What causes card game designers to have poor balance?

Personofsecrets

1.) They don't know what they are doing.

The above notion should be dispelled. Maybe some designers don't know what they are doing, but many of them have been in their industry for a while, some have formal education in design, and they are constantly learning new things by networking at conventions.

2.) They don't care.

Perhaps there are people in design who do things like "quiet quitting," but I think designers usually are deeply invested in their work and even want to make a name for themselves by coming up with the next renound game. I also see them as the type who view themselves as making a genuine impact on their field.

3.) They are doing it for the money.

Maybe there is something to say for money pushing design decsision in a certain direction. Out of these 3 bad reasons that I could think of, this one probably is closest. But close only counts in horseshoes. One would think that it is in the best interest of capital for something to be well-balanced, so though it may push games down certain paths, it isn't a sufficient explanation.

Now that those reasons have been discarded, what might be the real reason that causes bad design?

I think that it is about fundamentals.

There are forces at work that we are beholden to. These fundamental forces ultimately guide the thinking of many down this path that has been tread on many of times.

Like Thoreau noticing the path that his footsteps made by trudging through the same space again and again, we would be keen to see the facets of life which we participate in which follow the same pattern year in and year out.

No matter how egregious balance may become, no matter how many players are incensed by that imbalance, design is very consistent at going in a foul direction regarding balance. If ever one step forward, then inevitibly two steps back. From the small perspective of the years that I've been alive, there seems to be something inexorable about poor balance

spartaxoxo

They prioritize fun and participation over esports gameplay. Some games are just meant to be fun mini games where balance isn't the focus. Others are meant to be serious competition. Sometimes these goals conflict, sometimes they don't.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They prioritize fun and participation over esports gameplay. Some games are just meant to be fun mini games where balance isn't the focus. Others are meant to be serious competition. Sometimes these goals conflict, sometimes they don't.

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

When you hear e-sports, then what do you think of?

Hearthstone, right?

MTG Arena, right?

Look at the cards in those games that have been made and especially so in recent years.

There is no such thing as e-sports. There is only casual design.

Also, the idea that what designers do somehow is based in fun needs to be fleshed out more.

How many people find Almalexia fun? Almost nobody. How many people find a number of game aspects quite unfun? Almost everybody.

spartaxoxo

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They prioritize fun and participation over esports gameplay. Some games are just meant to be fun mini games where balance isn't the focus. Others are meant to be serious competition. Sometimes these goals conflict, sometimes they don't.

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

When you hear e-sports, then what do you think of?

Hearthstone, right?

MTG Arena, right?

Look at the cards in those games that have been made and especially so in recent years.

There is no such thing as e-sports. There is only casual design.

Also, the idea that what designers do somehow is based in fun needs to be fleshed out more.

How many people find Almalexia fun? Almost nobody. How many people find a number of game aspects quite unfun? Almost everybody.

Not every decision made in an esports game will be about making esports competitive and balanced. But, most of them will be and that will be the focus. Casual games will have casual design as the primary focus. Esports game will have competition as the primary focus, and as a result more balanced design.

As for who finds the newest decks fun. There is always a difference between intent and results. Those decks were designed to address things about the game people found unfun. Slow games getting you down? Try Mora. Wish certain cards weren't on play? Take it with Almalexia. That sort of thing.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They prioritize fun and participation over esports gameplay. Some games are just meant to be fun mini games where balance isn't the focus. Others are meant to be serious competition. Sometimes these goals conflict, sometimes they don't.

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

When you hear e-sports, then what do you think of?

Hearthstone, right?

MTG Arena, right?

Look at the cards in those games that have been made and especially so in recent years.

There is no such thing as e-sports. There is only casual design.

Also, the idea that what designers do somehow is based in fun needs to be fleshed out more.

How many people find Almalexia fun? Almost nobody. How many people find a number of game aspects quite unfun? Almost everybody.

Not every decision made in an esports game will be about making esports competitive and balanced. But, most of them will be and that will be the focus. Casual games will have casual design as the primary focus. Esports game will have competition as the primary focus, and as a result more balanced design.

As for who finds the newest decks fun. There is always a difference between intent and results. Those decks were designed to address things about the game people found unfun. Slow games getting you down? Try Mora. Wish certain cards weren't on play? Take it with Almalexia. That sort of thing.

On the topic of decisions, you sort of get at what I think the underlying issue is. You are writing that a an esports game may end up with the consequences of decisions that are not made or only partly made with balance in mind. Why is that?

My take on the e-sports that I mentioned is as follows.

At least when I played Hearthstone, it was always one wacky thing after another. There wasn't this moderation. Magic has gone down the same path in a number of ways.

For example, there has been the making of the Conive mechanic which has a chance based effect which could be very beneficial one way or the other depending on the board. These types of effects are just ramping up and have been normalized in environments that they were not normal at all in not so many years ago.

The gestalt of game design is the conclusion that such mechanics are now the correct spaces to explore. While I agree that casualization is a phenomenon. It just seems like a side effect rather than primary motivation. I also might challenge that a true e-sport game wouldn't have some mass appeal and even for the casual player. Couldn't it have mass appeal?

Intent versus effects can be a good point. One thing that is left unexplained is both the absence of balance updates for longer periods of time during a time period of history were updates are superfulous. Another thing is that some balance changes don't even have the effect of fixing whatever the theorized issue was.

For example, Bardic costing 3 instead of 4 not only buffed player one options, a sore spot of the game for many players, but it also didn't do anything to make Almalexia play improved from the perspective of those who dislike it.

So still, there remains a disconnect that the designers bend toward the will of what is fun. It seems like they miss too many opportunities if that is a primary directive.