#thanks for tollerating me going from argumentative to focussing on my own project and just talking at the void about my thing that i like

[glngrbred]

Ok, Reblog To wrap up this one, Thanks for the feedback, I apreciate it. If something I say is a based on feedback, it'll have 2** next to it. This is also a super long post, so TLDR, yall R right! and I don't disagree with you, but I am still changing counterspells for my game. Also if you only want some important informationa bout my game and exactly why some changes needed to be made, at the very end I talk about some important things specifically and only relevent when talking about MY GAME IM MAKING. the rest is a more broad look. First some clarifications,

I initially wanted to talk about My descision to remove counterspells from my card game, and the Way I did that was by talking about some issues with counterspells in MTG. Unfortunately I did not effectively convey that, which is MY B. **(thank you @ouraois). Right now, I have a descision to make about countermagic in my game, and the issues with them in magic are what I want to avoid for the design of my game

I was ranting about counterspells, because I wanted to talk about why I've decided to limit their function in my card game. I sort of rage-baited, and said things like "force all control decks" which is obviously false, the best deck, lantern control, is not about counterspells whatsoever.

I also said that counterspells are "bad design", but I don't really mean that.** Counterspells both "fix" and enable a design issue. The issue is uninteractive win-cons, and also combo decks. single cards that often straight up win the game should simply not be made, but they are really cool, and fun for whoever's using them so "just counter it" becomes the design solution. thats actually a problem in MTG, since not every color has access to removal on the stack. counterspells and uninteractive wincons become beat 'em or join 'em. (for slow formats, big costly win the game things dont work as well if agro is good)

But what else are you supposed to do when designing high-cost cards? (i actually have a fix for that in my game but its weird, so i'll get to that at the very end, it also explains some of the reasons why i CAN't have mtg style counterspells in my game specifically, even if i wanted to)

the same is true to a lesser extent with combos, which is why Legends of Runtera avoids combos. I don't think I'll be able to avoid combos, and I don't think I'll be able to patch out a combo, I'm a single person with no coding experience and some cardboard...

In either case, its sort of like an auriboros, where counterspells fix the issue of cards ending the game unsatasfyingly, but then counterspells are unsatasfying. Power creep makes creatures who are made to "interact" with hard-to-compete-with removal spells, and then those counterspells become more important to slow down those big guys. And since typical removal can't deal with those uninteractive win cons, Counters become necessary (kill spells vs counters triangle) ** (thank you @almaignismare) I could probably explain this better. Design space is freed by counterspells existing, but what is made available in the new design space isnt necissarily healthy for the game.

In magic, players expect both counterspells and things you have to counterspell. but in my game, there is not that expectation yet, I think that there is a more healthy space focused around damage, protection, and card disadvantage that I could create for my game, which would not necessitate counterspells.

before I talk about that tho, I want to finish talking about MTG with a little note. Counterspells are the only way blue has effective card removal, the other removal-like options that designers have attemptes with blue are bounce and stun counters. Both of these are not effectively removing a card, and as such are kind of just card disadvantage. Because of this, the only real way for a blue deck to have removal is to counter stuff ** (thank you @gcu-sovereign) But colors not having good access to removal isnt immidiately bad. black has a hard time with artifacts and enchantments, but fucks with creatures, white is great at alot removal but struggles with interaction, red has a hard time with straight up removing cards, green struggles with creatures, and blue doesn't really have a card type struggle, but it struggles with interacting with the board state. Blue just has to counter stuff, or it won't be able to remove things.

So what's the point? If I included countermagic as it is in MTG, it would not work with my game's ecosystem. The 2 mana counterspell that just straight up removes a card is overpowered for a game where interaction is normally based on doing the oposite of an effect to minimize the downside. At the moment, my game only exists as sets of precons, and in every one of them, the removal of cards is either A. expensive in order to be perfectly effective, like a 5 mana kill spell for any target. B. Able to be easily interacted with, like a 1 mana recuring ping that can only recur if something died (any buff on it's target neuters it) C. Technically temporary, bounce is actually really fun, since it slows down the victem without removing their plan. Or D. Sets up a little side quest that removes the effect. I have an effect called "root" which makes something kinda just die until whatever is rooting it is removed.

Counterspells don't easily fit into any category if they are MTG style. They cannot be expensive, or they would only be for late game. (or they would slow you down alot, not just your opponent) They cannot be easily interacted with, since there's a very limited variety of ways they can be prevented, You can actually make them temporary, but you have to change some rules to make it work (i'll get to that) Or you could make them set up a sidequest? like, you could reasonably have the countered card attach to a creature, and then when that creature dies the card goes back to its owner, This also enables some creative deckbuilding.

For my game, I've made counterspells either be temporary, by sending the card to "exile"the outlands", which cards can recur themselves from if enough cards enter the outlands, or counterspells just get rid of resources but not the card (an effect that just gets rid of the card would just be discard). Or finaly, the counter sets up a sidequest.

I also want to avoid limiting counterspells to one color, specifically as the engine of a control deck. When counterspells have limited effects, or are designed to specifically counter one meta game plan, they are a beutiful thing. I love "counter target ability" or whatever that one card does (I forgot its name.)

To avoid going too in depth, I do have colored mana as a core system of my game, I have 4 colors and a neutral. But I'm trying to avoid limiting gameplans to certain colors, I'm moreso limiting the color pie to different mechanics between each color. So hopefully all of the modes of operation will be available to each color, but the means will be very thematic. I also have a different wincon compared to MTG, which is a work in progress but enables this also.

The final thing I wanted to talk about was mana. Typically, a 10 cost card would have to justify spending 10 mana by getting you realy close to wining the game on its own, or somehow making it virtually impossible for you to lose. likeomnicience doesn't win on its own, but once its there you're golden.

This is the very last thing.

In my game, I started the design by making a cute little mana system that uses these physical tokens to permenently track mana, so you can just hold on to recources as long as you want, its like if spell mana from Legends of runeterra was extended to be the whole mana system. Because of this, high cost spells can be cast much earlier by sacrificing you early game plays in favour of savign up for a big thing. Becausse of this, you can budget your resources to play a big thing that enables a super stong game plan, without winning, without putting yourself behind, so long as the big card makes up for the 1, 2, 3, and 4 cost you didn't play in its place.

you might beable to notice that countermagic, and holding up interaction inherently break this system, since not spending your man is no longer a downside..... THIS is actually like the main, important, design restraint that forces me to look at counterspells very critically, but it doesn't make sense as an explanation of the issue on its own

Counterspells are a toxic game mechanic that manopolize interaction slots and force all control decks to play very similarly.

they also have the problem of being much easier to use than targeted discard and ""stax"" (the broadest possible term, and only 'harder' to an extent :/). I think the only times you should be able to effectively counter an effect on the stack/being played are to counter a literal spell, like instants and sorceries, since the only ways to have "spell removal" are hand interaction, which is obviously only ok when limited, and counterspells. I straight up think that no creature or artifact/enchantment counterspells should exist in a healthy card game, because those other mechanics should be inherently interactable-enough to not necessitate counterspells, and the shear dominance of counterspells as the vehicle of control decks in MTG is evidence enough that they aren't good for a game.

also the reason I care is because I'm making a card game, and effects like counterspells are something you have to choose to have at some point, since they MANOPOLIZE DESIGN SPACE >:()

if you want to see an example of counterspells used well, play the game "unstable unicorns" which is entirely Balanced around counterspells, exclusively. but even then, you have to entirely balance the game around counterspells, exclusively

Also this isn't to say "counterspells bad :(" they have a place, and that place is in games who have not balanced the power of "instantly accessible" effects (so that counterspells aren't necessary). like yeah, craterhoof behemoth and Ghalta often can't be interacted with outside of counterspells, cuz once they ETB you win the game

that is bad design and necessitates the creation, use, and frustration of counterspells. Also, designers only want to make cards like "that" if they can say "just counter it" its just an unhealthy system that necessitates itself existing the moment you let counterspells be anything more than the most simple and direct "spell removal" effects.

thats all