Until one sits down to design a game, it's difficult to see how game mechanics are taken for granted by game designers. From a player's perspective, it's nearly impossible to differentiate between a "best practice" and an "outdated practice". Anyone attempting to design a new game needs to be aware of the greater design patterns across the industry. Below is a list of common patterns that we intentionally removed from the design space of our strategy-and-tactics card game. Manacaster is built on the premise of extremely precise, mathematical game balance, augmented by AI tools that can simulate millions of games. As one might imagine, the frameworks underlying the math include a large number of restrictions about what "can and can't be". Technically speaking, these are our design assertions against which we test all newly-created Manacaster cards. Speaking plainly, these are the "major sins" of our design space. They are not to be violated, full stop. In other words, a card will fail a balance check and be rejected by the "system" if one of our designers tries to do it. This may sound strict to some game designers, but we consider this a cornerstone of Game Engineering. Games, after all, are a self-contained system that produces a dynamic and repeatable outcome when given the correct inputs. What else to call such a thing, but an engine? So, with that premise set, here is a rather large list of mechanics you might see in other games, but you'll never find in Manacaster. Most of these mechanics were in the game at some point, but have since been removed, much to the delight of our beta testers :)

>> Direct-to-Player Damage

Assertion: Players should only lose life due to enemy Units dealing combat damage. Reasoning: Our early research showed that a large % of the fun in card games ( for example, Hearthstone, Magic, Pokemon, and YuGiOh ) was related to "creature combat". In other words, its fun to smash monsters with your friends. Result: Games don't end out of nowhere due to a random damage spell topdecked. Board stalls don't develop due to `onDies(damageOpp)` triggered abilities sitting on both sides. Combo Kills are generally simple as "count to 20" and require little-to-no explanation.

>> "Hard" Removal

Assertion: A Unit can only be killed by having its DEF reduced to 0, or receiving damage equal to its DEF in a single turn. Reasoning: Hard removal circumvents the balance system because it does not take into account the size of the target; it just dies outright. Before we added this restriction, Units costing more than 5 mana were basically useless. Result: No spells exist that 'destroy a Unit" or "destroy all Units". Players are rewarded for investing in their Units with permanent and temporary buffs. High-cost Units like the Titans, Kaiju, and Avatars become immensely valuable finishers ( instead of unplayable crap ). The best way to take down a Titan is generally with a series of cunning double-blocks and combat tricks, but a cheeky 12 mana Terminus also does a great job.

>> Forced Discard

Assertion: A player cannot force another player to discard a card from their hand. Reasoning: Forcing the opponent to discard cards from their hand reduces interactivity, which is a big no-no in our world. For every sicko* that loves discard-decks, there are 10 normal people who don't like playing against them. Result: Players are rewarded for sculpting a strong and versatile opening hand, being confident that half of their cards won't mysteriously vanish for no reason. Cards that allow self-discard, such as Psychic Strike or Quick Pivot, become powerful tools instead of unplayable liabilities. *You know who you are....

>> Counter-Spells

Assertion: No card should be able to nullify another card in the process of being played. Reasoning: First, our game's timing system has no concept of a "pending" spell, or a "stack", when it comes to casting spells*. There would exist no time frame in which another player could "interrupt". Second, counterspells are just another form of hard removal. Result: Generally more interactivity. No color bias towards any given element because "it has access to counterspells" or "it has access to direct damage", etc. *Note that triggers can form a stack if they all pop at once. Actions, however, resolve immediately upon being cast.

>> Resource RNG

Assertion: A player should have full control over the type and sequence of resource cards they deploy. Reasoning: One of the most frustrating feelings in a game is when you "just don't draw the mana you need". One player getting choked or flooded on resources ruins the game for both players and reduces overall interactivity. Result: The resource system in Manacaster is built around a 12-card secondary deck containing ONLY mana cards. Each turn, you must play one of your choice. The result is that players have more agency over their in-game fate, able to live and die by their choices without "mana screw" to blame.

>> Searching Your Deck

Assertion: Players cannot look at any deck for any reason at any time during the game. Reasoning: Searching your deck, or your opponent's takes a lot of extra time, especially in tabletop where shuffling is required thereafter. Top players will use this chance to make tiny adjustments to their mental math, meaning that Manacaster will require some memory component at the highest level ( which is not a good feature ). Result: Decks sizes are small enough that proper deck construction allows remarkable consistency across games. Players do not need to remember anything except the rules of the game.

>> Looking at Other Players' Hands

Assertion: Players should not see each other's hands. Reasoning: For the same reason we prohibit searching decks ( avoiding memory games ), we don't allow looking at the opponent's hand. If we permitted this, memory would become a vital component at the top level of play. Result: Manacaster remains a game which rewards diligent study and good strategy, not the ability to remember large quantities of small information. Almost everything needed to make an informed gameplay decision is made available by the current gamestate.

>> Activated Abilities

Assertion: Units should not have any "special abilities" such as tapping to deal damage or paying mana to draw cards. Reasoning: We wanted to keep the division between Units and Actions as crystal-clear as possible. "Units that act like Actions" was a thing we intentionally avoided. Units exist to live, battle, and die, not pretend to be magical spells. Result: Interacting with Units and Actions feel very different, in the complementary way we anticipated they would. Units that provide recurring effects do so by means of triggered abilities such as "at the start of your turn" and "when this Unit dies". Actions have an immediate impact on the game state and can swing entire games in a moment.

>> Mana Ramp

Assertion: Players gain exactly 1 mana each turn, to a maximum of 12. Reasoning: Mana "ramp" often leads to strategies that attempt to scale up faster than a typical deck. These decks often deploy enormous Units on early turns by sacrificing cards, creatures, or life points as a form of all-in strategy. In the absence of hard removal and counterspells, the only natural counter to "ramp into biggie" is "also ramp into biggie", creating a degenerate metagame condition. Result: Decks are rewarded for deploying Units on a tight mana curve, making full usage of their mana each turn, and grinding out attritional advantage over the turns. Fewer "let me explain my combo to you while you pack up your cards and go home, loser" moments.

>> Raising the Dead

Assertion: The discard pile is a one-way street. Reasoning: By avoiding interaction with the discard pile, the player's working memory is relieved of a small burden. Recurring or reviving a card breaks the rule of "one of a card per deck" by allowing the same card to be played twice. Result: Nothing. That's the point. You don't miss it. You don't notice it. You just keep playing and what's gone is gone. A perfect example of "addition by subtraction".

>> Mass Team Pump

Assertion: Anything which affects multiple Units must either specify the exact quantity, or it must affect ALL Units equally. Reasoning: Quite simply, we got sick of games ending because Player A had more Units and gave them all +5/+5. It's fun the first time. It's boring for both winner and loser after a dozen "pancake wins". Mathematically, it broke the game's core principle of "everything has a proportional cost". Result: When you get killed, you generally get killed with dignity by a big scary monster or a legitimate enemy horde. Mass removal spells remain crucial, but are not strictly mandatory as they were when mass team pump was around.

[ 2025-04-11 12:32:22 CET ] [ Original post ]