Crazy, weird idea for a Card Game meta...

[Ironsmith]

So, this was an idea I had a while back, but I never had any sort of "experts" to bounce it off of. I was wondering what y'all would think of it?

The concept's pretty simple; a standard trading card game setup of some description, only with a few slight tweaks;

-You do not trade individual cards. You trade (or gift) access to cards, which can then be used to any quantity you desire. So, mechanically, there's no major difference between having access to one Generic Goblin Ripoff and having access to a hundred (whether you actually use a hundred is, of course, totally up to you). Additionally, you don't actually lose a card if you trade it to someone else; you maintain access, it's just now that other person has it, too.

-Access to cards are not purchased on an individual basis; what you buy is access to the game. As in, you don't play to X point and then have to sink another $200 per year to stay relevant or fill out a collection; you just pay a certain amount (probably around the cost of your typical video game, roughly $30-50) and you're in. At the absolute highest amount of monetization, there might be a subscription fee so new content can still be made and the developers can put food on the table (and even a small amount distributed over a large enough fanbase will add up very quickly). This has the side effect of avoiding typical pay-to-win setups; you can't buy cards, the most you can buy is new accounts to trade yourself the new stuff when it comes out (which would be cheating and will not work out well for you).

-New cards and content are distributed to players either at random or by a criteria that encourages people of differing backgrounds and/or worldviews to interact (i.e. a Myers-Briggs style personality test). You don't purchase Generic Goblin Ripoff 2: Electric Boogaloo from on online store somewhere or in a loot crate; you get it by convincing your upstairs neighbor Bob to give it to you (most likely in exchange for something else; if he won't, there's probably still a dozen other players in the vicinity who might be willing to trade with you).

Obviously, this wouldn't work so great as a literal tabletop card game, and would more likely come out as an android/ios app or PC game if it ever came to be. That being said... thoughts from the crowd?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

So, I definitely get the intent. And I like the first idea: it's struck me as quite silly that you should have to keep accumulating multiple copies of a card in order to play it. I'm not sure how a virally-distributed game would work out, but it creates this odd dynamic where you have the haves and the have-nots. More importantly, it just sorta seems like a pointless exercise: if there's no downside to "trading", why not trade?

Your second point seems at odds with your first and third points. If I'm buying access to the game, then I should never have to collect cards. The whole point of buying access to the game is to get access to all the tools that every player has. It'd be like buying Starcraft but not being able to access Firebats, even though I paid for the whole game.

The third idea seems very exploitable and creates unfair advantages innately. If you have an incredibly powerful card, you have zero incentive to trade it with someone, because then they have access to it. If instead you selfishly keep it to yourself, nobody gets access to it until someone leaks the card. Neat social experiment, terrible play experience.

[Eldan]

More importantly, it just sorta seems like a pointless exercise: if there's no downside to "trading", why not trade?


Because of haves and have nots? If I'm the only one in my kitchen magic group who has access to dragons, why would I give it to my enemies, too?

[Ironsmith]

So, I definitely get the intent. And I like the first idea: it's struck me as quite silly that you should have to keep accumulating multiple copies of a card in order to play it. I'm not sure how a virally-distributed game would work out, but it creates this odd dynamic where you have the haves and the have-nots. More importantly, it just sorta seems like a pointless exercise: if there's no downside to "trading", why not trade?

The only reason not to trade is to keep goods to yourself, which can come back to bite you squarely in the butt if you're suddenly on the other end of what's in demand (so trade, darn you). On the other hand, getting to pick what to trade is an exercise in strategy all on its own (some people enjoy that kind of thing) and reinforces the sense of autonomy in the game; you got to decide what you have access to, and still get some sort of economically-tied satisfaction out of it to boot.


Your second point seems at odds with your first and third points. If I'm buying access to the game, then I should never have to collect cards. The whole point of buying access to the game is to get access to all the tools that every player has. It'd be like buying Starcraft but not being able to access Firebats, even though I paid for the whole game.

Two reasons. First, it prevents the players from being overwhelmed with a large amount of dynamic content right out of the gate, similar to the unlock systems most video games of any genre use. Second, it allows for some degree of voluntary selection in regards to what content is unlocked, and allows for the "going price" of any given part of it to be self-regulating (if a card is popular enough to be traded for, you're going to have a large quantity of vendors available for it).


The third idea seems very exploitable and creates unfair advantages innately. If you have an incredibly powerful card, you have zero incentive to trade it with someone, because then they have access to it. If instead you selfishly keep it to yourself, nobody gets access to it until someone leaks the card. Neat social experiment, terrible play experience.

If you selfishly keep it to yourself, you're going to have a harder time finding a vendor for when your ubercard's foil/compliment comes out a few weeks later. More importantly, the local players are going to know you're a total d**k and won't exactly be beating a path to your door to play/trade with you... so it's better for your enjoyment of the game overall to play nice.

[Cespenar]

If I'm to be a little too negative here on intention, this system could lead to the focus of the game shifting from the actual strategy to all this forum/social-media-based card securing effort.

Also, I agree with the above point of buying access not meshing with collecting cards. Especially in this era where people are growing to be somewhat reactive to that sort of thing, you'd be bombed immediately.

Otherwise it's a cool idea, though.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Because of haves and have nots? If I'm the only one in my kitchen magic group who has access to dragons, why would I give it to my enemies, too?

Because one of them will find someone who has dragons at the local game store or since this is a digital game on the official forums, and they now like that person for being nice, while they could have liked you.

I'm pretty sure at least some people would just put their "friend code" online somewhere and now almost everybody has access to almost all cards. Which is fine in itself, it's different than a trading card game but not bad. It just begs the question: why have the trading mechanic as a middle man? Why not just give everybody access to everything to begin with? In other words: what is this mechanic supposed to add compared to that alternative? Or is there some sort of limitation on trading to prevent that scenario altogether?

[Ironsmith]

Because one of them will find someone who has dragons at the local game store or since this is a digital game on the official forums, and they now like that person for being nice, while they could have liked you.

I'm pretty sure at least some people would just put their "friend code" online somewhere and now almost everybody has access to almost all cards. Which is fine in itself, it's different than a trading card game but not bad. It just begs the question: why have the trading mechanic as a middle man? Why not just give everybody access to everything to begin with? In other words: what is this mechanic supposed to add compared to that alternative? Or is there some sort of limitation on trading to prevent that scenario altogether?

The short answer to this is that it's supposed to reward players for good sportsmanship. The more reputable a trader you are, the faster your arsenal will grow (at an exponential rate, since a larger arsenal also means more opportunities to trade). Additionally, as this is a trading card game in essence (if not entirely identical in practice), your reputation as a player is going to be linked with your reputation as a trader; if you're a jerk during a match, who in their right mind is going to enable you by trading ubercards with you when they come out? You'd have to count on getting lucky with the distribution, or starting fresh with a new trade relationship with a new player. If you're genuinely fun to play with, though, the only obstacle in your expansion is prudence... which shouldn't be a problem, since you'll have a lot to offer as your other trades add up.

[PhantomFox]

What's to stop someone from setting up a bot account that accepts all trade requests and becomes a free card shop? Or a manual equivalent?

[Ironsmith]

What's to stop someone from setting up a bot account that accepts all trade requests and becomes a free card shop? Or a manual equivalent?

An IP ban, additional sunk costs, and just about any other punishment that could be justified for large-scale cheating.

Also, there's the fact that such a bot probably won't have anything good... if anything it has can be bought with a Generic Goblin Ripoff, there's no incentive to put anything of higher value into it.

[Aresneo]

This sounds like a terrible idea that will drive away a player base. At the very best you get groups that trade with just enough people to get everything that is currently available and most new players quit pretty quickly if they don't get into one of those groups. Your intent of rewarding sportsmanship isn't going to work as bad players will likely just use message boards, reddit, and other websites to communicate and trade among themselves, and this will likely make their behavior worse.

And that isn't even touching on the fact that the reason most digital card games use the booster method of distributing new cards is likely the best way to pay for the continued development costs while this method's only hope is to keep getting new players, who have a massive disadvantage unless they find a trade group who needs some of the cards they started with or got from other trades, and are most likely not going to be likely to recommend the game to others if that is at all difficult.

[Aeson]

A flaw with the CTCG system you describe is that, at least as I understand it, cards have no value to people who already have a copy of them, because as soon as someone has one copy of a card they effectively have infinitely-many copies of that card to use and distribute as they see fit. Additional copies of that card hold no value to them, so the 'trading' aspect, while perhaps not quite stillborn, would die off fairly rapidly in any sufficiently large or active community. The long-standing members of the player base eventually won't have anything to offer one another and new members of the player base are relatively unlikely to have anything to offer to longer-standing members, especially if the cards of the starter set(s) tend to be fairly common, as is typically the case in these types of games.

Basically, under the system you describe, I'd expect that either the vast majority of cards will essentially be available to everyone soon after they become publicly-available, or nobody would bother trading because finding someone who has a card you want and wants a card that you have would be unreasonably difficult. Either way, the 'trading' aspect of the game basically dies off.


The short answer to this is that it's supposed to reward players for good sportsmanship.
Unless there are game mechanics for trading cards during play, I don't see what sportsmanship has to do with the card-trading aspect of the game. You trade cards with someone because they have something you want and are asking a price you're willing to pay, not because trading cards is a "sporting" thing to do. It might be a bit different with the system you describe, but only because there's not really any scarcity of cards - I don't have to give up my Generic Orc Knockoff to get your Generic Goblin Ripoff, so the only reasons for me to refuse are if I'm for some reason trying to restrict access to Generic Orc Knockoff (which wouldn't work very long in a community of sufficient size or activity even if Generic Orc Knockoff were nominally quite rare), if I don't like you, or if I just don't want to give you one of my effectively-infinitely-many Generic Orc Knockoffs for whatever reason.

[Ironsmith]

This sounds like a terrible idea that will drive away a player base. At the very best you get groups that trade with just enough people to get everything that is currently available and most new players quit pretty quickly if they don't get into one of those groups. Your intent of rewarding sportsmanship isn't going to work as bad players will likely just use message boards, reddit, and other websites to communicate and trade among themselves, and this will likely make their behavior worse.

It depends on how many people qualify for "just enough". If you have a roster of about 20 people you go to in order to fill out your deck every time a new expansion comes out, that's a moderately healthy network that you've got going, which is reinforced every time a new development cycle comes through. Plus, there's nothing here saying that new players would not be included in the distribution cycle; you may find yourself going to them specifically for that reason.

As for players grouping up reinforcing bad behavior... I dunno, citation needed? I could see it maybe potentially cancelling out the benefits of having the trade system there to begin with, but even then, it demands that the players in the group tolerate each other and honor the whole "I scratch your back you scratch mine" system, which is a bit of a mitigating factor.


And that isn't even touching on the fact that the reason most digital card games use the booster method of distributing new cards is likely the best way to pay for the continued development costs while this method's only hope is to keep getting new players, who have a massive disadvantage unless they find a trade group who needs some of the cards they started with or got from other trades, and are most likely not going to be likely to recommend the game to others if that is at all difficult.

This is part of why I suggested a (low) subscription fee; so that the devs could continue working even when there's not a large influx of new players.

New players may start with a strategic disadvantage, but that's true of darn near any progression-based game; as such, I'm not sure how much the trading system would affect that, especially if there are features incorporated to make it such that new players can find each other easily (and thus form their own trading groups if existing ones aren't taking on new members).


A flaw with the CTCG system you describe is that, at least as I understand it, cards have no value to people who already have a copy of them, because as soon as someone has one copy of a card they effectively have infinitely-many copies of that card to use and distribute as they see fit. Additional copies of that card hold no value to them, so the 'trading' aspect, while perhaps not quite stillborn, would die off fairly rapidly in any sufficiently large or active community. The long-standing members of the player base eventually won't have anything to offer one another and new members of the player base are relatively unlikely to have anything to offer to longer-standing members, especially if the cards of the starter set(s) tend to be fairly common, as is typically the case in these types of games.

Basically, under the system you describe, I'd expect that either the vast majority of cards will essentially be available to everyone soon after they become publicly-available, or nobody would bother trading because finding someone who has a card you want and wants a card that you have would be unreasonably difficult. Either way, the 'trading' aspect of the game basically dies off.

The event of long-standing players having access to everything because they trade with a large number of people (or have a relatively small number of degrees of separation from the necessary amount of people) is part of the whole point; if you want to maximise your potential in the game, you need to associate with other players and not tick them off (or at least, not tick them off to such a degree that they'll refuse to trade/play with you).

The event where players have a hard time finding other players who have correlating gaps in their collection is somewhat less desirable, but also statistically improbable unless you've already consigned yourself to staying in a small group; thus, it could be taken as incentive to expand trade relations.


Unless there are game mechanics for trading cards during play, I don't see what sportsmanship has to do with the card-trading aspect of the game. You trade cards with someone because they have something you want and are asking a price you're willing to pay, not because trading cards is a "sporting" thing to do. It might be a bit different with the system you describe, but only because there's not really any scarcity of cards - I don't have to give up my Generic Orc Knockoff to get your Generic Goblin Ripoff, so the only reasons for me to refuse are if I'm for some reason trying to restrict access to Generic Orc Knockoff (which wouldn't work very long in a community of sufficient size or activity even if Generic Orc Knockoff were nominally quite rare), if I don't like you, or if I just don't want to give you one of my effectively-infinitely-many Generic Orc Knockoffs for whatever reason.

Sportsmanship during play correlates to ability to trade because of how they interconnect; if I'm an insufferable jerkface when I'm only using a couple high-tier cards, why the heck would you want to enable me further by offering me some of yours? Sure, I'd probably still be able to score a few low-tier gaps in the collection from you (you don't need to like me that much to recognize that giving me a Generic Orc Knockoff in exchange for me giving you a Cliche Steampunk Mecha is a good trade), but you're probably not gonna offer me much in the way of further resources if you don't like playing with me that much.

[Aeson]

The event where players have a hard time finding other players who have correlating gaps in their collection is ... statistically improbable
Even if the number of unique cards in the game is very large relative to the number of unique cards in a starter or booster pack, it won't take very long for people who actively try to complete their collections to accumulate the vast majority of the cards in the game, because under the trading rules you've outlined there is very little reason for trades not to be "every card I have and you don't for every card you have and I don't." Any group which recognizes that fact is going to experience a very rapid increase in card availability within the group, especially if the initial size of the group is large enough that the group is statistically likely to have at least one copy of most of the cards in the pool between its various members just from one starter set and maybe a few booster packs per member, and if the core of this group remains stable in the relative long-term (say, the first year or so after the game's release or the release of a major expansion set). Say your game has 600 unique cards when released, that the typical starter deck has 15-20 unique cards, and that a core group of 10,000 players play it and trade cards with one another for the first year after release. If most trades are conducted along the lines of "every card I have and you don't for every card you have and I don't," just many trades do you think it'll take before most of those 10,000 players have approximately all of the unique cards in the game? I very much doubt that it's anything like as many as you seem to think, considering that your view is that it's statistically improbable that it'll be difficult to find other players with corresponding gaps in their card collection, except during relatively short periods around the release of new cards. You don't even need all those players to each trade with a significant number of other players to do this - you could probably have half or more of the cards within ten trades even starting from just 10 or 15 of 600 unique cards and trading only with people who have about as many cards as you do, because you're relatively likely to approximately double the number of unique cards you have with each of the first several trades, and after that it's basically just a question of picking up the rares and a few of the more common cards which fell through the cracks. If you start with a larger fraction of the unique cards in the game, the rate at which you acquire additional unique cards will of course be lower at the start, but you'll also have relatively fewer cards to acquire and are relatively more likely to start with some of the more rare cards.

I would also point out that most games do not see very significant numbers of new players joining much after the initial release, or maybe the release of a well-advertised major expansion. Counting on new players to keep the number of people with incomplete collections up enough to matter probably won't work unless the game is wildly successful or being pushed by big-name companies and good marketing.


Sportsmanship during play correlates to ability to trade because of how they interconnect; if I'm an insufferable jerkface when I'm only using a couple high-tier cards, why the heck would you want to enable me further by offering me some of yours? Sure, I'd probably still be able to score a few low-tier gaps in the collection from you (you don't need to like me that much to recognize that giving me a Generic Orc Knockoff in exchange for me giving you a Cliche Steampunk Mecha is a good trade), but you're probably not gonna offer me much in the way of further resources if you don't like playing with me that much.
If there is a card that I want in a CTCG, which do you think is the more likely or more sensible way for me to go about acquiring it:
- Playing matches against friends and randoms until I happen upon someone who both has the card and is willing to trade
- Searching the community forums or discussion boards or message boards for someone advertising that they have it and are willing to trade for something that I can offer

I'll give you a hint: it's not the first one, at least not if I really want to obtain that card in a relatively short period of time.

[Ironsmith]

Even if the number of unique cards in the game is very large relative to the number of unique cards in a starter or booster pack, it won't take very long for people who actively try to complete their collections to accumulate the vast majority of the cards in the game, because under the trading rules you've outlined there is very little reason for trades not to be "every card I have and you don't for every card you have and I don't." Any group which recognizes that fact is going to experience a very rapid increase in card availability within the group, especially if the initial size of the group is large enough that the group is statistically likely to have at least one copy of most of the cards in the pool between its various members just from one starter set and maybe a few booster packs per member, and if the core of this group remains stable in the relative long-term (say, the first year or so after the game's release or the release of a major expansion set). Say your game has 600 unique cards when released, that the typical starter deck has 15-20 unique cards, and that a core group of 10,000 players play it and trade cards with one another for the first year after release. If most trades are conducted along the lines of "every card I have and you don't for every card you have and I don't," just many trades do you think it'll take before most of those 10,000 players have approximately all of the unique cards in the game? I very much doubt that it's anything like as many as you seem to think, considering that your view is that it's statistically improbable that it'll be difficult to find other players with corresponding gaps in their card collection, except during relatively short periods around the release of new cards. You don't even need all those players to each trade with a significant number of other players to do this - you could probably have half or more of the cards within ten trades even starting from just 10 or 15 of 600 unique cards and trading only with people who have about as many cards as you do, because you're relatively likely to approximately double the number of unique cards you have with each of the first several trades, and after that it's basically just a question of picking up the rares and a few of the more common cards which fell through the cracks. If you start with a larger fraction of the unique cards in the game, the rate at which you acquire additional unique cards will of course be lower at the start, but you'll also have relatively fewer cards to acquire and are relatively more likely to start with some of the more rare cards.

That might be a matter of refining the rules of the trades (capping how many cards you can trade at once, for instance, or how often you can make a trade). This doesn't necessarily mean the system is nonfunctional, so much as there is potential to get it to work way too quickly to do what it's supposed to.


I would also point out that most games do not see very significant numbers of new players joining much after the initial release, or maybe the release of a well-advertised major expansion. Counting on new players to keep the number of people with incomplete collections up enough to matter probably won't work unless the game is wildly successful or being pushed by big-name companies and good marketing.

Sorry if I'm being thick, but I'm not entirely sure how this is a problem; as long as the gulf between "players who just signed up" and "players who have been playing the game for a couple of months" isn't so insurmountable that the two can't interact meaningfully, a low influx shouldn't be a huge problem.

...Of course, that's a fairly large "if" should the numbers be left unchecked, but that's the sort of thing that would be fixed up pre-release.


If there is a card that I want in a CTCG, which do you think is the more likely or more sensible way for me to go about acquiring it:
- Playing matches against friends and randoms until I happen upon someone who both has the card and is willing to trade
- Searching the community forums or discussion boards or message boards for someone advertising that they have it and are willing to trade for something that I can offer

I'll give you a hint: it's not the first one, at least not if I really want to obtain that card in a relatively short period of time.

That second one isn't too helpful to you either, though; if we have 600 unique cards and they're distributed statistically evenly throughout the player base, you would have to filter out 99.8% of advertising threads to get to the ones you're looking for (easily done with a search tool, granted) and then find one where a viable trade might occur. If the person doing the trade is only interested in filling out their collection, then you're SOL if you happen to be person number 600 or later (since you have no unique cards to offer). You could try it in reverse; put out a notice on the community forums stating you're looking for X card, but if everyone's already doing that, there's nothing distinguishing your ad from anyone else's. You may as well play "six degrees of GOK recipient" instead; at least then you'll get a card game for your trouble.

[PhantomFox]

An IP ban, additional sunk costs, and just about any other punishment that could be justified for large-scale cheating.

Also, there's the fact that such a bot probably won't have anything good... if anything it has can be bought with a Generic Goblin Ripoff, there's no incentive to put anything of higher value into it.

The incentive would be anyone who wants to bypass the hassle of finding someone to trade with that has what they want, and is willing to trade. I can easily see a communal account set up, or a bot, or even just one bored person, and feeding that account every card they can get their hands on.

Although, now that I think about it, that might just happen naturally without any special setup since trades are a positive sum transaction. Since there is no cost to trading, there is little to no incentive to decline a trade. At first there would be a flurry of trading until eveyone has everything, with no real barrier to keep any one card out of the main pool. However, with such a rapid and viral distribution, the main problem becomes the time required to get everything you want rather than finding what you want. Everyone will have pretty much everything, because why wouldn't they? So a new player would have to 'grind' up trades with various people just to get on par with everyone else.

Which leads to the question: What does this system offer that just having access to everything at the start wouldn't do?

[Ironsmith]

The incentive would be anyone who wants to bypass the hassle of finding someone to trade with that has what they want, and is willing to trade. I can easily see a communal account set up, or a bot, or even just one bored person, and feeding that account every card they can get their hands on.

That's a bit of a shift of intent, though. If the issue is that you don't have all the cards and want to farm them using bots, then this would definitely be cheating. If the issue is that you do have all the cards and you just wanna be a nice guy and distribute them in their entirety to some or everyone... well, I guess that's kind of the stated intent of the system taken to its logical conclusion. Heck, come to think of it, that's a scarce few steps away from being the equivalent of a guild... not just in the dramatic video game sense, either.


Although, now that I think about it, that might just happen naturally without any special setup since trades are a positive sum transaction. Since there is no cost to trading, there is little to no incentive to decline a trade. At first there would be a flurry of trading until eveyone has everything, with no real barrier to keep any one card out of the main pool. However, with such a rapid and viral distribution, the main problem becomes the time required to get everything you want rather than finding what you want. Everyone will have pretty much everything, because why wouldn't they? So a new player would have to 'grind' up trades with various people just to get on par with everyone else.

Hence the above comment about capping the trades... we don't want this to happen so quickly that new players get left in the dust.


Which leads to the question: What does this system offer that just having access to everything at the start wouldn't do?

That answer hasn't really changed from before; rewards good behavior by allowing players to empower the people they enjoy playing with.