DM Home
Message Board
DM News Reports
Trading Card Game
Price Guide
Card of the Day
Duel Yammers - Fan Tips
Top 10 Lists
Tourney Reports
Featured Writers
JMatthew on DM
cecillbill's C-Notes
Hydromorph
Deck Garages
Dry’s Arsenal
Drizer's Dungeon
cecillbill's Dojo
Knives101's Lab
NFG's Garage
aka GDOG'S-VERSION
Spoilers
Base Set DM-01
Evo-Crushinators of Doom DM-02
Rampage of the Super Warriors DM-03
Starter Deck
Shobu's Fire Deck
Kokujo's Darkness Deck
Shadowclash Collector's Tin
Shadowclash of Blinding Night Spoiler
Survivors of the Megapocalypse
Disruptive Forces Decklist
Block Rockers Decklist
Duel Masters Starter Set (2)
Twin Swarm Deck
Hard Silence Deck
Promo Card List
Stomp-a-trons
Thundercharge
Epic Dragons
Fatal Brood
Shockwaves
Blastplosion
Thrash Hybrid
Video Games
Sempai Legends
Other
Staff
Magic
Yu-Gi-Oh!
Duel Masters
DBZ
Pokemon
Yu Yu Hakusho
NeoPets
HeroClix
Harry Potter
Anime
Vs. System
Megaman
|
|
Tom Rogers on Duel Masters
The Answer Addendum: Perfection in Card Gaming
January 22, 2010
Preface
In my previous installment, I discussed the dominant
archetype in Duel Masters as well as effective maneuvers
when playing the game. This time, we’re going to dive
more into the heart of gaming and the infrastructure.
I must forewarn you again before you proceed to read the
material. I’m providing you with some hard hitting stuff. I
mean [i]hard[/i]. We’re going to be dealing with the [i]entire[/i]
series of principles card games are based upon, and why they
are flawed. Chances are you’re not going to like it.
Resistance is inevitable. If you’re short of temper, or
would rather continue to stay where you are in the mindset
of card gaming, [b]do not proceed[/b].
If you’re choosing to continue, I’m going to be assuming you
thoroughly read [url=http://tomrogers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=416]
“The Answer”[/url], which you can find in the footnotes of
this text. This is the only recommended material for
understanding what I’m going to describe to you, though
having a basic idea of probability and permutation is
certainly going to help.
The final note I’d like to make before presenting the
material to you is that this is strictly from the
interpretation of the Good Player. Referencing [url=http://tomrogers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=223
]“Potential Players and Bad Players”[/url] is advised for an
accurate, clear-cut definition of this term. Be sure to
completely understand the conversation that takes place in
this article, as well as the determined result before
reading the text.
Why We Play
Card games are fun. If you didn’t find a game fun, you
wouldn’t play, right?
Wrong.
There are people who play games for various reasons, some
more reasonable then others. Believe it or not, there are
people who play your game of choice out of spite. There are
players purely in the game for personal validation. There
are players in the game to [i]win[/i]. But why do they play,
if the game doesn’t offer the same positive incentive as it
does to most?
Today, we’re going to discuss the different kinds of
negative players and how they impact the game you’re
playing. Unfortunately, players of this nature [i]do[/i]
have significance, and they [i]do[/i] decrease the health of
the game. We’ll go into this later, but first is integral to
define these kinds of players.
All card games are determined in some part by chance. If
they didn’t, the best player would win every game they ever
play. This is clearly not the case. Various factors pertain
to winning and losing, as described in the original
installment of this text. This leads to issues with
human mentality and gambling, and the psychological
tendencies that come along with them.
Win Mongers
Some people are actually [i]addicted[/i] to winning. This
isn’t to be confused with those who enjoy it, as we all do
and shouldn’t be playing otherwise. The object of the game
is to win – but where is the line?
“Cheating is commonplace. Every single game. Every single
match. Every single tournament -- National, Regional, Local,
despite the location. Despite age, despite interests,
despite intentions, despite platforms. Gaming has become a
ruthless endeavor to brutally kick the opponent down and
seize the "win" by any means possible, diluting
it's value and creating an addictive nature upon which the
foundation of card gaming will now forever reside. It's
doomed. Nothing can fix it.
There is no "good will" or "consideration."
There is no courtesy. There is no respect. There is no
honesty. You will intentionally be stalled to time, given
the short end of a poor ruling (god forbid you're sharked),
and your opponent will proclaim this as a demonstration of
their skill as the 'superior' player, gobbling down their
win and scampering off into the shadows with the rest of the
wretched devils who play the game of your choice.” (3)
Now I’m sure we’ve all met one of these players before.
Weather your local tournament scene, regional events, or
online gaming ring. They’re everywhere, and they’re coming
for your terrain of choice. They [i]will[/i] end up in the
same play area as you, and the disease will spread. Your
game will be destroyed, along with the players around you.
There’s nothing you can do to stop them. It’s going to
happen. Card gaming as a whole is on it’s deathbed. The only
reason this particular faction of Duel Masters has survived
for so long is the lack of a player base motivated to win
(and as such wouldn’t develop into these ‘Win Mongers’), and
the unrealistic dedication of some of the game’s top players
and their efforts at Gates of Fate. This isn’t to glorify my
own community. I implore you to look at the various remnants
remaining where the game may be discussed – Pojo’s Gaming
Forum, Wizards Community Forums, and the new DuelZone are
the most prominent. Each of these sites is infected
with Win Mongers. Any thread posted on them is corroded with
filth and bragging of conquest by these rejects, where they
will clash with each other until the end over who’s truly of
value to the game’s existence. We’ve even planted a few
threads [i]directly[/i] from Gates of Fate, and watched as
other members willingly carried the topic over to these
forums, only to see it destroyed by these degenerates.
You’d think to call a moderator, but you won’t be answered.
This is because either the moderators don’t pay any mind to
the section of a dying game, much less one that has been
resting for years. If they do, they’re probably one of the
Win Mongers, lording their authority over you to maintain
dominion over the entire, selfish, filthy conversation. You
won’t get anywhere in these discussions, no matter how
righteous and pure your intentions. Even if others on the
thread agree and are willing to participate, these Win
Mongers will come in hoards and repeatedly take up page upon
page, smothering the value of each and every thread with
shallow, pointless bickering, outweighing your important
information with their “points” and “arguments” which they
have the unrealistic audacity to consider valid or
important.
There is no solution to the Win Monger, other than to move
away from their place of occupancy. Gates of Fate is
dedicated to keeping these people out while fostering the
conversations we hold so valuable. It’s about the only thing
we can do now – just hold on and keep the boarder strong,
while continually reaching to prosper. It’s difficult to
outweigh the Win Mongers in general, and even more
challenging in a completed game. There isn’t any other
alternative. They will not stop.
Bad Players
Unlike the Win Mongers, bad players are nothing new to the
world of card gaming. There are always people who don’t want
to win. They’re much happier being “right,” in their own
convoluted definition of the term. Their values are
drastically misplaced, often harping on the virtue of a
particular aspect other than actually playing the game being
of greater significance. The most common example of this
would be one who insists that the building of decks equates
to equal proficiency or “skill” as actually playing with the
strategy.
Now, this mentality is horribly flawed. It’s been proven to
be flawed for what would be eons in the card game world, and
the gaming world in general. Yet these perpetrators of the
game’s infrastructure still exist, no matter how much they
lose or are ridiculed by Good Players and even the Win
Mongers.
I’m going to take this time to point out that Win Mongers
are [i]not[/i] Good Players, as they are not learning from
their victories and are seizing them by means which are
considered unethical by any proper player of the game. Under
no circumstances should you condone cheating as proper way
to play the game, and no player using these or other
underhanded means should be considered proficient. They
clearly need “stilts” to achieve their victories, often
undeservingly, and thus the quality of winning is
dramatically lower than the winning of a Good Player. One
may even argue, and probably will, that the winning of a Win
Monger has [i]no[/i] significance, and they are even worse
than the Bad Players. This is inevitably true, and we will
go into why in the next section.
Regardless, Bad Players are still a lasting and important
aspect of gaming. These are not to be confused with players
of little skill or of average demeanor. These players fall
under the category of Potential Player, and are eagerly
looking to raise their skill level to participate in the
upper echelons of competitive play (2).
Like Win Mongers, Bad Players are here to stay. However,
it’s much easier to separate yourself from the Bad Players .
They won’t infest the gaming world, as it is against the
infrastructure. This is by no means condoning the mentality
of Bad Players, as they are still detrimental to the health
of the game. However, they are a necessary part of the
environment in a proper ratio.
Ulteriors
The last kind of player which has a negative impact on the
health of a game is the Ulterior – one who has a motive due
to their opinion of what is best for the game, or often the
world of gaming. They will go out of their way to ‘prove’
this concept and devote their entire existence within the
game to doing so.
For example, an Ulterior may believe one game is superior to
another. They join the game they deem ‘inferior’ and learn
to play, then attempt to become successful within that game.
Should they win in this game, the Ulterior plans to proclaim
the virtues of the other game and how it requires much more
“skill” or some other demeanor than the inferior game. Thus,
the ulterior motive through playing this game is to ‘prove’
the significance of the other.
Although they have become a rarity in the card game world,
Ulteriors are a damaging component to the gaming community.
They fuel both of the other species and increase their
reliability rate, which is detrimental to the sportsmanship
and win value of the game.
Game Health
There are various factors which contribute to the overall
health of the game. As mentioned, the ratio of negative
impacting player types is an important and affects the
game’s overall health. Other factors that affect game health
are the consistency of tiers and emphasis on the skill gap.
Negative Impact Ratio
The Negative Impact Ratio can completely destroy a game. If
there are too many negative player types to stay away from,
the game may be completely consumed and devoid of worth in
victory (thus making it pointless) or utterly destroy it by
driving out the larger player base.
Win Mongers
Win Mongers are the most substantial problem, because most
Win Mongers do win at the game they’re playing. They may not
do so fairly, but they are winning at the end of the day.
This is a problem because the object of the game is to win,
so they can often be misconceived as Good Players. This is
incredibly dangerous because onlooking Potential Players
will note that these players are successful and may imitate
the underhanded means Win Mongers are using to obtain their
status. Thus, the Potential Player influenced by the Win
Monger will devote their willingness to learn on how to
cheat, how to improperly benefit from a ruling situation
(sharking), or anything else to give them an upper hand.
They will eventually be unable to understand the game
without these negative connotations and will ruthlessly
employ them to continue winning. They will [i]become[/i] Win
Mongers, because the victories will serve as reinforcement
for their inappropriate actions. This means there will be
more Win Mongers, and the influx of new players will be
continually polluted. As you can see, this can completely
take over a game and rot it from the inside out. This is why
it’s important to isolate Win Mongers, especially from
competitive play.
The tournament policies for most games try to do this as
best as possible with a series of deterrents for unfair
circumstances generated by players. For example, a player
caught cheating may be disqualified, suspended, or even
banned from events. The degree and consistency at which
these policies are enforced determine the amount of Win
Mongers that exist within the game. A zero tolerance policy
would have very little to no Win Mongers at a competitive
level, as they would want to continue playing and as such
would have to adhere to the rules, whereas a lenient policy
would increase the ratio of Win Mongers, as they could play
unfairly and suffer minimal penalties for doing so.
When Win Mongers are at the top of the food chain, the value
of winning is practically nonexistent. Anything can be done
to win and condoned, because ‘winning is winning.’ This
decreases the sportsmanship of the game as it condones
negative actions such as cheating, sharking, or other
outside influences to gain an upper hand. The relationship
between these two variables is completely parallel.
Bad Players
Bad Players are the only kind of negative impact players to
positively impact the state of the game, and this is only
through one way: they are walking deterrents for Potential
Players. Potential Players may be undecided about a
particular aspect concerning the game and looking to observe
others to gain perspective. Seeing a player who is Good
enforcing this aspect will condone it’s use, but this is
often more difficult to affirm because of Win Mongers.
Potential Players may not be sure if the aspect is
beneficial because the player is Good, or because the Win
Monger is cheating. After all, if you’re not playing by the
rules, how can it be determined the procedures you [i]are[/i]
adhering to significantly contribute to your victory? There
are also different styles of play benefitted by particular
aspects, of which Good players can be different parts of.
For example, a particular card choice may be beneficial to
Good Players who play in a very aggressive fashion. This
same card may not be helpful in the hands of a Good Player
who plays conservatively. If both players are of similar
skill level, the Potential Player may have a hard time
distinguishing if the card in question is a good idea or
not. Often it is not easy to tell for somebody at this stage
in the game whether or not a card choice is helpful in
general or due to preference.
Seeing a Bad Player use the same card would reinforce the
notion that the card is simply not a good idea, rather than
a matter of preference or benefit to a particular
circumstance. If the player who is not winning is sharing
the same mentality as the player the card is working for, it
may not necessarily be the best route for you to take. The
Good Player using the card may be experiencing a good deal
of luck where the card appears successful, or simply have
made a bad card choice. As a Good Player, they will
eventually notice and correct this, but the Potential Player
scouting games from the sidelines may not and continue to
attempt to find hidden significance in the card’s use.
For the mostpart, though, Bad Players are bad for the game.
They steer the Potential Players in the wrong direction, and
if the game doesn’t have enough tier consistency or skill
gap, they may be drifted to the losing side under the
impression that the thought processes are condonable.
It’s important that a game has enough Bad Players to display
the ineffectiveness of particular circumstances or
mentalities, while not so much as to convince a new player
that these ideas are commonplace and desirable.
Ulteriors
Ulteriors are bad for the game because they coincide with
other negative player types to increase their influence over
the Potential Players. A Bad Player may agree with an
Ulterior on a different game requiring more “skill” or
insist that it’s “easy” to do something important in the
current game. This often tends to be the common combination,
as Bad Players look for any excuse possible to insist they
are “right,” and often complain about the ‘unfairness’ of a
game to justify their shortcomings. Ulteriors also join with
Win Mongers, or can possibly become Win Mongers.
Win Mongers may have appreciation for a concept, let’s say
an easier time gaining victory in another game they also
play, which they share interest for with the Ulterior due to
their insatiable thirst for winning. Ulteriors may be so
desperate to ‘prove’ their concept that they take up
underhanded means of doing so, becoming Win Mongers with the
motive of proving our example of the other game requiring
‘more skill,’ since they can in appearance “effortlessly” or
“easily” win in this game. The only way to reduce the way of
Ulterior players is to increase the potential for enjoyment
of the game. If the game is fun, and the players are
content, why would they need to prove another game is
better?
Ulteriors also coerce Potential Players into the concepts
they are promoting in a way which damages the game. In the
example we’ve been using, the Potential Player may
mistakenly agree with the Ulterior and jump ships to the
other game. This lowers the player base, which unbalances
the ratio of player types.
Desirably, there are [i]no[/i] Ulteriors in your game of
choice, just like Win Mongers. However, they [i]will[/i]
exist, so the methods of deterring such behaviors should be
emphasized as much as possible without interfering with
sportsmanship. For example, an absolute zero tolerance
policy with maximum penalties on anything that can possibly
be considered cheating may deter players who clumsily drop a
card and are disqualified from an event. This would set off
a wave of deterrence to other players who feel they may
befall the same fate, while actually promoting a tool for
the Win Mongers to abuse and gain dominance without having
to cheat.
Consistency of Tiers
Originality is bad for card games.
If you’ve read the above statement and feel any sort
of hostility, perhaps you should have heeded the warning in
the Preface instead of continuing to read. It’s absolutely,
undeniably true. Originality increases two major factors we
don’t want in card games – bad sportsmanship and luck.
However, some degree of originality is required for the game
to not be completely boring, but too much will offset the
skill gap which is the fairness gauge relied on for
enjoyment of the game.
General Application
Certain elements of luck are unavoidable – for example, if
we’re playing with cards, there is always going to be “luck
of the draw.” However, there are various mechanics within
the game which can increase or decrease the power of such an
element. For example, a game with no resource system will
maximize the luck of a draw, since it can be used at the
drop of a hat with little to no consequences. Universal
Fighting System has a process by which you flip the top card
of your deck and compare it’s cost to the cost of the card
you’re playing. If the flipped card has a cost lower than
the cost of the played card, your effect will not resolve.
This is an absurd “luck of the draw” factor in which your
planned-out and calculated play may not resolve simply
because another card was in a particular place at that
precise time. One may argue that probability and permutation
should have a role in determining the outcome of your
effects, but there is always a luck factor involved with
cards so the calculations may not always determine the
card’s placement. This is one more instance in the game
where you can “crapshoot” simply because certain things
existed in certain places (‘luck of the draw’).
Universal Fighting System and World of Warcraft also have
resources which provide abilities other than resource
generation or menial effects (such as most of those used in
Magic: The Gathering). There are entire combinations and
strategy themes which can be created purely out of or
dramatically reinforced simply by the resources used.
This creates another “luck of the draw” factor, in which the
very resources used to play cards need to be in certain
places, at certain times, in certain combinations, as well
as certain intervals. This is also unhealthy for positioning
within the game, as it’s no longer as important because
comebacks are potentialized simply by resources (which are
necessary for the game to be played) of a particular nature
exist at certain points in time.
Other luck factors which decrease the Skill Gap are the
battle rewards system in Naruto and the shields system in
Duel Masters, which both almost completely rely on luck and
carry tremendous influence on the game. These are both
‘life’ systems in their respective games, making the luck
factor even more powerful on gameplay. In Naruto, you are
awarded one “battle reward” for a successful attack of low
to moderate damage…from the top of the opponent’s deck,
placed face down. That’s right – if you let an attack go
through, you can lose an integral part of your strategy for
absolutely no reason. Throw probability and permutation out
the window folks, your cards can just be stripped away by
the general mechanic of attacking – and you usually won’t
even know which ones they are until after the game. In Duel
Masters, the first five cards of your shuffled deck are
placed face-down as shields and returned to your hand when
successfully attacked. Because of the timing involved in the
game, the right card being added to your hand at the right
time can make all the difference. There are also cards with
“shield trigger” which allow them to be casted for no cost –
these are the [i]only[/i] type of cards that can be played
during the opponent’s turn in the Trading Card Game, and [i]only[/i]
when used under this circumstance. Once again, probability
and permutation hardly matter – the order of the opponent’s
attacks, the specific shield they are targeting, [i]when[/i]
they are attacking, and the exact card that comes up are all
way too important. I can expect two shield triggers a game
by calculation, but one of them can be a card that doesn’t
help, single-handedly wins me the game, or doesn’t even come
up at all. This is all determined completely at random,
influenced by undeterminable points of action during the
game. You can obviously predict when particular strategies
are going to conduct attacks, but you don’t choose your
shields. There will be points where you get the wrong shield
at the wrong time, or lose the wrong battle reward seconds
before you needed it to win.
Needless to say, when the game is based on luck, the rate of
bad sportsmanship and cheating will increase. It’s
frustrating to lose for no reason, and if you can win for no
reason, people will exploit this – especially the Win
Mongers, who will gain advantage through being able to
influence the game’s unpredictable nature. Forcing the
opponent to crapshoot, resolving effects at likely times,
hitting the right battle reward, or having the right shield
all make huge differences in the game.
Tier 0 and Game Health
A game at it’s optimal health has a Tier Zero. This means
there is one dominant deck which consistently defeats all
others in the field of play. Why is that a good thing?
Wouldn’t you want a large spectrum of unique, original decks
with creative forms of victory? Isn’t that the “point” of
the game?
Well that’s all [i]nice[/i], but you might as well stick
that pacifier back in your mouth and ride your unicorn back
to Candyland if you honestly believe having that many decks
is good for the game. The problem with too many powerful
decks is that the types of strategies used and their
matchups against each other begin to outweigh the skill of
the players. Games are more likely to be decided by who
draws what specific cards against the specific deck they’re
playing against at that specific time, in a specific
situation, in a crucial moment of play. A game with any deck
being completely competitive is a game in utter chaos – as
such, it inspires cheating and thus an influx of Win
Mongers. Win Mongers destroy games, therefore a completely
diverse game is doomed to internal destruction.
Small hints of originality to provide flavor and unique
experiences is wonderful, and about as much as the game can
do without overemphasizing luck. This usually comes in the
form of “tech” options, cards players use to benefit their
specific patterns of play or grant them an edge against a
particular strategy (or element of a strategy) they have
trouble dealing with. Notice that if the game is too
diverse, the tech will be based on particular matchups and
become a dead card in others, creating more luck as to when
the card comes up against random opponents influencing
circumstances of victory. However, in a game with a Tier
Zero, the tech may be used to implement a certain function
and deepen the complication of game state, forcing both
players to think harder and maneuver more skillfully to win.
Tier Zero isn’t always attainable, so the next best thing is
a highly-selective field of Tier 1 decks. Usually, this is a
maximum of three strategies which can possibly win a
competitive event. Any more than this begins to skew what is
at the top and the bottom of the tier, there are too many
specific cards which are dead against some and help against
the others, and we’re tossed back into the realm of luck of
the draw. Three is even pushing it, depending on the
particular game and the nature of the cards used in the
strategies, but for argument’s sake we’ll say it’s the next
best thing to Tier Zero. In this case, we would want the
lowest deck in the first tier to defeat any anti-meta
strategies which would condemn the other two, but have a
difficult match against them itself. This reduces the amount
of deck-based matchups for the other Tier 1 decks and
benefits the players with higher degrees of skill. Ideally,
the top or favorable tied Tier 1 deck will have a problem
with this deck, but have an advantage against rogue
strategies bordering tournament contention. The secondary
Tier 1 deck would then ideally have a slight advantage over
the Tier 1 deck, but have difficulty handling rogue
strategies or antimeta.
Essentially, this creates a triangle between the Tier 1
decks at which anything which is not Tier 1 is eliminated,
and variance and skill is the primary determinant of matches
between decks of this tier. You can see how the less number
of decks, the less emphasis on the deck being used and the
more emphasis on actual play. This is what we want, as the
skill gap should ideally determine the winner of the game.
Having a Tier Zero does this as closely as possible, because
the games become more about what you can do that others
can’t and your knowledge of the strategy and game itself.
The Skill Gap
The Skill Gap is the most important aspect of the game.
Ideally, it should enforce the concept that the better
player will win as often as possible. This obviously has
flaws due to the nature of card games, as we discussed, but
emphasizing the gap should be a priority in all games. Luck
obviously matters, but that doesn’t mean we should promote
luck-based mechanics in the game. There are inherent decks
which attest to the power of the skill gap, all phasing in
and out of competition.
For example, there are anti-meta decks which are built with
the objective to defeat the top tier deck. They are
obviously more focused in a Tier Zero metagame, but tend to
center on the favorable Tier 1 deck or a particular trait
the Tier 1 decks share in common when in a Tier 1 metagame.
These decks are often inconsistent and lose to anything that
is not the Tier 0/1 deck, and should lose to that deck more
often than not due to the Skill Gap. If the Tier 0 or Tier 1
player is superior in terms of skill, they should not lose
simply because their opponent happens to have cards which
create a difficult situation for them. There should be a
greater percentage that the Tier player is victorious, as
they are the better player and the better player will win as
often as possible. Obviously the anti-meta deck will defeat
the Tier deck at some points, which is why they are
inherently weaker to rogue decks or lower-level strategies
due to their overfocus on defeating a particular set of
cards or strategy. Thus, the anti-meta player compromises a
superior skill edge in each matchup for an advantage in a
particular deck matchup, and this is why they inherently do
not win as often.
Combination decks also attest to the Tier system, as they
can fluctuate in Tier depending on the combination and
circumstantial nature of stringing the cards together. These
are often “rogue” decks because they cannot consistently
place the cards together needed to defeat Tier decks on a
regular basis. If a combination deck becomes the Tier deck,
there tends to be an anti-meta combination breaker (reducing
it’s overall effectiveness in the competitive scene) or a
banning which stops the use of or significantly hinders the
combination. The latter option is of course with the
assumption that the combination is reliant on drawing the
right cards at the right time, and not the application or
timing of cards as it would be in Tier Zero contention. This
means the combination would have to result in victory
whenever successfully conducted, or have a high chance of
doing so before any action should be taken.
Ideally, control decks should be the Tier Zero or Tier 1 of
competitive play environments, for reasons discussed in the
original text. This has proven to be the most balanced
environment for card gaming since it’s conception, and
aggressive decks or gimmick decks should usually be Tier 2
or lower depending on their circumstantial nature and how
they fare against the top tier. Anti-meta decks should
ideally be Tier 3 or the bottom of Tier 2, where they can
compete with the top tier but be significantly endangered by
facing against the second tier (keeping the top tier at the
top, and the games based more on play decisions than
matchups, contributing to the health of the game).
Optimal Game Health and the Value of Winning
When the issues of deckbuilding and matchups are at a
minimum, the skill gap shines and increases the value of
winning. Winning is more rewarding because it’s out of
outplaying the opponent or making crucial in-game decisions,
rather than simply being placed across the table from the
right guy or drawing the proper cards at the proper time.
The emphasis of the better player winning at a consistent
rate is more rewarding to the competitive player than the
pot-luck metagame of diversity, which is full of frustration
and encourages negative aspects of gaming.
When the skilled players win reliably, newer players capable
of becoming Good are likely to join the game. This also
increases the likelihood of Potential Players to become Good
Players, as they are around better influences than in a
negative play environment full of Win Mongers, Bad Players,
and/or Ulteriors. The Ulteriors hardly exist in this type of
game, as the players are content with the outcome. Players
aren’t as enticed to become Win Mongers and play through
unfair means because they can train and be rewarded with
victory for their efforts. Bad Players won’t gain uneven
footing over the Potential Players, because the Good Players
will still be noticeably higher on the food chain. This
encourages Potential Players to increase their skill level,
enriching the quality of the game, rather than sit back with
the Bad Players and make excuses. However, a small amount of
Bad Players must exist to deter the Potential Players from
refusing to learn.
The key, therefore, in a successful card game is to breed as
many Good Players as possible. The question as to how to
train a large amount of proficient players has been
unanswered for a long time, but I believe we’re doing the
right thing at Gates of Fate by providing the new players
and players looking to improve their skills with the tools
to do so, and encouraging them to follow through
whole-heartedly.
|