Make A Betta Meta

Recently, I saw a post on the /r/tcgdesign subreddit, asking how you would design a game to resist a metagame from forming. The poster seemed to think that having any kind of metagame was a negative, but those in the know began to explain why that’s not the case at all. I chimed in with a series of ideas for how to manage a metagame and keep it fluid - since I’m still interested in the idea, I’ve copied and expanded on my points below the fold.

Metagames are a fundamental aspect of any competitive game, not just TCGs. Your goal should be to encourage a healthy state for that meta, to promote the positive traits you want. To that end, here’s a list of strategies that can be used to keep a metagame in flux.

Regular Release Schedules

The most commonly used strategy to change a game is to release a new set - each set can introduce new mechanics, archetypes, and play styles, as well as ways to counter the decks that have otherwise been dominant for too long. TCG sets are generally designed and planned several iterations ahead of the release schedule, so this strategy can be slower than other methods.

You should also be aware that dominant decks may also be capable of using the tools that are designed to take them on. Specific answers to a problem could be narrower in scope to counter this, but no one size fits all in this case. You should also remember that buffs are better than nerfs, and power creep is a tool, not an obstacle (though, a tight leash is advised).

Rotation

As a general rule, you don’t want to have a rotation too early in your game’s life. My gut feeling says adding rotation at the 5-year mark sounds like a decent goal, and designing for this is a good idea. Your player base generally won’t have enough die-hard players to support a standard rotating format before this point, and suddenly removing usable cards from a player’s collection is a great way to lose the casual audience.

That being said, games without a rotating standard tend to have extreme power level issues, the most prominent example of this being Yugioh - players of that game don’t even know what a “turn 4” is.

Bans and Restrictions

No game is perfect - we all make mistakes, and ban lists are an acknowledgement of those mistakes. Sometimes, you may accidentally print a two-card infinite combo in one set, in which case a ban is the only solution. The first example of this that comes to mind would be Magic’s “Saheeli Rai” + “Felidar Guardian” combo which, while not in the same set, did exist in sequential sets, requiring an emergency ban from Wizards of the Coast.

Larger rotating and eternal formats often require a ban list, as it’s simply not reasonably possible to plan ahead when your card pool numbers in the thousands. Bans can also be used to adjust a stagnant metagame that has ossified around only one or a few dominant strategies.

Sol Ring

As an addendum to the point about banning overpowered cards, I wanted to touch on something which, while not unique to Magic Commander, is certainly extremely visible there. When you’ve chosen your commander, you then choose the other 98 cards, despite the deck needing 100 cards total.

In MtG’s first set “alpha”, there were many mistakes that have been alleviated over the years, but on that has persisted is the existence of Sol Ring. Make no mistake, this is absolutely an error in the design of the game, but one which has become a fundamental aspect of the game’s identity - to ban Sol Ring would be to disrupt the very fabric of the game’s rules, so much so that the recent Commander Rules Committee Ban Announcement removed several cards that accelerated the game’s speed, but notably did not ban Sol Ring due to how iconic it is. This post lead to severe controversy and the dissolution of the external committee, but that’s a topic for another time.

My personal opinion is that slowing the format down by banning accelerators was a good decision, as was the decision and justification for not banning Sol Ring. This one card acts as a measuring stick for all others, and is often used as a reference point when new cards are designed. Mistakes will be made, but they can be used to your advantage.

7 Point Highlander

There’s a fan-made MtG format called 7 Point Highlander which, while I’ve never played, does interest me with its design - specifically, the point system.

For 7PH, the most problematic or impactful cards are assigned a point value, and any deck used in the format must have no more than 7 points worth of cards total. The exact point values can be changed over time as the game evolves, which is yet another way of managing a metagame. If your initial design for the game’s rules includes the points system, then some cards can be overpowered by design with points as the limitation.

I haven’t seen this specific mechanic used prominently, other than Pokemon TCG’s Radiant Pokemon or ACE SPEC cards - each category has a selection of usable cards, but each deck is limited to only one copy - so no deck will ever have both Radiant Graninja and Radiant Charizard. It’s not exactly the same implementation, but it does work to limit any deck from becoming too dominant from these cards, while also opening up design space for extremely powerful - and desirable - options.

Conclusion

While this post focused largely on TCG design, some elements can be used in other genres - maybe certain weapon loadouts are incompatible? Maybe some armour draws too much power, rendering the flamethrower useless? The sky’s the limit.