Deck Capacity Abuses

[Valentine Z]

I would suggest maybe using something like x^1.7 instead of x² (the current model) to calculate the deck space needed.

It is not a silver bullet to solve the Deck Capacity Abuse as you have written, but the costs would certainly be lower and be fairer for the smaller players that does not have hundreds of card farms, and there will not be a lot of need to have a lot of puppets to store cards (or sell/buy to exceed that capacity).

Plus, the big farmers often have a lot of bank anyway, so the reduction of costs would be welcome for them, too.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

I would suggest maybe using something like x^1.7 instead of x² (the current model) to calculate the deck space needed.

(Image)

It is not a silver bullet to solve the Deck Capacity Abuse as you have written, but the costs would certainly be lower and be fairer for the smaller players that does not have hundreds of card farms, and there will not be a lot of need to have a lot of puppets to store cards (or sell/buy to exceed that capacity).

Plus, the big farmers often have a lot of bank anyway, so the reduction of costs would be welcome for them, too.

The parallel mathematical models are interesting. Nice post. I think x^1.7 is possibly sufficient and would seriously hesitate to go any lower. Maybe a touch higher, nearer x^1.8, though technical would need to decide the exact exponent needed to guarantee site stability.
Additionally, if x^1.7 to x^1.8 were implemented, then I'd suggest a refund to all existing players (in compliance) of extra costs which they've incurred using the current x² model of Deck Capacity increases. It's only fair. Much of this refund would go to smaller more casual players.

Somewhere between x^1.7 to x^1.8 is probably steep enough to discourage ridiculously large decks but would still make it significantly cheaper for those players way over cap to pay the costs they owe in additional card space. Plus it makes the larger card collections more affordable. Yay!

[Refuge Isle]

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

Have you done an in-depth examination on the actual volume of people you believe this would affect? Because it seems to be targetted at some six or seven top players and not something that's particularly impactful to the site at large.

A lot of people with a whole mess of cards are well within their deck capacity limits. Nations like An Actual Hurricane and S2 Rares Collector were not created for the purposes of building DV, but to complete the massive collections they were designated for. Those collections are sort of novel to think about and occasionally have utility (in the case of 9003's olympics), but ultimately are not particularly celebrated. So, more likely than putting tens of thousands of bank into deck capacity for low value cards, the game just wouldn't see those collections made anymore under a system where it was not mechanically possible to buy them in. In a system where only DV would be penalised, probably nothing would change at all. So, given that, we're back to a policy that targets some six or seven top players exclusively and I don't see that changing the game as much as the OP suggests it will.

Why have you elected to post this under an alias, Benevolent?

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

Have you done an in-depth examination on the actual volume of people you believe this would affect? Because it seems to be targetted at some six or seven top players and not something that's particularly impactful to the site at large.

A lot of people with a whole mess of cards are well within their deck capacity limits. Nations like An Actual Hurricane and S2 Rares Collector were not created for the purposes of building DV, but to complete the massive collections they were designated for. Those collections are sort of novel to think about and occasionally have utility (in the case of 9003's olympics), but ultimately are not particularly celebrated. So, more likely than putting tens of thousands of bank into deck capacity for low value cards, the game just wouldn't see those collections made anymore under a system where it was not mechanically possible to buy them in. In a system where only DV would be penalised, probably nothing would change at all. So, given that, we're back to a policy that targets some six or seven top players exclusively and I don't see that changing the game as much as the OP suggests it will.

Why have you elected to post this under an alias, Benevolent?

An irrelevant argument in light of the well known site stability issues. https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2018/index.html

The number of cards that can be held at once is now limited by Deck Capacity, which can be upgraded by spending bank. This limitation stems from the technical challenges of managing nations who hold extremely high numbers of cards. Nations with Site Supporter status from the Store have double normal Deck Capacity. - by Max Barry Fri, 21 Dec 2018

Additionally, most players have spent plenty of bank to increase their capacity. Some of us are site supporters too and spend actual real money. It certainly isn't fair to the vast majority of players who adhere to Mr. Barry's wishes, is it? Personally, I trust Max at his word and put NS itself above my card game ambitions. Deck capacity abuse is just wrong for the game.

[Refuge Isle]

An irrelevant argument in light of the well known site stability issues. https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2018/index.html

The number of cards that can be held at once is now limited by Deck Capacity, which can be upgraded by spending bank. This limitation stems from the technical challenges of managing nations who hold extremely high numbers of cards. Nations with Site Supporter status from the Store have double normal Deck Capacity. - by Max Barry Fri, 21 Dec 2018

Additionally, most players have spent plenty of bank to increase their capacity. Some of us are site supporters too and spend actual real money. It certainly isn't fair to the vast majority of players who adhere to Mr. Barry's wishes, is it? Personally, I trust Max at his word and put NS itself above my card game ambitions. Deck capacity abuse is just wrong for the game.

I'm aware of the news article. I'm aware of it when you posted it last in this thread, just as I was aware of it when it was written. I've been in this area of the game nearly since it existed

The fact of them matter is that the current structure was hinted at after the original AF event: https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/ ... index.html

The real challenge is to discourage puppet farming without unduly interfering with real communities exchanging cards amongst themselves. Because an important part of the fun of deck building, I think, is that you can offer special deals or gifts to people you know. We could eliminate puppet farming by forcing all trades to be conducted at current market prices, but this would also eliminate elements of trust, friendship, and co-operation, leaving us with a more economically fair but less interesting game.

Essentially: You should be able to offer a good card for cheap or even free to someone you know, because that's how communities work. But puppet farms should not easily stream their cards to a single owner.

And, to that post's credit, it is indeed more difficult to play to ever-expanding values without the ability to gift in valuable cards or transfers. So, in this regard, the goal was achieved and players must put more thought and effort into expanding in this way than they would have to normally. Similarly, I've elected to keep expanding my own deck capacity rather than use this inconvenient workaround.

However, it is disingenuous to use a news post from the end of 2018 as an indication of what the servers can and cannot handle for what the game has become by 2021. Admin has not made it clear at what relative value they would face problems, and the only player I'm aware of who is actively pursuing those bounds is 9003 through his common collection. If there were a pressing need to change the game mechanics so that the server could handle the minigame, I am confident that admin has the ability to self-examine and make changes that are necessary. There is really very limited ability for you to advocate for this issue on tech grounds when so little information is available about what the tech's needs and limitations are.

If Max Barry did not want the game to played in this way, then admin should also restrict that to make it not possible to operate like it is. Since that has not happened, we may presume this is not the case and the status quo is fine until changed.

So, to that end, my response was on the subject of social impacts and gameplay mechanic impacts. It is peculiar to just brush that away as irrelevant when it is at the core of your OP.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

An irrelevant argument in light of the well known site stability issues. https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2018/index.html

The number of cards that can be held at once is now limited by Deck Capacity, which can be upgraded by spending bank. This limitation stems from the technical challenges of managing nations who hold extremely high numbers of cards. Nations with Site Supporter status from the Store have double normal Deck Capacity. - by Max Barry Fri, 21 Dec 2018

Additionally, most players have spent plenty of bank to increase their capacity. Some of us are site supporters too and spend actual real money. It certainly isn't fair to the vast majority of players who adhere to Mr. Barry's wishes, is it? Personally, I trust Max at his word and put NS itself above my card game ambitions. Deck capacity abuse is just wrong for the game.

I'm aware of the news article. I'm aware of it when you posted it last in this thread, just as I was aware of it when it was written. I've been in this area of the game nearly since it existed

The fact of them matter is that the current structure was hinted at after the original AF event: https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/ ... index.html

The real challenge is to discourage puppet farming without unduly interfering with real communities exchanging cards amongst themselves. Because an important part of the fun of deck building, I think, is that you can offer special deals or gifts to people you know. We could eliminate puppet farming by forcing all trades to be conducted at current market prices, but this would also eliminate elements of trust, friendship, and co-operation, leaving us with a more economically fair but less interesting game.

Essentially: You should be able to offer a good card for cheap or even free to someone you know, because that's how communities work. But puppet farms should not easily stream their cards to a single owner.

And, to that post's credit, it is indeed more difficult to play to ever-expanding values without the ability to gift in valuable cards or transfers. So, in this regard, the goal was achieved and players must put more thought and effort into expanding in this way than they would have to normally. Similarly, I've elected to keep expanding my own deck capacity rather than use this inconvenient workaround.

However, it is disingenuous to use a news post from the end of 2018 as an indication of what the servers can and cannot handle for what the game has become by 2021. Admin has not made it clear at what relative value they would face problems, and the only player I'm aware of who is actively pursuing those bounds is 9003 through his common collection. If there were a pressing need to change the game mechanics so that the server could handle the minigame, I am confident that admin has the ability to self-examine and make changes that are necessary. There is really very limited ability for you to advocate for this issue on tech grounds when so little information is available about what the tech's needs and limitations are.

If Max Barry did not want the game to played in this way, then admin should also restrict that to make it not possible to operate like it is. Since that has not happened, we may presume this is not the case and the status quo is fine until changed.

So, to that end, my response was on the subject of social impacts and gameplay mechanic impacts. It is peculiar to just brush that away as irrelevant when it is at the core of your OP.

I'm aware of the earlier news post concerning card farming which is a problem. Thanks, but the topic here is Deck Capacity Abuses. I clearly perceive your POV necessitates a dire need to broaden or change the subject. We've all been there.

Conveniently you are ignoring the inequities these abuses present. Players who do not pay for deck capacity have essentially skipped out on a large bill. Socially that presents a credibility issue. In gameplay it translates to an unfair edge. Many players will quit a game run in such a way. The vast majority of card playing nations are willing to pay increased deck capacity costs, sacrificing sizeable chunks of bank to avoid such negative social impacts. It's an investment in the game itself. Also they consider the potential ramifications of game adjustments in the future. That is because most of us feel the practice is indefensible. Most players also realize duplicating cards through abusing the TCALS mechanism is wrong and contrary to the spirit of the game. But that's for another thread.

All the usual gnashing of teeth over card farms belong in threads dedicated to that particular subject. The topic here is Deck Capacity Abuses. We're going to stick to that.

[Refuge Isle]

I'm aware of the earlier news post concerning card farming which is a problem. Thanks, but the topic here is Deck Capacity Abuses. I clearly perceive your POV necessitates a dire need to broaden or change the subject. We've all been there.

The topic hasn't changed, it's always been about deck capacity bud. The last sentence of the quoted section of the news article is literally addressing creating a balance between a hypothetical gift feature with a hypothetical restricting mechanic. This restricting mechanic became deck capacity. Deck capacity, therefore is a mechanic oriented at restricting the ability to gift and not the ability to buy. It is aimed at providing difficulty to card farmers by forcing them to go through the open market and be subjected to inconvenience and TCALS risk.

It is, therefore, not an exploit or an abuse but a mechanism that is working as intended. It is only a problem for you because there are a variety of players who have become adept at navigating this mechanic, while you remain bound to moral convictions. Both your playstyle and theirs, however, are valid. If it were not so, it would not still be permitted.

You raised an issue of deck capacity being necessitated by "site stability issues". To a certain extent, this is true. But if admin needed to intervene in the current paradigm, they would do so on their own and independent of your concerns on the subject.

So, across the last two posts, I have responded to your deck capacity arguments 1:1. You appear to be arguing that the system is broken and not being respected or played "to Mr. Barry's wishes", but we can clearly see that it is working as intended and explicitly doing the things it was designed to do.

Conveniently you are ignoring the inequities these abuses present. Players who do not pay for deck capacity have essentially skipped out on a large bill. Socially that presents a credibility issue. In gameplay it translates to an unfair edge. Many players will quit a game run in such a way. The vast majority of card playing nations are willing to pay increased deck capacity costs, sacrificing sizeable chunks of bank to avoid such negative social impacts. It's an investment in the game itself. Also they consider the potential ramifications of game adjustments in the future. That is because most of us feel the practice is indefensible.

There certainly may be social ramifications, sure. Maybe players perceive folks like Mikeswill as being duplicitous for continuing to buy cards past the deck limit. That's fine. I'm not advocating for the practice or calling it good. If there are social or reputational consequences to doing this, that may be a component which loosely connects the minigame back to it taking place in a political sim.

Most players also realize duplicating cards through abusing the TCALS mechanism is wrong and contrary to the spirit of the game. But that's for another thread.

Weird, there always seems to be loads of turnout during pull events, and a host of regions now have card programs that run events like these for their own regional activity boosts. Best guess is that admin views the practice as a happy accident for activity perpetuation.

[Benevolent 146]

We are not Electronic Warfare Inc.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

I'm aware of the earlier news post concerning card farming which is a problem. Thanks, but the topic here is Deck Capacity Abuses. I clearly perceive your POV necessitates a dire need to broaden or change the subject. We've all been there.

The topic hasn't changed, it's always been about deck capacity bud. The last sentence of the quoted section of the news article is literally addressing creating a balance between a hypothetical gift feature with a hypothetical restricting mechanic. This restricting mechanic became deck capacity. Deck capacity, therefore is a mechanic oriented at restricting the ability to gift and not the ability to buy. It is aimed at providing difficulty to card farmers by forcing them to go through the open market and be subjected to inconvenience and TCALS risk.

It is, therefore, not an exploit or an abuse but a mechanism that is working as intended. It is only a problem for you because there are a variety of players who have become adept at navigating this mechanic, while you remain bound to moral convictions. Both your playstyle and theirs, however, are valid. If it were not so, it would not still be permitted.

You raised an issue of deck capacity being necessitated by "site stability issues". To a certain extent, this is true. But if admin needed to intervene in the current paradigm, they would do so on their own and independent of your concerns on the subject.

So, across the last two posts, I have responded to your deck capacity arguments 1:1. You appear to be arguing that the system is broken and not being respected or played "to Mr. Barry's wishes", but we can clearly see that it is working as intended and explicitly doing the things it was designed to do.

Conveniently you are ignoring the inequities these abuses present. Players who do not pay for deck capacity have essentially skipped out on a large bill. Socially that presents a credibility issue. In gameplay it translates to an unfair edge. Many players will quit a game run in such a way. The vast majority of card playing nations are willing to pay increased deck capacity costs, sacrificing sizeable chunks of bank to avoid such negative social impacts. It's an investment in the game itself. Also they consider the potential ramifications of game adjustments in the future. That is because most of us feel the practice is indefensible.

There certainly may be social ramifications, sure. Maybe players perceive folks like Mikeswill as being duplicitous for continuing to buy cards past the deck limit. That's fine. I'm not advocating for the practice or calling it good. If there are social or reputational consequences to doing this, that may be a component which loosely connects the minigame back to it taking place in a political sim.

Most players also realize duplicating cards through abusing the TCALS mechanism is wrong and contrary to the spirit of the game. But that's for another thread.

Weird, there always seems to be loads of turnout during pull events, and a host of regions now have card programs that run events like these for their own regional activity boosts. Best guess is that admin views the practice as a happy accident for activity perpetuation.

Incorrect. It fails to force players to go through the auction. The mechanic suggests it to the smaller card players as a way to preserve limited bank. It doesn't stop wealthier players from gifting at all, especially those who've not paid their Deck Capacity cost. Deck Capacity Abusers use this added advantage to purchase the better cards at auction, frustrating these smaller players as they lose their cards. Many of these players have quit cards altogether. It's also well established these enormous decks allow abusers the greater ability to dash small players' hopes by dropping cards on their high bids while at auction. The mechanic fails miserably to achieve it's goals. Any subjective characterizations of specific players who may be implicated are completely unnecessary to your argument. Singling out one player is inappropriate. Name them all or name none. I prefer none, it's simpler and even handed.

The idea of this being a sim has crossed my mind. It certainly has a few defects (loop holes) insiders seize upon. That being said, the game hasn't been portrayed as simulation by the admins.

Season 3 rule changes appear open for debate. An honest game appeals to most players. Does it appeal to you? Several mechanics of the game need adjustment or overhaul. Lack of inclusion of unpaid Deck Capacity costs in DV standings render the metric inaccurate at it's top level. If deck capacity abuse is allowed to stand, then it's prevalence will likely increase and overall game participation shall continue to suffer. Neither is healthy for the game or the site. Earlier another poster suggested DV tabulation drives many of the problems, including deck capacity abuse. It is conceivable a sundown on tabulating DV would solve these issues and could be most easily implemented of all solutions. Do you have any objection to that?

[Fauzjhia]

We are not Electronic Warfare Inc.

your trade history betray you
you can't hide it.
you gave a season 1 legendary to benevolent 0

[Galiantus III]

Abuse of deck capacity limits is a very minor problem compared to puppet farming. With the exception of performance issues (for which I expect admin to appropriately take initiative and solve) if one nation can own thousands of cards it's not a big deal. Just like Refuge Isle has been saying, if there is a mechanical problem with deck capacity, we can safely assume admin is correctly handling the problem, because we aren't currently experiencing problems using the site. So the argument about site performance is what is irrelevant.

[Sudden Death]

Abuse of deck capacity limits is a very minor problem compared to puppet farming. With the exception of performance issues (for which I expect admin to appropriately take initiative and solve) if one nation can own thousands of cards it's not a big deal. Just like Refuge Isle has been saying, if there is a mechanical problem with deck capacity, we can safely assume admin is correctly handling the problem, because we aren't currently experiencing problems using the site. So the argument about site performance is what is irrelevant.

I agree with EWI, not paying your dues when 99%+ of everyone else has paid them is indefensible elitist bullshit. And most especially when it happens to be the richest players on the board. No excuses. Pay for your space.
Small-Medium size deck players sacrifice crucial hard earned bank to hold 500 -1000 cards. The current policy translates into stop paying for Deck Capacity if you wanna get rich, go into the auction and inflate cards."

[Destructive Government Economic System]

*Sigh*

If you dislike a particular feature of the game then that's completely fine, but geez; this entire thread is practically filled with Benevolent wanking off to his own puppets.

Abuse of deck capacity limits is a very minor problem compared to puppet farming. With the exception of performance issues (for which I expect admin to appropriately take initiative and solve) if one nation can own thousands of cards it's not a big deal. Just like Refuge Isle has been saying, if there is a mechanical problem with deck capacity, we can safely assume admin is correctly handling the problem, because we aren't currently experiencing problems using the site. So the argument about site performance is what is irrelevant.

I agree with EWI, not paying your dues when 99%+ of everyone else has paid them is indefensible elitist bullshit. And most especially when it happens to be the richest players on the board. No excuses. Pay for your space.
Small-Medium size deck players sacrifice crucial hard earned bank to hold 500 -1000 cards. The current policy translates into stop paying for Deck Capacity if you wanna get rich, go into the auction and inflate cards."

Seriously dude, stop trying to hide. It's not working, and it's obvious you're the same user who's trying to make yourself look credible by hiding behind dozens of "secretive" alts.

If I also see yet another random account that never posted before - until now - to support the OP (who is also your alt), then I'm gonna bet that it's you again. Just stop.

[Minskiev]

"Paying your dues" LMAO

Paying taxes gives money to the government to make transfer payments. Bank spent to increase deck capacity goes...nowhere, and does nothing. There is no moral obligation to always pay for deck capacity.

Always having to pay for deck capacity crushes the hopes and dreams of collectors. Collecting is part of what cards is about. There is no obligation for collectors to always pay for deck capacity.

Always having to pay for deck capacity caps potential deck value. A cap of potential deck value is not in the spirit of the game. There is no obligation for top traders to always pay for deck capacity.

Always having to pay for deck capacity removes the practice of mains buying legendary cards off of their puppets at a price higher than MV. This helps combat legendary deflation. There is no obligation for some card backers to always pay for deck capacity.

Oh and PS: Benevolent, you are one of the richest players on the board. At least, until I passed you. x)

[Galiantus III]

"Pay for your space" implies there is a cost to allowing people to have space. From a gameplay perspective, there's really no argument for limiting space, because anyone can just use a bunch of puppets to keep extra cards. Granted, this is inconvenient, but it can totally be done. The only loss is the ability to create large collections (which should absolutely be possible). If your only goal is to maximize deck value, there is nothing difficult about doing it while staying within deck capacity. So with the exception of the concerns of admin, why limit deck capacity?

As I said before, the real problem is massive puppet farms. Unlike with deck capacity, there are unaddressed gameplay and potential technical problems with having people create mountains of puppets. And these problems would only be made worse if there was a very strong incentive for players to use puppets for both farming and storage.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Always having to pay for deck capacity caps potential deck value. A cap of potential deck value is not in the spirit of the game. There is no obligation for top traders to always pay for deck capacity.

Always having to pay for deck capacity removes the practice of mains buying legendary cards off of their puppets at a price higher than MV. This helps combat legendary deflation. There is no obligation for some card backers to always pay for deck capacity.

I strongly disagree : first, since you don't have to pay for cards and their unlimited supply, there has to be some kind of regulation for deck capacity and -building. Which is meant to be increasing costs for storage space; abusing or evading this implemented basic game mechanic for regulation is unfair to "law-abiding" players and should be sanctioned, so then there is an "obligation".
And second, why do you think,you'ŕe the one to decide,what's "in the spirit of the game" ?

[Minskiev]

Always having to pay for deck capacity caps potential deck value. A cap of potential deck value is not in the spirit of the game. There is no obligation for top traders to always pay for deck capacity.

Always having to pay for deck capacity removes the practice of mains buying legendary cards off of their puppets at a price higher than MV. This helps combat legendary deflation. There is no obligation for some card backers to always pay for deck capacity.

I strongly disagree : first, since you don't have to pay for cards and their unlimited supply, there has to be some kind of regulation for deck capacity and -building. Which is meant to be increasing costs for storage space; abusing or evading this implemented basic game mechanic for regulation is unfair to "law-abiding" players and should be sanctioned, so then there is an "obligation".
And second, why do you think,you'ŕe the one to decide,what's "in the spirit of the game" ?

Being over deck capacity is pretty inconvenient; the only top people abusing the mechanic need to. As for your second comment, it's a game about the free market and capitalism. There are no wealth caps in the free market. I'm also quite involved in the game, I'd say, and nobody's advocating for a cap on DV from anywhere I can tell, so it's also a popular position, not just mine.

[Sudden Death]

*Sigh*

If you dislike a particular feature of the game then that's completely fine, but geez; this entire thread is practically filled with Benevolent wanking off to his own puppets.

I agree with EWI, not paying your dues when 99%+ of everyone else has paid them is indefensible elitist bullshit. And most especially when it happens to be the richest players on the board. No excuses. Pay for your space.
Small-Medium size deck players sacrifice crucial hard earned bank to hold 500 -1000 cards. The current policy translates into stop paying for Deck Capacity if you wanna get rich, go into the auction and inflate cards."

Seriously dude, stop trying to hide. It's not working, and it's obvious you're the same user who's trying to make yourself look credible by hiding behind dozens of "secretive" alts.

If I also see yet another random account that never posted before - until now - to support the OP (who is also your alt), then I'm gonna bet that it's you again. Just stop.

There are no dozens of secretive alts here. That's either your paranoia speaking or your hyperbola looking to misinform. I'm going with the latter. Ben 146 isn't engaged in the subject matter. So besides the OP, and my post (which is also log-in error), name another. Well, you can't. Besides that, this is a shared account, so get over it. There are plenty of players who'd prefer a more even playing field. You aren't one of them, that's your prerogative, fine.

The only wanking on this thread is done by a circle of the discord card mob who've wrested control of the auction, mainly by collusive and nefarious means, turning into a personal device to wank up their DV by use as a card duplication device. Not to mention the self serving inflation/deflation cycles. Those people don't want to add new players to the game or institute any changes for it's betterment. Y'all like the self serving mess you've created. Pay the damn deck capacity costs like the rest of us.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Thoughts from a relatively low-activity card collector:

1) I've been collecting cards since Day 1 of S1. Always enjoyed it, like building my deck slowly but surely and collecting various cards (mostly shiny Legendaries and people in my region, TSP).
2) I like having a cards badge - it's a fun goal/prize for those who build high value collections. Please don't take this away!
3) As someone who is low-activity, don't have time to build puppet empires (I have maybe...7 puppets?), and refuse to artificially manipulate market, I am dismayed by current state of Cards and I think the abuse of the deck capacity system is one of the factors contributing.
4) Don't we want Cards to be a fun system that is accessible to all, even brand new players? If a new player comes in now, they'll be overwhelmed by the twisted way the Cards system is now working and will give up in disgust. I only really keep collecting myself because I started early enough that I'm able to have a half-decent collection that I've collected in a "normal" fashion.

Anyway - I think there are multiple improvements that can be made to Cards. But deck capacity is a system that doesn't seem to be doing anything but punishing the honest player. The whole system is "artificial" so setting an abitrary deck capacity isn't any more artificial than the fact that we are already clicking buttons to "own" little pretty images on this web game.

[Fauzjhia]

Thoughts from a relatively low-activity card collector:

1) I've been collecting cards since Day 1 of S1. Always enjoyed it, like building my deck slowly but surely and collecting various cards (mostly shiny Legendaries and people in my region, TSP).
2) I like having a cards badge - it's a fun goal/prize for those who build high value collections. Please don't take this away!
3) As someone who is low-activity, don't have time to build puppet empires (I have maybe...7 puppets?), and refuse to artificially manipulate market, I am dismayed by current state of Cards and I think the abuse of the deck capacity system is one of the factors contributing.
4) Don't we want Cards to be a fun system that is accessible to all, even brand new players? If a new player comes in now, they'll be overwhelmed by the twisted way the Cards system is now working and will give up in disgust. I only really keep collecting myself because I started early enough that I'm able to have a half-decent collection that I've collected in a "normal" fashion.

Anyway - I think there are multiple improvements that can be made to Cards. But deck capacity is a system that doesn't seem to be doing anything but punishing the honest player. The whole system is "artificial" so setting an abitrary deck capacity isn't any more artificial than the fact that we are already clicking buttons to "own" little pretty images on this web game.

As I pointed, deck capacity is a mechanism that only limit small players, it has no effect on farmer who can cheat thanks to puppets, artificial inflation or bypassing deck capacity.
if we want to fairer to small players, we need a mechanism that encourage players to buy deck capacity, as well as a mechanism that reward them for it.
we also need to keep in mind that some type of collection are legitimate reason to ignore current deck capacity arbitrary limits, as I mention, all ultra-rare or the west pacific collection both these collection just have too many cards to be limited by deck capacity.<


EDIT : Strange, I vaguely remember that Electronic Warfare Inc's last post, was first posted by benevolent 146. I really wish I had taken a screen shot.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Does anyone take into account, that, referring to the current (and existing) system, said "volume collections" were never intended (or wanted) to come into existence ?
It's a pity that people always seem to find a way to abuse or bypass system limitations, like, for example, the overstretched storage capacities, thus ruining the game for many others without hesitation or regard, only for their own gain.

[Arpasia]

I think this is a fair proposal. To the extent players have the capacity to go over their procured Deck Capacity, it makes sense to have a deduction from the amount of Deck Value calculated. I don't have an interest in stopping players from having any particular style, but it's valid for the actual scoring of the metric to be uniform across the board. This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Thank you. It would be a fair and reasoned correction. I think letting these players disperse their assets as they see fit is reasonable. On the other hand, deducting a good chunk of their current banks to pay for this used storage space is crucial. It forces them to replace bank by unloading cards. Whether its a % of the over capacity players banks or it's all bank exceeding a specified amount of bank is a question for debate. Right now i'm leaning towards the latter. I agree that a players style isn't the issue here, rather its correcting the metrics of actual scoring. Basic standards should be observed. Deck capacity is a basic standard.

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

In addition, I would also address collection abuse by BANNING public card solicitations on this forum and BANNING private card solicitations done by telegram. Violaters would have their cards deleted. Full stop! I would also end the culture of toxic ostentation by setting all collections to PRIVATE viewing only. This would end public poppycocking forever. Furthermore, a ceiling should be placed on the total MAXIMUM number of cards any one player can have on a nation. In combination, these actions would help to drastically cut back on bandwidth issues and equalize opportunity for casual players (the VAST majority of the NS community) who are hurt by the actions of those who trade and collect excessively. Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

Not surprised if you are siding with the OP,

Against.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Thoughts from a relatively low-activity card collector:

1) I've been collecting cards since Day 1 of S1. Always enjoyed it, like building my deck slowly but surely and collecting various cards (mostly shiny Legendaries and people in my region, TSP).
2) I like having a cards badge - it's a fun goal/prize for those who build high value collections. Please don't take this away!
3) As someone who is low-activity, don't have time to build puppet empires (I have maybe...7 puppets?), and refuse to artificially manipulate market, I am dismayed by current state of Cards and I think the abuse of the deck capacity system is one of the factors contributing.
4) Don't we want Cards to be a fun system that is accessible to all, even brand new players? If a new player comes in now, they'll be overwhelmed by the twisted way the Cards system is now working and will give up in disgust. I only really keep collecting myself because I started early enough that I'm able to have a half-decent collection that I've collected in a "normal" fashion.

Anyway - I think there are multiple improvements that can be made to Cards. But deck capacity is a system that doesn't seem to be doing anything but punishing the honest player. The whole system is "artificial" so setting an abitrary deck capacity isn't any more artificial than the fact that we are already clicking buttons to "own" little pretty images on this web game.

1) I started collecting late in that first day. On Day 1 or 2 of S1 did you notice that KK already had .01 bids on literally every common or uncommon in sight? Another high profile player had done the same with .50 bids up on epics and 1.00 on Legends. These guys really got a good head start, especially KK. To this day he still has a ridiculously low 300 card deck capacity. I still can't figure how he had enough bank to support all the .01 bids i saw.
2) Yes, let's keep the badge!
3) It's so good to hear from a casual player on this thread. Thanks! I believe most players are probably like you. Yes, i agree. Deck capacity abuse is one of a number of contributing factors ruining the game for the many.
4) I couldn't have said this better - "If a new player comes in now, they'll be overwhelmed by the twisted way the Cards system is now working and will give up in disgust." I also agree the key to a nice deck was playing early, in that April 2018 window before the auction existed. Card packs drawn at that time had a significantly higher probability of drawing legendary cards, far, far greater than today. Plus there was no auction distraction. The game seemed innocent then but forces were soon quietly, perhaps secretly at work planning to pounce upon the defects. The first one being the frequency of drawing cards from within your region. Lucky for a card player if they were located in a Legendary's region. Too lucky.

You make good points on the arbitrariness of the game basics such as card draws and deck capacity. These should be malleable, especially the capricious auctioning system, with it's most notable defect being TCALS abuse.

[Bears Armed]

It's a pity that people always seem to find a way to abuse or bypass system limitations, like, for example, the overstretched storage capacities, thus ruining the game for many others without hesitation or regard, only for their own gain.

That's what some of us have been saying, for ages, about raiding..

[Berhakonia]

Deck this, capacity that...

When is victoria season 3 coming out?