhile games with keyguard blocker have other methods lf punishing of attacking at random, being leaving the creature vulnerable only after attacking like digimon
I'm not as much concerned with "punishing" attacking as being capable of stopping damage. If we are only given about 6 life points in Digimon (5 Security and 1 more hit), then it seems reasonable to want more defensive options than simply "get rekt" by my opponent who got their Mega out first. Of course, I can also be totally wrong here and universal blocking may just delay the inevitable and not even be remotely helpful. But I do think it has worked well in other games.
I can see where you are coming from but their are other ways to play defensively which to me adds to that deck building aspect. Also one of those I see agreeing makes me double down on the idea that I'm happy to not fully agree...... I think the deeper we go into Digimon this ideal will fluctuate with the development. Basically, I don't believe that just because blocker is an ability doesn't mean the game is held back in way that hinders game design. I do believe that the game must be handled with a bit more care than normal because of it, but thats definitely part of the fun and diversity of deck building.
I think Blocker can be indicative of a stingy view of defensive game mechanics. I really do hope I'm wrong and that Bandai introduces defensive mechanics as time goes on and I can do a "I was so wrong" video. Right now, though, knowing Bandai in the past with TCGs, I'm not super optimistic.
@@pidgipotato7458 The entire security mechanic IS a defensive game design which is not preset in MTG. This video and your following comments feel like someone who just doesn't click with the game being upset that it isn't MTG.
I find it interesting in three and a half years no one's figured out a good number of games have keyword blocker from a design perspective. Even MTG has keyword blocker as an evergreen mechanic, you probably just didn't realise it.
I'm reminded of a digital TCG whose name I can't recall and is certainly dead now that riffed heavily off MTG but no one realised because all the mechanics were renamed and reshuffled around obfuscating it. One of the core mechanics was Speed. Every card had a speed rating of 1-5. Typical speed was 2. You attacked with which creatures you wanted at the opponent, who could then decide blockers. A creature could only block other creatures with equal or less speed than its own. Some creatures gained speed on your opponent's turn (better blocker). What MTG mechanic is speed expanding on? Here's a hint: think of it the other way around -- what mechanics allow a creature to sidestep blocking? Yes, FLYING creates a two-tier system: fliers can block (almost) all creatures but in turn can't be blocked by non-fliers. Blockers can block anything, but can't be blocked by normal creatures. (also, gaining speed on your opponent's turn? That's Reach)
Notice it's perfectly symmetrical. When you realise this you then notice the question is not "is this a universal mechanic?" It's "how many creatures are fitting into each speed tier" (and perhaps more importantly, how many RELEVANT cards are in each speed tier). The difference is that games might put creatures into the speed 1 on your opponent's turn tier.
in my tcg, creatures attack similarly to ygo, where they target and attack other specific creatures, or attack directly if the opponent controls no creartures. The "Blocker" mechanic in this game doesn't stop a creature from being aggressive, but it does enable it to defend other creatures, because it allows them to automatically switch the attack target to it, at instant speed. making this skill universal would make it so you would effectively always have to just have a creature good enough to attack whatever the opponent's strongest creature is in most cases, which is not how i want the design to be.
I feel really bad for how bad you're getting ratio'd on this because I think you're super right. I don't like MtG much, but blocker as a universal mechanic is something I think feels a lot better and I prefer it a lot. I like the general systems of DM-style games a lot, but making Blocker a skill is definitely my least liked part of them. My preference leans more towards a combat system like Battle Spirits, where each creature attacks separately as in most non-MtG games, but blocker is still universal.
Honestly its part of why I find myself leaning towards Gate Ruler over Digimon of the two soon-to-be-released TCGs, since it actually has universal defensive mechanics.
Lol, I appreciate the support. I honestly made a few mistakes in my titling and thumbnail and it appears far more click-baity than I meant for it to. But I had to learn at some point!
I have desperately wanted to play Battle Spirits ever since I saw the art, but my wife is my main play buddy and she doesn't like doing Japanese card games in the original language (we tried Fire Emblem Cipher and loved it. Then a new set came out and we had to memorize more card names and skills lol).
What is Gate Ruler? Does it have Force of Will kind of combat with everything happening in the Main Phase including combat?
@@pidgipotato7458 We don't know full details on the rules yet (they fully release in 1 week, at the same time as the demo deck) but its a game from the original creator of Buddyfight. Its known that it uses Buddyfight's center mechanic, where you have 3 primary monster zones, and the monster in the center must be destroyed before the player can be attacked. English release has already been confirmed, will be coming a couple months after the Japanese release (which will be next month).
If you're interested in reading more on what we currently know, I've been running a news site translating all the information we learn into English: gaterealize.com/
HECK YES. I loved BuddyFight for the few days my wife and I played (she didn't like it that much lol)
@@pidgipotato7458 Haha glad I could let another Buddyfight fan know about it! Ikeda (the game's creator) was only involved for the first couple years, and is independently publishing Gate Ruler so that he can maintain complete control. And while the feel of Buddyfight is super present (we know like 90% of the basic rules at this point, so its safe to say that) there's tons of mechanics from other games, like Yugioh's Trap card mechanic, Vanguard's Damage Zone, and MtG-type mechanic of both combatants dealing damage to each other and it healing off at end of turn, so maybe your wife will enjoy it more than Buddyfight.
The most exciting bit to me, is the core conceit of the game, the Rulers, change some of the rules, deck constructing limits, and even field layout for your side of the game.
Agree.
I'm running into a similar opinion over Star Wars Unlimited. The sentinel/saboteur dichotomy is really not working for me on a design level
Blocking is a main mechanic in my new TCG!
As a game designer myself, I'm happy to learn something about game design and learn what to avoid/fix for my games.
The first point being, it's harder to balance is silly, like obviously balancing cost is the most important and difficult part of a game and every ability has a cost, the second point is basically blocker will get cut if it doesn't match your win condition which is once again fine, digimon offsets it with the security stack, they introduced a defensive mechanic that allows blocker to specialize in slower decks which is actually a highlight, Infact the security stack is strong enough that the slowest deck doesn't even run blockers and blocker becomes more mid tempo
Vanguard doesn't do Universe guard otherwise ALL grade 3 would be able to block but that's not the case
No in magic i Pop all defender keep the Bord clear do 20 damage over time in hearstone Not That ez to do. Also If all Monster can Block the Game is Slow and Boeing becurse Noting Happens in Duel Master you can only Block If you are Attacke direkt wen Not Monster Need to Pfight so Byby your op 1-2 Mana Card you Need infinit amounts of Removel to keep dead
Play Craniamon where everything practically has blocker and reboot
I'm actually looking into that deck now. And it might change my opinion about this topic altogether. As it stands, though, I am very cautious about the future of defensive card design in Digimon.
I like the way you think its a good convo as someone who tried both ima roll with universal blocking due to agressive decks
My idea is extra block
I can understand where you are coming from with this, but also fell that you are so off base by saying that having inherent blockers is better and not just a different design decision. The biggest issue being that you have completely neglected the difference in core mechanics between a game like MTG and DCG. In Magic players declare attackers, all attacks are either directed at an opponent or their planeswalker. There is basically no decision making as to WHAT you are attacking on field. In Digimon you declare attack TARGETS meaning you decide when you want to try to run your monster into your oppnent's security or if you want to instead attack a resting target. A monster can only be attacked if it is resting though, this means that you have plenty of defensive decision making on your own turn simply by deciding when to risk tapping out a digimon at all.
You also mentioned adding blockers to your deck as some mandatory thing you have to do and how it limits deck building. This couldn't be further from the truth though. In MTG all agro decks have an innate defensive ability as long as they run monsters, in DCG you have to make a decision as to HOW defensive you want to be. Plenty of top decks forgo blockers entirely and instead build around rushing their strategy with out them. Other decks build specifically around having and utilizing blockers. You get a ton of deck building decisions specifically for including Blockers, not less, and it is up to the player to decide if they want to sacrifice some aggression for defensive utility, or if they just want to try to play around the lack of defenses in their deck.
There are also more than one way to defend your life in Digimon. In MTG your life is a static resource with no abilities of its own. In Digimon your life fights back, you never know when you are going to attack into Gaia Force, or a big 15k body. Blocking is only 1 way to defend yourself. There is also the threat of you making a body to swing into their mon on the crack back. In MTG your units are at the same risk level regardless of if they are tapped or not. In DCG simply attacking can leave you in an unsafe position and deploying your attacks at the wrong time can end in defeat.
All in all I really didn't find your points very compelling and read it more as someone who couldn't separate themselves from MTG enough to really understand how different the games are and as a result keyed in on one aspect of the game they didn't like. Blocker as a mechanic is fine, and it is another key word just like the hundreds of key words MTG has played with over the years. Saying that it adds an element of design that breaks the game is just doomsaying.
I do think that Blocker limits some design ideas with "offensive" cards when it comes to deck building. Although Blocker in Digimon, in my opinion, fulfills the purpose of not getting "rookie rushed" but using blocker should definitely be more limited. I do think It depends on the design of the game and the win con. As an example, Imagine if in Digimon it was designed similar to pokemon, where your opponent prize cards from destroying units rather than attacking security. In this senario blocker would be horrible, unless it said "units with blocker do not give prize cards. Point is is that there are ways of meta-gating it's impact, but as a designer you make those dissensions. Saying "Blocker" is bad for game design I feel is not the best title for this video but rather, "Why I think "blocker" should be Used Carefully" Because not just anyone can use this mechanic successfully.
I don't wanna ramble to long, Point is, I think this video made me think of something I had not thought of before and for that thank you.
I specifically didn't speak of Vanguard because I am unknowledgeable of the game so will not speak on it.
Reason 1: it adds an extra mechanic that needs to be balanced.
Reason 2: it removes one type of decision point in the game, adding a decision point to deckbuilding
Reason 3: game restrictions limit deck building choices, ignore reason 2
Reason 4: letting every card do everything be default increases creativity and counterplay.
So haste is bad for card games. You have to balance the creatures with haste against the cards that dont have it. It removes your decision point of if you are going to attack or not with the creature you just played, and instead you have to choose in deckbuilding if you want to include more cards with haste. If you want to play a more aggressive deck you need to add more cards with haste, these cards are worse at defending so you are locked in and it is harder to play the deck slower. Open game mechanics are better, so every card should be able to attack the turn it comes down and cards should have effects that stop/limit that instead. It adds more chances for counterplay of we make combat l
Choices less restricted and let everything attack right away.
This comes off as you prefer the kind of game flow magic has, so different types of decision making are worse and harmful. Of the big 3 tcg, only mtg works this way. The others dont have Blocker, but you still dont get to pick how or when you defend
I want to see a video on your thoughts on resources (Mana). I think MtG has a bad resource system with Lands, compared to a game like WoWTCG which has imo a perfect resource system. Games like Zenonzard and Force of Will have interesting Mana resource systems as well
Looking at different resources across games could be super sweet. I'll look into it. I've never played WoWTCG, but wanted to, so here's my chance to see it in action!
That would be a fun video. I think this would be a great discussion topic where people could bounce ideas off each other about what works and doesn't work with different resource systems.
Why is the WOW system so perfect? I played it back when I was a kid, but only the raid decks with my brother...cant remember the "normal" version and how to play it :D
@@R-SXX WOW, like VS System, let you use any card as resource. It was sort of like Hearthstone in that you had generic resources that could tick up every turn. But, you had to weigh whether a card should be held to play later or use as a resource.
@@R-SXX WoW let you play any card from your hand as Mana. WoW also had dedicated resource cards called quests. The quest can be used as Mana, as well as give you an objective to complete to gain rewards.
I loved this because you could use as many or as little quests as you wanted. For instance control decks can use a lot of quests since they want to draw more cards, and aggro decks can use 0 quests since they just wanted to swing face and not draw quest cards over a monster card.
Ok so like how is needing to balance cards “bad game design”? Like dude yes you need to consider balancing every card you make. Even with a universal blocker mechanic you still need to balance cards. You’re just balancing them differently. Digimon for example gives blockers a cost for being offensive. That way these cards are not just attacking and blocking whenever you need them. You the player need to decide when taking either action is the best play. Both attacking and blocking come at a cost. As for your second point, it’s too subjective to take seriously. So you prefer a universal blocker system and don’t like having to make choices when deck building...ok cool? How is this bad game design? It sounds like you just listed your preferences. This game doesn’t work the way you want it explain how that is bad game design. All you have done is tell us why you don’t like it. You just seem really whiny to be honest.
I definitely didn't mean to come across as whiny, but just to open up a topic I think is important. There are a lot of aspects to game design that can make games more RNG (trigger mechanics, no mulligan, and little draw power available) and some make it more like chess (where you can easily find and use your pieces and push against your opponent and then they have to answer).
I don't think balancing cards is bad game design. And I never said that. I said it makes it harder to balance since we have to consider many things we wouldn't have to if Blocker was universal (i.e. number of blockers in a card pool, other defensive mechanics provided in the future, future-proofing aggressive design so the few decks we allow to be defensive are even playable, etc.).
I think Blocker can work (and I'm slowly being convinced that it's best for Digimon as a whole). However, I'm not sure it's the best place to start since it's much harder to slow things down than to speed them up (because if I can kill you on turn 3, why would I play a deck that kills on turn 4?) and it means that I have to grant the very opportunity to defend rather than simply making a card better for defense than it is for offense.
But all of this IS opinion. Not fact. I recognize that. Game design as a whole is primarily opinion considering there are people who play chess for weeks on end (or Risk or Monopoly), and then there are people who will only play chess with a timer to speed things up. Speed, gameplay, and aesthetic are all subjective and I didn't mean for it to come across otherwise here.
@@pidgipotato7458 it just seems like you want this game to be something it’s not. It’s so weird to see you break down a games mechanics and just be like change it all to what I like. Everything you’re talking about is fine when MAKING a game but not so much when accessing an existing one.
@@TheBeastlyBomber he's not asking to change this game, just commenting on a game mechanism it uses.
Thar being said, designing around "Blocking" is not much different than designing around units that get defensive bonuses in games like Magic. In fact, it may be easier to design in a game where most units can't block vs. All units being able to block.
Honestly, I hadn't thought about balancing the value of defensive bonuses and how that could be mathematically more difficult. I always find it easier to determine the value of something when it grants a number ("draw one card" versus "destroy an opponent's creature" numerically have the same value, but are very matchup dependent as well). But I could be totally wrong and it could be easier to assign some numerical value to Blocker and leave it at that. If it appears weak, lower the assigned value. If it appears strong, increase it.
I know this is 2 years old, but I just wanted to say that I'm not quite sure how you're defining "blocker" here.
Hearthstone doesn't allow you to decide who blocks, rather letting the attacking player decide, be it attacking a player or a creature, though there is a keyword that forces the attacking player to be able to attack only that creature. I think this constitutes a blocker keyword.
However, I don't think this a problem. Hearthstone and other digital CCGs do tend to appreciate being able to have less manual interaction. But aside from that, since Hearthstone has summoning sickness, instead of blocking enemy attacks, it's usually just as effective to remove the enemies that would want to attack you. Instead of choosing who blocks who and being at a stalemate because every time someone attacks, you can block it with your best blocker and trade evenly, in Hearthstone, you can retaliate, and while you can't stop your opponent from trading unfairly, it's fine because your opponent can't stop you, either. So instead of going one-for-one, maybe it's more like your opponent goes one-for-zero but on your turn you can also go one-for-zero, and it's basically the same.
This is best facilitated by the Rush mechanic, where creatures can somewhat circumvent summoning sickness - the turn it's summoned, it still can't hit face, but it can attack enemy creatures. So you don't need to block the attack: just remove the attacker.
In Shadowverse, which has a very similar playstyle to Hearthstone, you have Evolution Points which you can spend to "evolve" a creature, once a turn, with a limit per game. The most common effect when evolving a creature is to give it +2/+2 and Rush, making this "remove the attacker" playstyle even more accessible to all decks. In fact, the "blocker" mechanic in Shadowverse is typically only useful in the early game, or summoning multiple of them or a particularly strong one as a tool against OTKs. Even decks that have a lot of Haste-like creatures that ignore summoning sickness also have removal options so one or two weak blockers aren't going to help. (as a side note, this is what makes a certain aggro deck in the "can use all cards" format kinda busted because it just got a card that made a bunch of creatures that got a Haste-like effect on a condition, basically have no condition. But if you make sure you don't have enough cards that ignore the summoning sickness effect, or alternatively ensure that you don't have removal alongside these effects via systems similar to Magic's colors, that won't be a problem)
This also means that while the defending player has less options, the attacking player has more. For example, do you kill off the enemy creature with 10 attack when you have 11 health? Or do you pray that he has no burn damage so that you can hit face and win next turn? Or, in Hearthstone, there's a card that steals an enemy creature on death. Your opponent could try to damage or kill off any of their own creatures before killing said card, to make the stolen target have less health, or lower the chances of a powerful card getting stolen. There's something similar in Shadowverse. There's a deck I like to play called Chess Rune, who gets a massive power spike once 8 tokens named Pawns have died. Pawns are 1/1 Rush creatures that can attack creatures on the turn they're summoned. It's a common play pattern for the opponent (and myself though that's rarer) to trade ineffeciently, such as bumping a 1/1 into a 1/2, then trading in the 2/1 into the same 1/2 (though now damaged to a 1/1). This is because, say I have 7/8 pawns dead right now. If my opponent let his 1/1 stay alive, I can trade a pawn in and get powered up. But with nothing on his field, I have a hard time killing off my own pawn.
All right this is moot point cause duel masters is one of the longest running game in all of japan. Also the mtg bais is evident to see. I have played a lot of duel masters and blockers are so much cooler in the game kuu kai is such a cool design. Blockers is an ok skill at best it's not the be all and end all of a deck.
I'm actually not a super huge fan of MTG, it's just the TCG most players have played, so it's easy to use as a foundation when talking about particular topics. But my bias is definitely a predominantly Western one where I want games to be a little longer with more counterplay. From what I understand, Japanese players tend to like fast games.
so not only did you go into this with a biased opinion against it you also did not even look at the games overall design to think about why it is the way it is and what "you change" would do the game as a whole. You also did not even think about the intention of the game. If you want a slower style game then fine blocker on everything is good but if you want a faster game then you want to limit blocking and its uses. Like there is 2 sides of the argument and there is a lot of things you are missing that is what is making this come off really poor and not well thought out even for an opinion piece. Like I dont think everything said was wrong but you just missed a lot that could have made your point better.
I didn't want to post a 45 minute video. I could have, because I do understand the positives to "Blocker." But I may have to do a response to my own video lol
@@pidgipotato7458 actually, posting a video where you discuss with someone the ups and downs of this system could be interesting. Just stating thoughts is cool, but in depth discussions tend to be more valuable. And I can tell you have the technical skills to create such a video.
@@pidgipotato7458 I 100% would considering the backlash. Like digimon is a different game and it has a very interesting design. Yes it has its flaws but you need to acknowledge it's core when talking about its design. Offense and defense is more than just attacking and blocking and the defense plan is a little her to understand unless you really have played a lot of games using a lot of decks vs a lot of decks.
Like right now the top decks are not aggro decks they are control decks that fight for board dominance. Like I would have played a lot of games and asked a lot of players how they felt about it and take that into consideration when making a video like this and not just blurp out an opinion, especially when talking about design.
I'll definitely consider this, then. I definitely know I have absolutely zero solved about Digimon. And my main game is Vanguard (skill not really required for Standard). But I did play Kaijudo and Chrono Clash and have been hurt by Sentinel/Blocker style abilities before lol.
@@pidgipotato7458 Making a video without really experiencing the game might not have been a smart move. Like the cards are made around having blocker as a keyword and both the design and flow of the game would change dramatically if it was a thing every mon could do. I use to work for Argent saga and they have blocker as a keyword (it's called guardian but it's the same thing) and people never really bitched about that or ever saw it was a problem because of how the rest of the game was designed around that and what the other forms of defense are. Like there is merit to some of what you said but I am sure you have read that there is also merit to how it is currently done. I personally don't care between the 2 as long as the game supports the choice they made. Digimon not haveing a defense stat makes universal blocking very hard as the whole game would need to be rebalanced around that, most games that have universal blocking tend to have a defense stat of some sort otherwise it just doesn't work. Like the bigger issue in terms of its current design isn't in the defense plan on having too few blockers it is in the lack of a comeback mechanic. So you are dancing around the bigger issue (at least to me).
Like if you win the board it is going to be very hard for the opponent to come back because you have the ability to control and limit the opponent's actions because of the memory system and you have a mega to their nothing. So trying to re-establish is something very hard to do as the opponent won't let you have a lot of memory to re-establish and you have to work up vs an opponent who doesn't have to. Universal blockers won't fix this issue. But sometimes the fight to win the board is the most complex thing about the game because of the memory management aspect of the game. Then there is also evolution planning and when/how you attack and what you attack. Like there is a lot of moving parts that blocker didnt really feel like it was bad as is. Yes you do find yourself in situations where you die to raising area but that is just because you might have played the rest of the game poorly, drew poorly, or whatever.
you also have to remember the different design spaces games are made in. JP tends to like different things than EN. Japanese card game design tends to favor quick games with lots of big and exciting things (even if they are not balanced). That is why a game like yugioh is so crazy because you combo off, play a lot of cards, and to the player that is exciting and that is what japan likes. EN tends to like a more balanced game with a lot of build-ups to a solid payoff. So please keep in mind the differences in design photocopies as that is also a huge factor to think about.
Like I like it when people talking about game design I dislike when people don't do the proper research before they try to explain something to others. and I think a lot of others picked up on that based on the feedback.
I tend to do design talks about the game too every now and then. I should do more TBH czcams.com/video/XFncJpuuZ-M/video.html
Duel Masters is a really good game and it makes good use of blocker cards.
Duel Master sought to give cards a specific role and that adds tactical value to the gameplay and character to the cards themselves. Meanwhile in MTG, stalling is the name of the game, specially for blue and white players, which are aspects that ruin the fun imo.
This put, I really don't see blocking as an ability that damaging.
Duel Masters is not big in the west and is a great game, however it is popular in Japan.
Another good example is Yugioh. It has no blockers as every card may block, something good in your opinion because makes the game more ballanced, however everyone knows Yugioh is a bad game and even worse when it comes to ballance AND its very big in the west.
I honestly don't think you have a point.
You are so right!
I'd love your thoughts on this. I never thought about it that way. Great perspective. I'd like to try a game you have designed.
I have thought about designing a game, but haven't gotten around to it. I'm also definitely not a professional game designer or even have any experience in it. I've just played almost every TCG I've come across and have an idea of what I like to play. That said, if I design a game, I'll definitely post something about it here!
I love this video! And I totally agree!
Thanks for the support!
Basically why make balancing harder than it needs to be. I agree just keep it simple.
You silly
I've been assuming blocking was universal. I've been playing the game wrong apparently
Lol, I have played many a TCG wrong, so don't feel too bad.
weird flex.
Great idea.
Well, I think you triggered a few people in a certain group :D Enjoy the views! But seriously, I get your point. But this games counter balances blockers pretty well by making cards, that are tapped attackable, though that veery strong mons with high DP are still difficult to take down, because its already difficult to manage memory, and if you have to play a few champions to attack a high dp boi, you already spend your memory. Or one champion with option cards, like in magic, but still, a player that has already the upper hand is harder to take down in this game, in my opinion.
Yeah, I've seen some of the new cards coming in set 4 and will honestly probably be making a video rebutting this one by the looks of it. But that doesn't change how I feel and what I see as a possible problem in the future, ya know?
*Not why you received this many dislikes but I thought you made a valid point*
This video deserved to be ratioed so much harder than it was. The guy didn't make a valid point because his point was basically "Fact: I am right about my preferences and you are wrong if you disagree." He didn't dive into the core mechanics that make DCG a different card game or why they would design their blocker mechanic differently. There are a ton of reasons why in DCG blocker is keyworded, and why in MTG blocker is universal. He never gave an example of how the game would actually work much less benefit from having universal blockers. He just said I don't like it, but here is why I love Magic.