Deck Capacity Abuses

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Deck this, capacity that...

When is victoria season 3 coming out?

There was a thread on that subject, however, its been locked. viewtopic.php?f=42&t=487339

Reason being - no one knows until Max says. Patience is a virtue.

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..

Since you've diverged off subject, let me add my personal observation to your post. IMO the card game appears to have significantly shrunken participation in R/D games.

Now as for Deck Capacity, it's abuse lends to an extremely enhanced ability of the perpetrators to drop cards in auction and rob smaller casual players of precious bank while vying for auctioned cards. Many of these players get frustrated and quit. Extremely large collections were never intended to exist. This is one of the crucial reasons.

[Coffin-Breathe]

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

Well,I guess, you wouldn't be to much astonished to learn about me disliking "raiding" too...

[Arpasia]

Will the mods intervene?

[Vylixan]

Let me state upfront that I only care about DV in so far as it gives me a gold badge on my main and a few of my puppets. But that's like 300-400 DV that's needed for that, I can almost do that with JV on my main, and maybe a few puppets. I do have quite some DV on my main, but that's because some people took low owner TP cards and inflated them, while I already owned copies of them. I could not care less about DV above my badge, but I want to be upfront about me having DV, but only about 1/3 is DV I was responsible for. I rarely do things in cards that get cards inflated to high values. But on occasion I like to try my hand at inflating a card to, *gasp*, 100 MV!

With one exception all my collection nations are below 5 MV per card.
In fact, my highest DV/card value on any collection nation is at 12.87, but that's because it's my trade nation and has quite some valuable cards for trading, sorting and organizing. My main is at 2.79 MV/card with a total of 10,076 cards, worth a combined 28k DV.
But all my collection nations together are at 2.02 MV per card, with a total of 21k cards for 42k of total DV.

Now to my point.
People keep harping on about deck space 'abuse' by players going for DV
They forget that there a also quite a lot players that build collections that are in no way aimed at collecting more DV. But still need lot's of deck space to be able to collect cards.
This includes regional collections, themed collection, rarity collections etc.

You like Dragons, and want to collect 737 cards with dragons on them? That will cost you cumulative 1000, or 140 with SS, for deck space. That sounds doable I'd say.
What about all kinds legendaries and badges? Like Condemned/Commended nations, Issue Authors, Resolution Authors and rubber duckies? Anywhere from 1000 bank to 10,000 bank depending on SS and completion.
Want to collect a large collection of flags with Wreaths on them, currently 2,429 cards?, get ready to pay 38,000 bank, or 4,900 with SS, for deck space. No one I know has ever held more then 30k of bank.
You like cards with animals on them, and you collected 2,544 of them? Well first pay 40,000 bank, or 5,525 with SS, for deck space.
Want to collect all the 5,045 nice purple S2 cards? Pay 338,350 bank , or 42,925 with SS, for deck space please.
There are 7 regional collections that are over 3900 cards big. That would cost a whopping 155,000 or 19,019 with SS, cumulative bank to pay for the deck space. S2 of TNP? 8773 cards costing cumulative 1,801,800 bank (Or 231k with SS). That's right, 1.8 million bank just to host the S2 TNP collection
And those collection are small potatoes, want to collect all 11,932 S1 Rares? Get ready to shell out 4.5 million/569k bank for deck space. That collection is worth 9,769.75 bank, for a whopping 0.8 MV per card on avg.
19,000 Ex-nation cards? over 19 million or 2.2 million bank please.
What about collecting 22,000 Australian Aboriginal flags? Better invest 28 or 3.5 million bank first
And what about the biggest collection of them all? Want to collect all 235,021 common cards across both seasons?
Better call up your buddy Jeff Bezos and ask for a loan of more then 34 Billion bank to be able to store them all. Or pay for Site Supporter and ask him for only 4.3 Billion.

I did assume deck space costs without Site Supporter because not everyone can pay for it, it's still ungodly amounts of bank even with SS.

I can guarantee you that none of those collections have been collected because the cards are so valuable in MV, they have value in other ways though! Infact, I'd wager to say that most, if not all, of these collection have cost more in investment then they are worth now, or in the future.

And for those people that suggest that people host collections across multiple nations, let me do some back of a napkin math for you and take my very own TP regional collection.
I currently own 7,762 unique TP cards. let's say I keep my bank investment for that nation, 285 bank for 1000 cards, and my one Site Supporter the same, and divide this over how many nations I would need to host my current collection without exceeding deck space.
I could invest 1 bank per nation, and get each nation up to 100 deck space for a total of 149 bank for 149 nations to host my current collection. or invest a bit more, 505 bank, and only have to create 103 nations. That one Site Supporter is not gonna help much here.
Now do the same calculations for the other collections I named. And people complain already about the amount of nations dedicated to cards. Wait till 9003 creates 4700 nations to host his commons collection. Or I guess he can shell out 2350 bank or so to create only 2350 nations. Would be a headache and a half to manage those though. And good luck visiting his collection!

You know what I would do if I had to pay for the 17,474 cards 'missing' deck space across all my collection? If I had to divide this across hundreds more nations to host my collections? Or even get some crazy fine for some imaginary crime I have committed? I would stop playing cards right away. And I taking a wild guess so would many other players and organizations. Congratulations, you are now top of the pack in a dead game! You did it! You successfully chased away all the players, and killed all the fun, but the game is now exactly how you wanted it to be. So be careful what you wish for!

So can we stop focussing so much about people's deck value, and the value of a small percentage of cards, and acknowledge there is more to collecting cards then just a few numbers that look nice? That cards have inherent value independent of any perceived or real MV? That people collect, trade, buy and sell cards because they love the cards? Can we stop focussing on who has the biggest and largest for once?

_{Edit: Corrected some minor mistakes and typo's}

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

A comprehensive post, and using your indoor voice, very nice. I'll respond to each PP in the post.

Agreed, badge threshold is at a fair DV. The inflation thing is a gimmick, of which some players overdo and a few have become obsessed. Sad. I inflated a few over one month using another puppet of my main. I feel it's no display of talent but rather misguided ostentation. I hope the practice can be phased out with some negative incentives on inflating.

I've seen some of your collections, nice work on those. The 10,000 card nation is definitely an outlier in it's sheer numbers.

However, this was clearly discouraged by the game developers. Capacity was made exponentially expensive as more and more space is added. They didn't do this arbitrarily. Creating this aspect was an action taken. So, why do auctioned cards go into decks over the cap but drawn cards or gifted cards don't? A question without a definitive answer. Perhaps the developers didn't foresee the collection mania which ensued for some players. Possibly they expected players to abide by their capacity rules. This has set up a potential trap within the game for players not abiding by this particular aspect of the developers intentions. Restraining DV was not fingered as reason here, but rather site stability.

Yes. I've run the numbers. That's the way it stacks up and the developers chose these costs. Caveat emptor? OTOH, irl occupation of space, or land (aka real property) without payment to owner brings to mind adverse possession, also known as squatting. Whether this is viewed as such in a game of nation building could be debated.

The developers weren't originally concerned about the numbers of puppet nations, but the size of card collections. As of now, technical has placed no limitations on the numbers of puppets an account can create. Conceivably, they may wish to do so for S3. IMHO, the vast overreach in numerous players puppetry does appear to injure the game. Tech could determine excessive puppet creation as an additional site stability issue. I doubt detrimental effects to the card game alone would limit puppets in the greater game but number of card drawing puppets per account could be deemed an appropriate game targeted solution.

As it is, many players feel the initial fun of the game is already gone and new players quit fast. They can barely draw any decent cards in pulls. They pay bank needed for card acquisition for increased deck capacity while other skip out. The auction is ruined by obsessive inflation, TCAL abusers, despicable bidding and other nefarious game practices. We pursue a comprehensive course correction in the card game to save the game. This thread is dedicated to Deck Capacity abuses, which must be addressed in some form or another. Those players who have greatly violated deck capacity by not paying their fare should explore solutions rather than seeking a convenient exception. An obvious solution is resale and redistribution of card overages. Rule changes have been suggested. Deducting these unpaid deck capacity costs from DV. Paying down some of the debt with excessive Bank from all puppets, especially those banks drawn from the sale of Duplicated Cards from TCALS abuse is another avenue to explore. And don't forget the prospect of declaring Adverse Possession, although you'd require a statute of limitation declared by an appropriate authority (Max?) plus satisfy other requirements.

EDIT: grammar, spelling and one added sentence in second to last PP.

[Galiantus III]

However, this was clearly discouraged by the game developers. Capacity was made exponentially expensive as more and more space is added. They didn't do this arbitrary. Creating this aspect was an action taken. Why do auctioned cards go into decks over the cap, but drawn cards or gifted ones don't? A question without a definitive answer. Perhaps the developers didn't foresee the collection mania which ensued for some players. Possibly they expected players to abide by their capacity rules. This has set up a potential trap within the game for players not abiding by this particular aspect of the developers intentions. Restraining DV was not fingered as reason here, but rather site stability.

As pointed out by myself and others, this is the crux of the issue. Attempts to limit deck size are not about the game, but the site. So it makes no sense to argue to limit deck size as a game improvement, which is exactly what you have been doing.

You yourself seem to recognize that actual gameplay problems do not have anything to do with deck size - else why bring up Admin's initial purpose, which had nothing to
do with gameplay. Rather, the method for obtaining cards encourages heavy use of puppets, which only increases the portion of cards no one cares about for each season. Then there are problems with the auction system, and card inflation - all of which are independent problems to deck capacity.

If deck capacity was a serious problem for the server right now, Admin would find a way to address it. But they clearly don't, or else they would increase the severity of restrictions. If not for the technical problems cited by admin, there would be no limit on deck capacity. In fact, I would argue that deck capacity limits has actually been a net negative for the game, and that it contributes to new player frustration.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

However, this was clearly discouraged by the game developers. Capacity was made exponentially expensive as more and more space is added. They didn't do this arbitrary. Creating this aspect was an action taken. Why do auctioned cards go into decks over the cap, but drawn cards or gifted ones don't? A question without a definitive answer. Perhaps the developers didn't foresee the collection mania which ensued for some players. Possibly they expected players to abide by their capacity rules. This has set up a potential trap within the game for players not abiding by this particular aspect of the developers intentions. Restraining DV was not fingered as reason here, but rather site stability.

As pointed out by myself and others, this is the crux of the issue. Attempts to limit deck size are not about the game, but the site. So it makes no sense to argue to limit deck size as a game improvement, which is exactly what you have been doing.

You yourself seem to recognize that actual gameplay problems do not have anything to do with deck size - else why bring up Admin's initial purpose, which had nothing to
do with gameplay. Rather, the method for obtaining cards encourages heavy use of puppets, which only increases the portion of cards no one cares about for each season. Then there are problems with the auction system, and card inflation - all of which are independent problems to deck capacity.

If deck capacity was a serious problem for the server right now, Admin would find a way to address it. But they clearly don't, or else they would increase the severity of restrictions. If not for the technical problems cited by admin, there would be no limit on deck capacity. In fact, I would argue that deck capacity limits has actually been a net negative for the game, and that it contributes to new player frustration.

Thank you for the response.

It's also a fairness issue. In gameplay, players holding huge numbers of cards have a greatly enhanced ability to drop cards on other players at auction. KK did it daily as do many others.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Here's a suggestion concerning the extremely large collection issue.

A NationStates Card Collection Gallery could theoretically be created to curate these enormous collections. Nations wishing to donate their collections (Donor Nations) to the Gallery would have these cards subtracted from their deck capacity, thus avoiding the excessive costs of capacity increases.

Donor Nations could still add appropriate cards to their collection, as many as technical would determine feasible. No other nation will be allowed to make card additions to the collection, only the original Donor Nation. In making their donation, Donor Nations would cede any right to repossess the cards or sell the cards within the donated collection and these cards would not be included in Donor Nation DV.

Tech would need to address the viability of a NationStates Card Gallery.

[Fauzjhia]

Here's a suggestion concerning the extremely large collection issue.

A NationStates Card Collection Gallery could theoretically be created to curate these enormous collections. Nations wishing to donate their collections (Donor Nations) to the Gallery would have these cards subtracted from their deck capacity, thus avoiding the excessive costs of capacity increases.

Donor Nations could still add appropriate cards to their collection, as many as technical would determine feasible. No other nation will be allowed to make card additions to the collection, only the original Donor Nation. In making their donation, Donor Nations would cede any right to repossess the cards or sell the cards within the donated collection and these cards would not be included in Donor Nation DV.

Tech would need to address the viability of a NationStates Card Gallery.

Did you even think about that, or is that an half-baken solution.
since nations could use this, to bypass deck capacity, so are you going to regulate Card Collection Galleries. At this point, you might argue to have a card moderator.
I would limit to 1 card gallery by nation
and the gallery goal has to be identified/ clear. (regional, rarity or flag. the goal must be public) although, this will need to be regulated. because people could abuse this to bypass capacity although

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Here's a suggestion concerning the extremely large collection issue.

A NationStates Card Collection Gallery could theoretically be created to curate these enormous collections. Nations wishing to donate their collections (Donor Nations) to the Gallery would have these cards subtracted from their deck capacity, thus avoiding the excessive costs of capacity increases.

Donor Nations could still add appropriate cards to their collection, as many as technical would determine feasible. No other nation will be allowed to make card additions to the collection, only the original Donor Nation. In making their donation, Donor Nations would cede any right to repossess the cards or sell the cards within the donated collection and these cards would not be included in Donor Nation DV.

Tech would need to address the viability of a NationStates Card Gallery.

Did you even think about that, or is that an half-baken solution.
since nations could use this, to bypass deck capacity, so are you going to regulate Card Collection Galleries. At this point, you might argue to have a card moderator.
I would limit to 1 card gallery by nation
and the gallery goal has to be identified/ clear. (regional, rarity or flag. the goal must be public) although, this will need to be regulated. because people could abuse this to bypass capacity although

Yes, but what you're describing as "half-baken" was intentional. I want others to think about "the suggestion" of a NationStates Card Collection Gallery and have some discussion within this thread.

I envision a lone centralized NationStates Card Collection Gallery in which any nation is allowed to donate one cumbersome collection, all other collections would remain in their deck. "Cumbersome" - to be defined by Technical.

For the record, we already have viewtopic.php?f=42&t=484200 in which Giovanniland has done a fine job resurrecting and maintaining. This is not a replacement of that.

The Gallery is strictly to curate those cumbersome collections owned by the several nations which can't support them in deck capacity. It's mission is to provide those players a path to mitigate the DC costs, preserve the BIG collection and continue adding appropriate cards to their collection through gifting, possibly at a minimal fee of .01 Bank per card TBD later by technical. The Gallery would archive these collections in perpetuity or until either the Donor Nation CTE'd. Technical would necessarily determine the various aspects details.

This still includes the other details in my initial suggestion:

No other nation will be allowed to make card additions to the collection, only the original Donor Nation. In making their donation, Donor Nations would cede any right to repossess the cards or sell the cards within the donated collection and these cards would not be included in Donor Nation DV.

Yes, each donated collection would need to provide a name identifying the focus for the set. They cannot be an aggregation of random cards.

BTW, Max has been named Frisbeeteria as the Trading Cards Development Manager. https://www.nationstates.net/page=news (you really should read Mr. Barry's news posts)

Further ideas concerning this proposition are gladly encouraged.

[Galiantus III]

It's also a fairness issue. In gameplay, players holding huge numbers of cards have a greatly enhanced ability to drop cards on other players at auction. KK did it daily as do many others.

Enforcing limits on deck capacity will not prevent dropping, because one player can still own hundreds of nations, each with 100+ cards, depending on how far they take things. Early on when I discovered heisting, I did exactly that.

Limiting deck capacity does nothing to control the amount of economic power a player has. Limiting what puppets can do does. This is why everyone keeps seeking solutions that limit the use of puppets (which was the original point of deck capacity, by the way. I was was wrong about the performance issues, though they were a secondary reason.)

Basically, if puppet farming could be addressed the right way, a lot of the issues you are seeing would be solved. If artificial inflation was addressed, this would also fix certain issues. Then perhaps existing limits on deck capacity could actually be removed.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

It's also a fairness issue. In gameplay, players holding huge numbers of cards have a greatly enhanced ability to drop cards on other players at auction. KK did it daily as do many others.

Enforcing limits on deck capacity will not prevent dropping, because one player can still own hundreds of nations, each with 100+ cards, depending on how far they take things. Early on when I discovered heisting, I did exactly that.

Limiting deck capacity does nothing to control the amount of economic power a player has. Limiting what puppets can do does. This is why everyone keeps seeking solutions that limit the use of puppets (which was the original point of deck capacity, by the way. I was was wrong about the performance issues, though they were a secondary reason.)

Basically, if puppet farming could be addressed the right way, a lot of the issues you are seeing would be solved. If artificial inflation was addressed, this would also fix certain issues. Then perhaps existing limits on deck capacity could actually be removed.

When one player's main has 257,000+ cards and hundreds of puppets that's an enormous advantage. That's economic power with a big dose of intimidation. And there are others players with mains over 30,000+ cards with over a thousand puppets chocked to the brim with cards. Sure some medium range players have what you've described, but they can't overcome those behemoths in drop contest. More to the point, the many new, small and casual players get dropped on by any and all of these other types. They quit real soon. Terrible for the future of the game.

Hopefully the other changes can be made and they will be effective. However, I doubt deck capacity limits will be removed. I think that's a pipe dream. It would be the easiest of all fixes in removing it and it hasn't happened. That's because it's probably absolutely necessary to the stability of the site, as has been discussed thoroughly. Note the site had a big (ERROR) crash this morning. Just sayin'.

[Galiantus III]

When one player's main has 257,000+ cards and hundreds of puppets that's an enormous advantage. That's economic power with a big dose of intimidation. And there are others players with mains over 30,000+ cards with over a thousand puppets chocked to the brim with cards. Sure some medium range players have what you've described, but they can't overcome those behemoths in drop contest. More to the point, the many new, small and casual players get dropped on by any and all of these other types. They quit real soon. Terrible for the future of the game.

That doesn't address my point. Who cares about deck capacity when you have 100s of puppets at your disposal?

Hopefully the other changes can be made and they will be effective. However, I doubt deck capacity limits will be removed. I think that's a pipe dream. It would be the easiest of all fixes in removing it and it hasn't happened. That's because it's probably absolutely necessary to the stability of the site, as has been discussed thoroughly. Note the site had a big (ERROR) crash this morning. Just sayin'.

The reason it has been discussed thoroughly is because you seem to not be getting the point. You seem to think that site stability is some great argument in favor of your proposal, as if there are massive server problems being caused by it. But neither you nor any of us are actually behind the scenes seeing what those problems are, unlike site admin. Who knows why the server crashed this morning? There are lots of reasons that could have happened besides card capacity. Your claims are therefore speculative and irrelevant.

Your form of argumentation is also quite lackluster. It basically amounts to having two basic arguments, and switching to the other when someone rebuts one of them. Your first argument was that it is unfair that deck capacity isn't more strict. When people disagreed and showed that in actuality, these allowances make the game better, you moved the goalposts with your second argument. Your second argument was that deck capacity limitations are needed to maintain site stability. When people explained to you why this is a poor argument, you deflected and went back to arguing about fairness. Instead of bringing up irrelevant points and dancing about the issue, how about actually responding to what people have to say?

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

When one player's main has 257,000+ cards and hundreds of puppets that's an enormous advantage. That's economic power with a big dose of intimidation. And there are others players with mains over 30,000+ cards with over a thousand puppets chocked to the brim with cards. Sure some medium range players have what you've described, but they can't overcome those behemoths in drop contest. More to the point, the many new, small and casual players get dropped on by any and all of these other types. They quit real soon. Terrible for the future of the game.

That doesn't address my point. Who cares about deck capacity when you have 100s of puppets at your disposal?

Hopefully the other changes can be made and they will be effective. However, I doubt deck capacity limits will be removed. I think that's a pipe dream. It would be the easiest of all fixes in removing it and it hasn't happened. That's because it's probably absolutely necessary to the stability of the site, as has been discussed thoroughly. Note the site had a big (ERROR) crash this morning. Just sayin'.

The reason it has been discussed thoroughly is because you seem to not be getting the point. You seem to think that site stability is some great argument in favor of your proposal, as if there are massive server problems being caused by it. But neither you nor any of us are actually behind the scenes seeing what those problems are, unlike site admin. Who knows why the server crashed this morning? There are lots of reasons that could have happened besides card capacity. Your claims are therefore speculative and irrelevant.

Your form of argumentation is also quite lackluster. It basically amounts to having two basic arguments, and switching to the other when someone rebuts one of them. Your first argument was that it is unfair that deck capacity isn't more strict. When people disagreed and showed that in actuality, these allowances make the game better, you moved the goalposts with your second argument. Your second argument was that deck capacity limitations are needed to maintain site stability. When people explained to you why this is a poor argument, you deflected and went back to arguing about fairness. Instead of bringing up irrelevant points and dancing about the issue, how about actually responding to what people have to say?

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

When one player's main has 257,000+ cards and hundreds of puppets that's an enormous advantage. That's economic power with a big dose of intimidation. And there are others players with mains over 30,000+ cards with over a thousand puppets chocked to the brim with cards. Sure some medium range players have what you've described, but they can't overcome those behemoths in drop contest. More to the point, the many new, small and casual players get dropped on by any and all of these other types. They quit real soon. Terrible for the future of the game.

That doesn't address my point. Who cares about deck capacity when you have 100s of puppets at your disposal?

Hopefully the other changes can be made and they will be effective. However, I doubt deck capacity limits will be removed. I think that's a pipe dream. It would be the easiest of all fixes in removing it and it hasn't happened. That's because it's probably absolutely necessary to the stability of the site, as has been discussed thoroughly. Note the site had a big (ERROR) crash this morning. Just sayin'.

The reason it has been discussed thoroughly is because you seem to not be getting the point. You seem to think that site stability is some great argument in favor of your proposal, as if there are massive server problems being caused by it. But neither you nor any of us are actually behind the scenes seeing what those problems are, unlike site admin. Who knows why the server crashed this morning? There are lots of reasons that could have happened besides card capacity. Your claims are therefore speculative and irrelevant.

Your form of argumentation is also quite lackluster. It basically amounts to having two basic arguments, and switching to the other when someone rebuts one of them. Your first argument was that it is unfair that deck capacity isn't more strict. When people disagreed and showed that in actuality, these allowances make the game better, you moved the goalposts with your second argument. Your second argument was that deck capacity limitations are needed to maintain site stability. When people explained to you why this is a poor argument, you deflected and went back to arguing about fairness. Instead of bringing up irrelevant points and dancing about the issue, how about actually responding to what people have to say?

Actually, the response did address your point. Take it or leave it but at least acknowledge it.

Forms of argumentation? Please. Pretentious snobbery is unbecoming.

As for the rest, your subjective opinions and characterizations are as redundant as those of anyone else. BFD. Why you and a few others refuse to grasp the fairness issue is beyond me. But then again, i like a fair game that values new blood in the game. It seems you prefer a game which kowtows to elitist players. That's by your choice and no argument you can muster will have me supporting it.

[Galiantus III]

Actually, the response did address your point. Take it or leave it but at least acknowledge it.

No. I argued that "Enforcing limits on deck capacity will not prevent dropping" and "Limiting deck capacity does nothing to control the amount of economic power a player has". You failed to explain how your proposal prevents this, instead lumping my argument (that puppets are the real issue) with yours:

When one player's main has 257,000+ cards and hundreds of puppets that's an enormous advantage. That's economic power with a big dose of intimidation. And there are others players with mains over 30,000+ cards with over a thousand puppets chocked to the brim with cards. Sure some medium range players have what you've described, but they can't overcome those behemoths in drop contest. More to the point, the many new, small and casual players get dropped on by any and all of these other types. They quit real soon. Terrible for the future of the game.

A player with tons of puppets has tons of cheap deck capacity, and is thus free to drop cards without limitations. Limiting deck capacity is therefore ineffective at stopping drops, and would not have the effect you claim it would.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Actually, the response did address your point. Take it or leave it but at least acknowledge it.

No. I argued that "Enforcing limits on deck capacity will not prevent dropping" and "Limiting deck capacity does nothing to control the amount of economic power a player has". You failed to explain how your proposal prevents this, instead lumping my argument (that puppets are the real issue) with yours:

Well, lmao, so what if you won't acknowledge the point. Your bad. I don't have to explain a premise i didn't make. Dude, I didn't say it prevents jack. Furthermore, prevention is impossible. Prevention is for Forest Fires, seen any of them lately?

When one player's main has 257,000+ cards and hundreds of puppets that's an enormous advantage. That's economic power with a big dose of intimidation. And there are others players with mains over 30,000+ cards with over a thousand puppets chocked to the brim with cards. Sure some medium range players have what you've described, but they can't overcome those behemoths in drop contest. More to the point, the many new, small and casual players get dropped on by any and all of these other types. They quit real soon. Terrible for the future of the game.

A player with tons of puppets has tons of cheap deck capacity, and is thus free to drop cards without limitations. Limiting deck capacity is therefore ineffective at stopping drops, and would not have the effect you claim it would.

A card player with tons of puppets < A card player with tons of puppets and a nation with 20K to 50K cards < A card player with tons of puppets and a nation with a couple hundred thousand cards has megatons of cheap deck capacity.

This is bc players with a ton 'o puppets™ (such precise terminology, lol) aren't as rare as players with these crazy numbers of cards over deck capacity are, and guess what dear friendo? They got themselves some ton o' puppets™ too.

Let's equate.
Dude X with 1000 puppets can pay 1.00 Bank x 1000 = 1,000.00 Bank = space for 100,000 cards.
Dude Y with 1000 puppets can pay 1.00 Bank x 1000 = 1,000.00 Bank = space for 100,000 cards plus has a main with 258,000+ cards.
Lets say Dude X's main has 1000 cards and he's paid up for that Deck Capacity.
But Dude Y's has paid less than Dude X has for his main's deck capacity and overall and yet has 358,000+ cards.

Dude Y has 358,000+ cards vs. Dude X's with 101,000. Now do you see it?

Therefore, one must conclude Dude Y has a distinct numerical advantage in the probability of finding the specific card to drop at auction at any random time than our friend Dude X.

Keep in mind Dude Y paid less in deck space yet holds 257,000+ more cards.

QED(quite enough done)

[Galiantus III]

1. You seem to think that people won't just adapt to your system in order to continue doing exactly what they want to do. Nothing is preventing people from just creating more puppets to hold more cards. If your proposed changes affect Dude Y in a way that keeps him from being able to drop cards, and he really likes being able to do that, he'll just create more puppets and not transfer them to his main.

2. You are (likely purposely) neglecting the costs incurred by Dude Y having to go through the market to transfer cards and bank to his main. Gifting cards is significantly cheaper than having to sell them between your puppets, because it carries less risk. And this is easily demonstrated by the fact that pretty much every card farmer just gifts cards between their nations if they can (whenever the goal is card storage rather than inflation). A player who pays a little extra for space on their puppets clearly has lower operating costs than the player that tries to hold as many cards as possible on their main. But I digress - you are simply wrong in your assumption that Dude Y's play style incurs no costs. Plenty of card players play both styles and are equally as successful.

3. All the players who can easily drop cards right now are already well beyond the point that making a change would remove their power. All those cards they have will still be there after the change, ready to drop at a moment's notice. And it's not like they don't already have a ton of puppets at their disposal. So even with your proposed change there will be as much card dropping as there ever has been.

So you are incorrect. Enforcing hard limits on deck capacity will have virtually no effect on card dropping. If anything it will only contribute to the puppet spam we see everywhere, and make it even harder for new players to progress.

Well, lmao, so what if you won't acknowledge the point. Your bad. I don't have to explain a premise i didn't make. Dude, I didn't say it prevents jack. Furthermore, prevention is impossible. Prevention is for Forest Fires, seen any of them lately?

That's rich. You're the one arguing limiting deck capacity is about fairness, not me. If you didn't think it would prevent anything you wouldn't have led with that argument in the first place. So stop gaslighting with this BS. I've got a scroll wheel just like you.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

1. You seem to think that people won't just adapt to your system in order to continue doing exactly what they want to do. Nothing is preventing people from just creating more puppets to hold more cards. If your proposed changes affect Dude Y in a way that keeps him from being able to drop cards, and he really likes being able to do that, he'll just create more puppets and not transfer them to his main.

2. You are (likely purposely) neglecting the costs incurred by Dude Y having to go through the market to transfer cards and bank to his main. Gifting cards is significantly cheaper than having to sell them between your puppets, because it carries less risk. And this is easily demonstrated by the fact that pretty much every card farmer just gifts cards between their nations if they can (whenever the goal is card storage rather than inflation). A player who pays a little extra for space on their puppets clearly has lower operating costs than the player that tries to hold as many cards as possible on their main. But I digress - you are simply wrong in your assumption that Dude Y's play style incurs no costs. Plenty of card players play both styles and are equally as successful.

3. All the players who can easily drop cards right now are already well beyond the point that making a change would remove their power. All those cards they have will still be there after the change, ready to drop at a moment's notice. And it's not like they don't already have a ton of puppets at their disposal. So even with your proposed change there will be as much card dropping as there ever has been.

So you are incorrect. Enforcing hard limits on deck capacity will have virtually no effect on card dropping. If anything it will only contribute to the puppet spam we see everywhere, and make it even harder for new players to progress.

Well, lmao, so what if you won't acknowledge the point. Your bad. I don't have to explain a premise i didn't make. Dude, I didn't say it prevents jack. Furthermore, prevention is impossible. Prevention is for Forest Fires, seen any of them lately?

That's rich. You're the one arguing limiting deck capacity is about fairness, not me. If you didn't think it would prevent anything you wouldn't have led with that argument in the first place. So stop gaslighting with this BS. I've got a scroll wheel just like you.

1) Actually, what I think... is... the current status quo of the game pretty much blows. The game is suffering. Why? Because most players can't benefit and the few that do are going through the same old motions of enriching themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if secretly Dude Y has become rather bored by not having any sufficient challenge.

2) Dude X has more costs and far less bank to manage those costs than Dude Y, therefore as a percentage of assets - it's less costly for Dude Y overall. By the same reasoning, gifting higher value cards is also more expensive for Dude X. So you are once again dreadfully incorrect. Especially when Dude Y has enough cards to wall off your bids at auction as he transfers card through auction for free. But in the game Dude Y usually buys massive quantities of common cards and drops them for double, triple and sometimes exponentially the cost he incurred in purchasing them. You have refused to keep your comments on a stable mathematical track. Dude X's circumstances are not Dude Y's and vice-a-versa. Yet you mix and match their differing circumstances like proverbial apples and oranges as your fruit cart argument demands it. That's just poor. *walks on by* NO SALE.

3) Possibly, but not necessarily so. If nothing is done on this front, which you advocate, the status quo remains. That's currently a lose-lose for new/casual players and the game itself. If nothing else, it's time to build a better mouse trap.

Once again you are merely projecting what you wish as an outcome minus any mathematical evidence. Additionally, any analysis of the broadest spectrum of NS gaming reveals at it's core it is highly dependent on puppet creation. The Card Game is merely one of many NS attractions. So, as I have stated numerous times earlier, there will likely be no limiting of puppets, but instead a limitation will be placed upon the number of puppets which each player can draw cards.

Have fun playing with your scroll wheels or whatever it is you actually do.

[Galiantus III]

Whatever, dude. I've been where you are before and it sucks. It really does. This idea is your baby and you feel like you have to fight for it; so much so you can't allow yourself to see its flaws. I can see some of the issues you want this to solve, but this is not the way to solve them, and in many cases it would unnecessarily limit what players can do. If you want to contribute a good idea, go back to the drawing board. That is all.

[New Winnipeg]

A good plan takes time, I agree (with you AN.) A lot of the "battle" here could have been avoided if OP just took time listen. When making new policies the policy maker needs input from others even if that input isn't what they want to hear. Many of those here were just giving their input but OP just took it the wrong way I guess.

(I understand how you feel OP like seeing a plan you spent time and sweat on being "picked apart" is hard to take. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to what they are saying, they are trying to help you by giving their opinion on your idea.Who knows next time you could try asking those who voiced the most opposition for their further input on your ideas and they may be able to help you improve on your ideas. .)

Anyways my point is when you ask for the opinion of the general community on something you shouldn't be upset or get combative if they have criticism on it.

[The H Corporation]

As a former card farmer this wouldn't work, at least not for me. I can just do whatever I can to have more deck capacity. Even though I have been paying my own share of deck expansion because I didn't know that was possible. I understand that is really tiring to keep paying lots of decks when the "big guys" don't do it as they have already lots of stuff, but your idea of getting their deck value to 0 whenever they overuse deck capacity doesn't solve the problem, I will just make more than 300 puppets just to have more space (Not doing it again though, it took most of my life in a day).

And the other suggestions people are talking about are really great and they have also had a point. Reducing the amount to pay for deck expansion is a good idea, I actually think that could help everyone in the long run. But making more stricter will not help, rather it could make things worse, I am not going to elaborate more on this as Galantius has already explained everything that, in my opinion, everyone agrees with.

Now back to collect more charity cards =w=

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Whatever, dude. I've been where you are before and it sucks. It really does. This idea is your baby and you feel like you have to fight for it; so much so you can't allow yourself to see its flaws. I can see some of the issues you want this to solve, but this is not the way to solve them, and in many cases it would unnecessarily limit what players can do. If you want to contribute a good idea, go back to the drawing board. That is all.

Whatever Dude is also known as Dude W.

Black market baby is out with the bathwater and no one is paying his child support. I've seen the flaws and i've heard it bawl, as do all the other babies out there, whose nature is to suck.

All in all it's good to air out the wash on the washing line from time to time.

As a former card farmer this wouldn't work, at least not for me. I can just do whatever I can to have more deck capacity. Even though I have been paying my own share of deck expansion because I didn't know that was possible. I understand that is really tiring to keep paying lots of decks when the "big guys" don't do it as they have already lots of stuff, but your idea of getting their deck value to 0 whenever they overuse deck capacity doesn't solve the problem, I will just make more than 300 puppets just to have more space (Not doing it again though, it took most of my life in a day).

And the other suggestions people are talking about are really great and they have also had a point. Reducing the amount to pay for deck expansion is a good idea, I actually think that could help everyone in the long run. But making more stricter will not help, rather it could make things worse, I am not going to elaborate more on this as Galantius has already explained everything that, in my opinion, everyone agrees with.

Now back to collect more charity cards =w=

Appreciate you weighing in on this, THC. Heh, you've got extremely good initials there. Your folks may be on the verge of cool.

Sure, all 300 of them. True enough, as usual walkin' the walk and talkin' the talk aren't exactly related by blood.

And it has had a proper airing in a stiff breeze. And still... it blows.