Too many cards penalty

[Airact]

The problem as I see it with this as a design goal is that playing the game in poverty mode is sort of boring. The game becomes all about luck: did you draw the card you need or not? Limited draw also rewards a mid-range resource curve - a rush with no draw engine is doomed to peter out by turn 5 or 6. At that point it becomes a deck that can play 1 weenie per turn, which isn't scary at all. Meanwhile a deck with a high resource curve will wind up with no cards in hand trying to get that resource pool up so it can play those fatties.

I thought that was the very definition of rushing. Vomit your hand on the table and win the game before your opponent can play most of their cards.

The strength of midrange is that their individual cards are more powerful than those of other archetypes but because of that, midrange decks lack focus.

[Griffoneye]

Right now as the game is there is no mental conflict to cast that hunters gambit, blood moon, use that tombstone beacon, cast that blood frenzy, etc. If you have room in your hand for more possible cards 100% of the time a player is going to try and fill it back up. I would like to see a few cards that would actually give players pause to actually want to draw more cards. I don't think it would make the game any more boring then a millstalker deck using shadow font, Aldmor accelerator, lone wolf drawing deck that basically is forcing you to run out of cards while hiding the whole game. We should have card options that punish all different sorts of ways to play the game and that includes players addicted to the draw.

[Alien Fungus]

I agree with Bob, if both players are top decking the game becomes a game of luck and soon gets boring. We already have a limit of 7 cards, that's not too many really. Then again the idea of attacking a players hand by forcing them to randomly discard would be very challenging ... and annoying. Most players like to keep at least one situation card in their hand ... Interesting idea... Don't like it but it would certainly change the game dynamic

[Xander Spitfire]

I like the idea. Having ways to slow down the game for heroes who can't keep up with the high speed. This is an interaction that we don't really have in this game (negative draw manipulation). Pay day is good one. Change of Plan comes to mind as well.

[bobrossw]

Right now as the game is there is no mental conflict to cast that hunters gambit, blood moon, use that tombstone beacon, cast that blood frenzy, etc. If you have room in your hand for more possible cards 100% of the time a player is going to try and fill it back up. I would like to see a few cards that would actually give players pause to actually want to draw more cards. I don't think it would make the game any more boring then a millstalker deck using shadow font, Aldmor accelerator, lone wolf drawing deck that basically is forcing you to run out of cards while hiding the whole game. We should have card options that punish all different sorts of ways to play the game and that includes players addicted to the draw.

I disagree. In many of my Serena games, I have an IGG in hand and hold out until T7 or 8 to play it. Sometimes I don't play it at all. When you're up against a tough opponent that tempo loss can really hurt. Similarly, look at Sisyphos's world champ deck. There were 4 hunter's gambits in it and that's all. It was strong because the guy knows how to play without wasting cards. That's certainly a viable play-style, but it's not for everyone, and limiting draw to force everyone into that mode would really change everything about the game.

One other thing that I forgot to mention is the lock. Control style decks used to have a hard lock win condition, where essentially the opponent needed to draw a specific answer to their deck or lose over time. That was fun to play, but less fun to play against once the lock was established. And those games were sort of boring in general - either the deck lost to a rush, or it established its lock and won. Draw was one of the things in SF that sort of killed that style. Now it is almost impossible to build a deck that can consistently establish a hard lock. The best you can hope for is a soft lock, where the opponent can still fight back, but is at a disadvantage. That makes for more interesting games, IMO.

I've played those games with little draw and get where you're coming from. I've also had a lot of fun playing enormous decks. I think that's where tourneys come in. Make a tourney with no draw, or a limit of 2 of each card, and you'd see some interesting decks and games...But I think overall, draw makes the game better and more varied, and creates the opportunity for skill and forethought to make a bigger difference.

[FDL]

Don’t Nightprowler and Cutlass already have that kind of effect? When faced with the possibility of getting a card stolen, players might ‘over resource’ or ‘under draw’ (or, admittedly, flood their hand) to mitigate the effect.

Having to slow down your draw to prevent mill damage happens naturally in a number of games.

Rush decks already punish builds based on draw engines with tempo costs (like Ill Gotten Gains).

Bilateral draw engines can take advantage of opponents holding many cards.

As for penalizing the actual act of drawing a card (or having a big hand), I guess that could be a thing, but I don’t know what it would take to actually be good. Payday has the potential to be a 2 for 1, but it often fails because players rarely hold that many cards in SE. Also, once you do get a trigger, it’s actually harder to get another trigger. You’re working against yourself.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a deck based on having less cards than your opponent, might be interesting.

Sometimes when you get a game where each player is having draw problems it actually turns out to be one of your most enjoyable games. Each card and play means that much more and you really see great players shine in those moments.

I agree with you when you say that ‘drawing’ is almost automatically thought of as ‘good’ (because it pretty much always is) but I’d disagree with that. Topdecking fests are more about luck than anything else IMO. How will ‘great players shine’ when they don’t have decisions to make?

[Xander Spitfire]

I disagree. In many of my Serena games, I have an IGG in hand and hold out until T7 or 8 to play it. Sometimes I don't play it at all.

The reason why you can hold out is rather obvious considering Cutlass can steal twice before turn 7. The stealing part creates a massive card advantage swing in your favor.

[Flamebringer]

Very much disagree on anything about punishing people for draw. Always figured that draw engines, tempo, ect, were SUPPOSED to be central.

As mentioned, I agree that anything along the lines of top decking and just hoping you get the card you need is... Well, boring and frustrating.
The only time I get annoyed about a match are the ones when I didn't get much/any chance at draw. Bad luck when I don't draw my draw engines. Still don't think that something about how it works should be changed.
I quite like that games can swing back and forth whenever someone plays a bunch of cards (or a couple powerful ones).




Of course, this is all based on how I'm understanding it. A larger variety of deck styles is something I would like to see. Things based around the number of cards in hand, maybe. More cards like Oliver Fagin sound interesting. It just feels like this would shut down current styles entirely.

[Griffoneye]

I actually wouldn't be concerned with cutlass or nightprowler. I think most players would be discarding the night prowlers 5 resource cost when a player is getting hit with Plague, Here Be Monsters , Cobraskin Wraps , Enchanted Oak , Dagger of Unmaking keeping your hand full anyway. Nighprowler would be to your disadvantage being played even if you had the resources. I think there are a lot of cards like the ones I mentioned along with cards like Road Less Traveled and unsummon that help this style of play be competitive. You will probably also have to keep your resources low as well for a lot of these cards to work but if your deck is constructed with this sort of play in mind it would work. I could also envision a Nishaven deck running this setup killing any potential weenies with ability and keeping the high cost allies in your hand. Disrupt Aura could become another playable card with this deck.
My comment about making great players shine is they are forced to utilize the cards they can cast to their full potential. I've seen some players get away with attacking mistakes with their allies only to be saved by their drawing mechanics. Sometimes using an Elementalis ability on an ally you normally wouldn't to stay a step ahead. Resourcing that card you probably should have kept instead of the one you did. That one play could be the play that costs you the game because the pace has been manipulated out of the favor you wanted.

[RogerFederer]

Personally not a fan but its an interesting point of discussion. Card drawing denial or locking down on opponents massing up draw engines is an area that could be explored.

for example a card or ally that's ability is 'players cannot draw cards out of their draw phase' or 'players can only draw a maximum if one card outside their draw phase per turn'.

i.e the chess term 'prophylaxis' - preventing opponent's offensive capabilities