Iuliandrei;n10379592 said:
I'd go with Klingons.
But seriously what can a new faction bring to the table? sure it's nice to have something new but it has to be new in more than just names and artwork. I think the game already has a problem with theme, and certain factions feel very alike and generic.
I laughed at the Klingons thing.
Good argument for the overall feel of each faction starting to blend together to some extent. That's sort of what happens when pieces are added while also maintaining overall balance. I'm not really into card games that much, but I always liked asymmetrically balanced systems like
Dominion. Hard for CCGs, but I think it's kind of important that there is
not an answer for everything. Their should be "power plays" that are more or less unstoppable. The balance could be such that executing these killer combos would be incredibly difficult, requiring a lot of
skill to pull off (and, of course, the luck o' the draw), and every faction should have the ability to make such plays. And such plays should be one-off per match, requiring the player to commit to it once begun...or lose the opportunity for that entire game if they miss it or have to change tactics in the middle of the round.
By comparison, I think that most CCGs I have played work on a series of trumps, each of which has a specific foil. Over time, the trumps are trumped by ever greater trumps, and invariably, certain turmps become almost impossible to foil. That becomes an issue for players because they get used to the expectation that, "If someone does A, I can do B to prevent it. Wait -- it didn't work!? Hey, that's so unbalanced!" Fair enough...if that's what the game has been built for. The ultimate result of this system would be something like Chess. Same pieces on each side, differently decorated perhaps, but identical / equivalent in form, function, and power. Kind of a lost cause if an ongoing collection or trading mechanic is part of the game.
So, the most successful asymmetrical systems follow a power play / titan unit / nuke mechanic. Take Starcraft, for example. If I'm playing the Protoss, developing a "fighter swarm" using carriers is a viable "endgame" tactic. And, there will be tells all over, as other certain units will
not be brought into play if I'm working on building all those carriers. That's the broadcast to my opponent that I'm going for a carrier / fighter swarm. Now, they know that they'll need to come up with a tactic to kill my economy by attacking supply lines, maybe use Ghosts to nuke my shipyards, or go for serious anti-air to meet it head-on.
However, players know that if I get carriers built -- it's
over. There will be no answer.
The same philosophy is directly applied to Dark Souls (needing to precisely time that uber-power-up attack and/or use that lightning consumable at just the right moment) or Dominion (needing to risk playing that Throne Room card on the Market because I know the odds are in my favor that enough coin will pop up for me to buy the last two Provinces). These are risks, and if I blow it, not only will I not pull off the play, I'll probably outright lose. It's all down to whether or not
I set things up properly, less about whether my opponent has a surefire way of stopping me. That's the magic of asymmetrical balance.
