Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6403855" data-attributes="member: 4937">You are underestimating the impact of Chuck Norris on the game.&nbsp; MtG is a CCG with constructed decks, meaning both players get to choose what cards they put in their deck.&nbsp;&nbsp; If Chuck Norris is printed, then the chance of a player winning (influencing the outcome of the game) is maximized by constructing a deck so that Chuck Norris is the only card in the deck.&nbsp; This is permitted by the special rules of the Chuck Norris card.&nbsp; Further, the way that Chuck Norris is written suggests that you can win with Chuck Norris before the game actually begins.&nbsp;&nbsp; As soon as you draw your cards to begin play, both players are free to play Chuck Norris and win the game regardless of whose turn it is or anything else.&nbsp; Chuck Norris is not balanced.&nbsp; The presence of the card in the game exerts so much force on the rest of the game that it simply destroys the game.&nbsp; Everyone that wishes to participate in the game is forced to play Chuck Norris or lose.&nbsp;&nbsp; I choose Chuck Norris to be an extreme example because some real examples of cards that are inherently unbalanced are much more subtle and require a lot of experience to understand why they ruin the game in context.&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree.&nbsp; I don't claim that being balanced is sufficient.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, balanced covers a lot of ground.&nbsp;&nbsp; It means that not only do both players have a chance to play, but that the legitimate play that is available is sufficiently varied in scope.I'll give you another example.&nbsp; There was a game in the 1980's called Karateka.&nbsp;&nbsp; Initial play of the game made it seem that it was a difficult game requiring mastery of complex timing and combos.&nbsp; However, after the initial bit of shock involved in learning to control the character's slow response to your commands, you quickly discovered that basically every opponent could be defeated by just spamming side kicks continually.&nbsp; The side kick was your longest attack.&nbsp; It took the same amount of time to execute as your other kicks.&nbsp; No opponent had an attack of longer range.&nbsp; If the opponent attempted to side kick you, at worst it would double block.&nbsp;&nbsp; At that point, the otherwise engrossing game resolved down to: side kick, side kick, side kick, side kick, for like 40 minutes.&nbsp; You'd occasionally pull other attacks just because you got bored, but the point is you never needed to pull any other attack ever.&nbsp; All your attempted skill mastery was pointless.&nbsp;&nbsp; This was a single player game.&nbsp; You had nothing to compete with except yourself.That is bad balance, and not some other sort of bad design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6403855, member: 4937"] You are underestimating the impact of Chuck Norris on the game. MtG is a CCG with constructed decks, meaning both players get to choose what cards they put in their deck. If Chuck Norris is printed, then the chance of a player winning (influencing the outcome of the game) is maximized by constructing a deck so that Chuck Norris is the only card in the deck. This is permitted by the special rules of the Chuck Norris card. Further, the way that Chuck Norris is written suggests that you can win with Chuck Norris before the game actually begins. As soon as you draw your cards to begin play, both players are free to play Chuck Norris and win the game regardless of whose turn it is or anything else. Chuck Norris is not balanced. The presence of the card in the game exerts so much force on the rest of the game that it simply destroys the game. Everyone that wishes to participate in the game is forced to play Chuck Norris or lose. I choose Chuck Norris to be an extreme example because some real examples of cards that are inherently unbalanced are much more subtle and require a lot of experience to understand why they ruin the game in context. I agree. I don't claim that being balanced is sufficient. However, balanced covers a lot of ground. It means that not only do both players have a chance to play, but that the legitimate play that is available is sufficiently varied in scope. I'll give you another example. There was a game in the 1980's called Karateka. Initial play of the game made it seem that it was a difficult game requiring mastery of complex timing and combos. However, after the initial bit of shock involved in learning to control the character's slow response to your commands, you quickly discovered that basically every opponent could be defeated by just spamming side kicks continually. The side kick was your longest attack. It took the same amount of time to execute as your other kicks. No opponent had an attack of longer range. If the opponent attempted to side kick you, at worst it would double block. At that point, the otherwise engrossing game resolved down to: side kick, side kick, side kick, side kick, for like 40 minutes. You'd occasionally pull other attacks just because you got bored, but the point is you never needed to pull any other attack ever. All your attempted skill mastery was pointless. This was a single player game. You had nothing to compete with except yourself. That is bad balance, and not some other sort of bad design. [/QUOTE]

Verification