[Miscellanous / Other] Deck building on a card type game

[disruptive_]

This is an extremely specific question and problem, but i will do some good story telling, and i overall welcome most kinds of insight with some minimum relation.

1. Preamble.
Months ago i stumbled upon a strange game called Card Shuffle or Shuffle Cards or Shuffle my Cards or something like that. I think almost nobody plays this game, but i stumbled by searching for "card" on the map section of this site.
It was refreshing and fun to say the least, but i think the game lacked lots of polish and much needed balance. The aesthetics and juiciness were so flagrantly awful to the point i wanted to sue the author for crime against the arts.
This motivated me to do some reinvention of the wheel with that game as base or direct inspiration (credits to the author that is sadly inactive, maybe even presumably dead, since i was still in school and i'm freaking 25), and i'm near to release some product. I'm talking about either 1. a map/2. a structured map development thread (2/3 of these end up dead tho)/3. or atleast plain systems to help people that want experience and are doing similar maps, on 1 month or maybe even less. Let's call it 3 weeks. But this is not the point of this thread.

2. About the Game.
A modified RTS in which your units and overall moves are represented by cards (items on Wc3 notation) that you "draw" from a "deck" (a deck is simply a collection of items you eventually must select before the game starts, item type ids in fact). The win condition isn't to destroy an opposing base, but rather, destroy the pesky unit that draws such cards. Also the map author made it so the game tempo was severly slowed (attack rates/move rates especially). The gameplay was between a standart RTS and TBS, let's call it "Slowed Time Strategy" or STS. This is the keyword.

The tactical aspect of this RTS was kind of reduced, as units will automatically move against the opposition (like lane creeps on an AoS map) and perform their attacks and spells also automatically, so the player must basically press the subjectively correct item at the right circumstance instead of doing that and then perform subsequent micromanagment. But it also uses "deep" tactic aspects as positioning, regular WC3 spells, spell duration measured on regular seconds instead of a general turn amount, etc. These aspects were just the vestiges of the regular Wc3 gameplay that the author simply kept. And they worked.

Most of this mechanical aspects are kept as base structure for my game rendition. But i also added some neat features, like a draft system that is functioning smoothly like a jazz groove while smoking ****, and a turn duration system, ie. players draw automatically when a turn starts (some fixed amount of time passes, as we're still on an RTS), but also lots of spells and buffs use the same concept of turns.
Basically another way of say "seconds".

I think you guys could give that game a try, tell me your insights, suggestions, but specially those related to more improving points, because sooner or later i will launch it and launching something too similar or even worse than the thing you wanted to improve is extremely stupid (i'm no Apple), specially with the new World Editor functions and overall possibilities.

3. The Particular Problem: A Deck/Collection system.
But here is the main point: on that game the collection of items you're going to use for a given round will not deplete by drawing or expending them. Basically the deck is not a real deck (on the sense of a finite and expendable stack of options that are randomly ordered), but rather a collection of options you can always count on but that are still randomly offered when you have to draw from it.

This game option solves the problem regarding of what to do when a player would empty its deck (read: this can't happen, atleast naturally), but also, since each card has the same chance to be drawed, you could end up with a hand of 6 of the same card. I would say that both, standart deck type, and fool proof deck type, have their respective charm. Mechanically speaking the fool proof deck is very lazy, but it just works. Both can feature the even the same concepts, ie. "put a card on the top of your deck" on the fool proof deck will translate to "guarantee the next card", both beign useful and meaningful.
An in between solution could be a weighted chance fool proof deck so to avoid or minimize the brain damage of having 4 consecutive same card draws, or a perpetual but actual deck (basically the good old feature of most card games, on which you get to reconstruct and shuffle your deck each time you empty it).
Featuring both (as different game modes) is also an option, but that could make some cards, either absolutely or relatively, useless or overpowered, and that's too much balancing responsability.




I will not make a poll, but rather let you express and vomit all you have say about card games, deck building mechanics, the mixture between an RTS and TBS, and on improving points of the game i presented (search on the map depositories: Shuffle + Card).

 

[ThisPOT]

Howdy, I came upon your post and wanted to give some input, I've played a ton of different card games online and in real life and I think I have some info you may like.

A good solution for an "endless deck" while still using a regular deck mechanism, is to have 2 decks per user.

Deck 1 (The deck you draw from)
Deck 2 (Cards that are active - on the field)

- Draw from Deck 1, and place into Deck 2 (Prevents doubles when you don't have doubles)
- When a card is "defeated" or used (no longer in play), it goes back to Deck 1 (and re-shuffle, unless you do that every draw)

* The only thing is that with this method it's almost 100% necessary to force each user to play at least 1 card on their turn, no skipping.

 

[Trill]

I think I know that game, IIRC I played it ages ago. Not that I remember much.

Anyway, regarding deck depletion - a great many strategies in regular TCG depend on the fact that your cards are limited. In neverending deck you don't have to worry about overdrawing, you can't take a risk forcing enemy to draw a lot of cards, trying to deplete his deck, returning killed/spent cards from graveyard has very little impact as well.
I would say that deck depletion is a really important concept - UNLESS you decide to be original and invent ways for endless deck to have its own deep strategies and stuff. But even then there would have to be some limitations. E.g. you can't draw same cards again after you've, I dunno, have already drawn at least 50% of your cards in between.
Or maybe Legendary cards that not just cannot be used together, but actually take offense at seeing copy of themselves, and if you draw a Legendary while exact copy of it is summoned on the battlefield, the one you drawn automatically appears on the battlefield and mutually annihilates with its copy.

 

[Frotty]

Card Shuffle and WTCG (warcraft trading card game) were quite popular at the time, but yeah, it declined.
Card shuffle only had premade decks and it was mostly about strategy and team composition.
This was good for balance, but missed the whole collecting and deck building.

WTCG had deck building, you could even save/load decks, which in theory is cool. BUT the problem with all these "deckbuilders" is, that people just build a good deck and as long as it works, they usually stick with it.
Due to the sheer amount of cards you will also always have cards which are basically worthless in comparison, and strategies which are "meta".
Thus the game gets pretty boring due to this imo. No1 makes interesting, experimental decks, unless playing against other noobs.
Also, building a deck takes a long time for beginners, you can accidentally build total garbage and the UI for building decks is usually bad.

So if I were to make a card game in wc3, I wouldn't make it have any deck building that persists through games, but rather make a new deck relatively quick in every hosted round.
You could randomize the overall cards, but give each player the same options, thus having in theory perfect balance.
The deck building would be very streamlined to make it faster and easier, but also be a more integral part of the game, and of every round.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[disruptive_]

You all already pointed out some options and conclusions. The two deck approach is so good that i kind of want to brute force it, but given the conditions of what i already have, forcing players to play cards each turn is very restrictive, and it kind of doesn't work for spells or instantanious cards, as those will be redirected to the deck 1 upon use regardless. So i must resist the temptation in favour of the vision.
As of now, i'm developing towards a standart depleting deck, with 40 (placeholder) as the maximum possible.
I can't but coincide on that this feature is key and represents the beaten path among card games.

About what Frotty said, well, at this precise time, the game looks like this (WALL OF TEXT INCOMING):

WALL

The game has 10 (placeholder) seconds of preparation time (that actually does nothing right now, but i planning to make this phase a "banning phase" or a "mode setting phase", but as i will point out the map only features 1 mode right now). Once the 10 seconds pass, an ability is given to each player, that is called "Draft Deck". When clicked the player starts to draft the cards using the inventory as UI, this is the draft phase, and as of now is the only game mode i've done. Basically it cleans the inventory, and places 6 (another placeholder value) random and different items that will act as the options. Once an item is clicked, it is added to the deck and it repeats the proccess again (cleans-> places) until the maximum amount of offers is achieved (placeholder again, 40 as the maximum deck amount). Since i follow the deck depletion mechanic, on a single offer all items/options are different, but between different offers there could be repeating options. Currently i have 60 different cards (this is a low number). Players can "rescind/terminate" the draft session at will and at any time by clicking an ability, but i put a minimum card possible (another placeholder), so only those players with a deck count equal or higher than this minimum will play the round. The draft phase also has a placeholder duration and will automatically end when all players rescind but are eligible to play. Once the draft phase is finished, i put another 10 seconds of prestuff (intended to create tension, but to be fair they don't mean anything and were put to execute a very costly function i had). When those second passes, then the round starts, but also i made it so it has an obligatory mulligan phase of 10 seconds (players can drop items without depleting the deck if they want). Then you redraw again, and the game starts. The map is 6v6 as full house. "Cardmasters" have 2000 health and up to 500 mana, but start a round at 0 mana. They regen 50 mana and automatically draw a card (if there is inventory space) each "turn" ("turn" is just an arbitrary but standarized amount of time). Each turn time, 8 seconds, is counted equally for each player. Some buffs on this map lasts for a set amount of turns. Players get notified with a handy sfx on their head when a turn is about to start. Card types are: units, skills, and spells. The win condition is killing all opposing cardmasters, but has a flair: when the game starts 2 random "missions" are spawned at the center of the map (north and south). Visually, missions are just neutral buildings that have an integer value attached to them that measures the amount of points need to "complete" them. Players could complete missions with specialized units (most units will just raid the enemy as in Card Shuffle, but others will continiously gravitate towards missions instead), skills, etc. When a player completes a mission, then it gains the bounty the mission offered, and on the next turn another mission will replace it, that happens to be more difficult (more complete points) and provide better bounty. Some missions are intended to do something continiously, like ie. a crypt that spawns skeletons that attack everybody until it's completed.
I think i will post a youtube video or something showing the draft mechanical aspect. Gameplay wise i have much to do still.

Also, another more concrete question i have, given the WC3 UI and overall features, how would you represent a deck and your hand? My principles here are quality of life and intuitiveness:
- What i already got is this:
1. Cards are items and your hand is represented on the inventory, so the maximum possible hand is 6;
2. Your deck is represented abstractly (not visually right now) as a list of integers (the item type id).
3. Features: drawing and depleting cards from deck list/put cards on top or bottom/get the source of the card (ie. an enemy can put cards on top of your deck, so what about knowing which enemy did this)/discarding (surprisingly the hardest mechanic to do well). I'm lacking the "discard pile" aspect but i'm planning to do it.
- Other options i already entertain:
1. Your hand is represented with wc3 abilities (this allows the gameplay feature of mana cost modifications, items don't allow this -tried but failed-, atleast on an easy way). This also frees the inventory space as an UI resource on the effective gameplay (as on the draft phase works very good).
max possible hand could increase to 8, or maybe even more? but this is not really an issue.
2. Appart from the abstract representation, your deck is also represented (visually) on the inventory by clicking a menu option. players could jump from their hand to their deck at will (ordered or just as a list) by clicking this option that most likely be an ability.
3. Your deck is accessed with a multiboard but only visually. Here you will see the card list here and pretty much nothing else.
Since i can't have fixed cameras on this game, the multiboard approach can't feature the good old arrow key control. Maybe using abilities?

EDIT: Don't know why the HIVE made it so hard for me to post this.

 

[ThisPOT]

Endless decks and limited decks are both fun, and limited decks may have stats unique to them (ex: what happens when you overdraw) but endless decks have their unique features too (ex: gain +1 dam every time this legendary w/e dies, buffs become way sweeter as they can come back). The point is that both are good, they just need to be executed right and fun, it's not a swaying factor just a preference.


I read everyone's suggestions and thought about it some more, here are some suggestions for a fast paced card game using wc3 engine:

1) Pre-made Starter Decks
2) The amount of card a player has cannot be changed (ex: min = 20 / max = 20)
3) Each card has a Tier
4) Each deck has a specific amount of cards from each Tier (ex: 7 basic, 5 special, 4 spells, 3 elite, 1 ultra)
5) You have X amount of seconds between matches to make changes
6) You can replace any card with another card of the same Tier in between matches


PS: I think using units as opposed to Items is better for card games, you get way more flexibility.

 

[Jamir]

Hi, if you really want to nail the look of a card game, I suggest that you use the card models here by @epsilon. With a bit of model editing, they can easily be personalized. And with a bit of triggering for moving the cards periodically while they're being dealt or played, I think that is the best way to make a card game look.

I actually made a card battle minigame in my campaign and this is my current UI (the cards are units):

Spoiler

 

[Trill]

But then its just Hearthstone! =D

 

[Jamir]

But then its just Hearthstone! =D

I don't think so. It depends on the gameplay. By your analogy, all card games are just a copycat of Heartstone.

 

[Trill]

I don't think so. It depends on the gameplay. By your analogy, all card games are just a copycat of Heartstone.

Not all card video games, just Warcraft-based ones =p

 

[Jamir]

Like I said, it depends. If your intention is to just copy Heartstone's look and gameplay, then yea it's just Heartstone. Be original my friend. Create a different type of gameplay.

 

[ThisPOT]

I had done a card game too in the past, I was using those card models as well, but when you used a card it would summon the actual unit model on the battlefield. It's a great way to mix 2D and 3D and have the excitement of effects from a 3D game while also having the 2D hyper strategy aspect.

 

[disruptive_]

Nonsensical rant:
I don't know why suddenly "card game" or rather "good/ideal card game" brings the concept of Hearthstone. I'm not judging this at all, but it simply amazes me everytime. Hearthstone is just a perfected copy of many online card games that simply weren't popular at their respective times. In fact i see Hearthstone as a corporative move (then a game) of Blizzard that saw potential on that genre and simply went full house to achieve a decent product, specially design and aesthetic wise, because the actual raw gameplay (if you count off all the interactive bullshit) is unoriginal and on the strategy department is mediocre or atleast medium point. I'm still happy for them because they took a risk on a period that was very awful for the industry. I'm pretty sure that the nº1 reason Hearthstone is so popular and of course good overall (as i think it's a good game) is because of the also popular and compelling lore and overall franchise of Warcraft.

As of now, a card game doesn't identify with turn based strategy, examples are just too many. In fact "cards" is kind of a feature present on a lots of games right now. Maybe on too many and on a meaningless way. More often than not, such feature is plainly forced, configurating bad design, but this could simply be an expression of the feature creep trend.

Now about the actual post:
In my game i'm mixing the RTS aspect with deckbuilding and cards. I'm trying to focus heavily on more complex card mechanics, instead of your classic spell cards based on the vanilla WC3 abilities. But i will just embrace the RTS aspect slowing it a bit (STS). I could of course atempt a reinvention and make a turn based game, but i'm setting that (read: a turn based game, but trying to use the most out of the UI and the natural WC3 feel) as a distant project. Also, that game looks very promising and already "polished" for the general mod standarts (Tactics Unleashed by Jamir).

Card mechanics already made (WALL)

-

1. Cards are either: spells/skills/units.
2. All units, including the cardmaster are "WC3 heroes", meaning that i have access to atleast 5 depositories of information and values:
1. Damage -> Attack
2. Armor -> Resistance
3. Strength -> Tactics (this is a placeholder)
4. Agility -> Arcanery
5. Intelligence -> Loyalty
Arcanery increases the spell cards effects by a % (a value of 10 is 100%, 0-9 is N*10% so a value of 0 is zero effect, and from 11 and above i use a linear function that caps at 900% at 1000 value). Loyalty is used to atempt missions. Naturally, tactics should "increase" the skill card effects, but i'm still debating this.
HP/MP points of units will round the 30-200 value. Cardmasters (the dude that has a deck and plays the cards) have now 500 HP and MP.
Attack and resistance values go from 0-10ish (read: i'm using low values, so units have stats like 3/4). Attack functions just as regular attacks, and the basic attack rate of all units is 2 seconds. Resistance is not a percentage of damage reduction of attack damage like the WC3 armor, but rather damage is simply calculated as "atk-res", but the basic rule is that units always take atleast 1 damage. Resistance is also calculated to reduce the effects of any "resistable" flagged effect. There are no attack/resistance types, but units that are ranged and such will use a different UI icon to show precisely the range of the attack (thanks WC3).
3. Cards effects are basically divided on: 1. instant, and 2. status. A card can do both of this effects.
4. Buffs and debuffs ("Statuses") are either permanent or perishable. Perishable ones last for a set amount of turns. Turns start at the same time for each player and last for 8 seconds (ie. a turn pass -a sfx will tell this-, then all perishable statuses on the field get -1 turn duration).
Statuses that came from spell cards are called enchantments and most of them are permanent so the only way to remove them is, you name it, a status dispell (that is called disenchant). Skill statuses in general are perishable and there isn't a card that allows you to dispell them (intended), but what i'm thinking is making certain skill statuses incompatible.
I have basic "negative" and "positive" distinction, total control of dispell mechanics, and total control over statuses overall, ie. counting buffs/debuffs on a particular unit.
5. Some somewhat-complex card mechanics i already made (and i'm proud of):
5.1. a card that disables the casting of spell cards for some turns.
5.2. an instant "disenchant" all units the field card that conveniently kills spell missiles, ie. the one created by a fireball spell card.
5.3. a card that grants stats or does something if a certain card type is drawed.
5.4. a card that continiously (a status effect in fact) deals damage on a target area/spawns units for the player/launches a barrage of missiles whenever the turn starts.
5.5. a card countering mechanic (a real counter mechanic not a silence/mute).
5.6. a card that allows you to see the current hand of an enemy cardmaster (basically the possibility of seeing the inventory of another player is disabled so this is useful).
5.7. a card that reduces the turn duration for the casting player (so it gains more mana and draws more cards overall, but also affecting buffs/debuffs) for some turns.

Using units as the cards mess too much with the UI. It's surely a lot of work also, since that even with a basic card model you'll atleast need to make and import lots of textures. Making it even turn based mess with the standart WC3 gameplay, but this is much more justifiable. The good thing could be that you're no longer restricted by the natural limits of items and abilities, that are, as the new natives and functions, kind of few, ie. i can't feature a mana cost reduction mechanic should i use items as cards, but i can change icons, text, and that's pretty much all i care about, as the effects and gameplay systems must be handled by triggers anyway (even if i'm using abilities/destructables/units/etc).

As this topic pop unto my mind here is my very biased (because i'm kind of new) stance with today's game reinventions here on the HIVE and among other popular mod platforms:

Talk is cheap on the planet still

Most of this game reinventions focus too much on copying a concrete gameplay of another game, but here, since you're using the standart UI and RTS gameplay the natural WC3 experience you end up doing a lot to achieve very little, as a copy of a game can at best trigger some nostalgia but never get you the entire experience of it. If anything, they're not "reinventions" at all, just a copy paste of a concrete experience. Another different thing could be using game genres or features, ie. a turn based system, but this is more in the terrain of triggers, as we're just talking about a mechanical thing and not an actual gameplay or experience.
Objectively they are not that original or creative as they pretend to be, altough the extra work expended is admirable. Personally, most of these games just makes me want play the actual original game so for me there is no real justification to continue playing those games (unless you don't have money to buy them of course, mmm...maybe a lot of people use WC3 as their go to "console", so the only grasp they could get from ie. Hearthstone, is the goodwill of a fellow mapmaker that recreates that game, but on the particular case of Hearthstone this is actually illegal LOL), as their gameplay is nothing new and becomes severly hampered because of (again) the incompatible UI/experience of WC3. Also, as personal opinion, on the case of extremes reinventions, ie. i wake up in the morning with the urge to emulate freaking Mario Bros on the editor, i would simply opt to move on to another game engine. Maybe i'm too lazy.

There are lots of game reinventions on this site. There is right now a sweet Pictionary like mod on map development that almost looks unreal.
I'm getting the vibe that on your game (this is directed to Jamir) you're trying to emulate or ressemble Final Fantasy?
But still it is no wonder that, the most popular and in the end important idea the wc3 modding scene brought, was in fact a map that didn't reject its RTS roots. You can even count the Tower Defenses game genres as another relevant idea, with clear RTS elements, but i'm not sure if those maps had their beginings on the the WC3 mod scene. Survival Chaos is another of those games that has some gist of potential and overall popularity.

 

[Jamir]

Heh. Now that's a wall. Didn't expect that (although I should have, given your previous posts). But in all seriousness, you made some good points there and I definitely agree in some of your views. Although in contrast, I also find myself in a very opposite position, mainly on the better end of your post. Please pardon me in advance for my rants in the end.


• Firstly, my opinion to your card mechanics (so as not make this post totally off topic)

I like the idea of your custom stats, it makes it much more complex than your standard run of the mill WC3 gameplay, and will surely need some getting used to. Which is always something that I find interesting, because you can see that the idea is there. The author really tried to create a unique gameplay experience without changing much of the game's core mechanics.

Truly, the way you handled your card mechanics interests me (even though it's not really "cards" in the literal sense of the word). But, the essence is still kind of there. And also, I commend the passion that you put into your systems, in which I would be glad to test sometime.


• On the topic of Hearthstone (Warning! Rant)

I actually never played it. Haha. I don't know, it just never interested me (and this is coming from someone who grew up playing Magic the Gathering in High School). I realize that it's a good game, with good aesthetics and such, truly every bit of good game design (from what little that I know of the game). And it's also very popular (well it's nothing new, we all know Blizzard knows how to impress their fans).

But still, it's not for me. I think I prefer to just play a board game with my friends than playing cards with random people on the internet.

Seriously though, call me old school but I think the last game that I liked that came for Blizzard is the Diablo 3 expansion. It was fun playing on a full couch coop with friends on PS3 (PC elitists go away haha). What I'm saying is, I don't have much faith in Blizzard's games anymore. (Which I think I'm in a minority here, given this is a site dedicated to a Blizzard's game.) In my opinion, the worlds that they create are still good, and people still like it. But I loved the old games from Blizzard. I think I've sunk thousands of hours into the old Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo (including 3) games combined. I actually first experienced modding using the Starcraft 1 Editor.

So yeah, that's it. I don't think that I have anything more to say about Hearthstone other than that. Let's get to the final points shall we?


• About that

I think I kinda get the idea that you only mod to gain popularity. Seriously, man?

Now let me dissect this part.

Look, I'm very passionate with my project. Yes, I'm trying to recreate Final Fantasy. Why? Because I love RPGs, especially the JRPG variant. I want to put care and effort in my work because in the end, this is what I want to see in an RPG. I do this because I'd love to play this in the future and say wow, this is the perfect RPG for me. And that's all that matters.

Do I care if it gets popular? Seriously. No. I make mine not because I'm expecting many people will play it, but because I enjoy it.

You may ask, why waste all of your time and effort in doing that, it's definitely a lot of work for little reward, then why? First and foremost, I only do this in my free time and I do have a day job (and it's stressful let me tell you). Anyway, as to why that is, as long as I know one person has enjoyed my work and shared to me his/her experience in the game, then that would be a reward enough (yeah, cliché I know).

One last part that you may ask, why WC3 then, surely there are a lot of game engines that you can use out there to make your game and at least make it profitable? I actually tried using RPGMaker (I have the latest version, MV). The problem with that is that there aren't much resources that are available to a fledgling hobbyist like myself who just wants to create an RPG. Seriously, it would take a very long time to make even a decent looking game (that doesn't use the stock assets) in that engine. With WC3, there's this awesome community of people that doesn't end on giving out free high quality resources for us to use. Seriously, it's awesome.

In the end, I'm okay with my project's status right now. I don't need to change that to cater to a larger group of people. As long as there's a niche part in the community that can enjoy my work, then that's it.

Hey, sorry for the long rant. Anyway, good luck on your project! Haha!

 

[Lordlycan]

have you considered running a deckbuilding system like dominion. Start players with 6 goblin miners and 3 goblin shredders and 1 footman. The Goblins kill 1 tree, mine once in a round. And are killed of at the end of the turn.

But instead, you start both player with 10 units. And spawn up to 7 units in the middle of the board. When a middle unit is killed the player who killed it gets it in their deck. At the end of a turn the board is reset with 5-7 new minions if 1 player manages to kill all 7 minion in the middle a new set of 7 minions are spawned.

Have minions that require sacrifices (as in a means to remove bad minions from your "deck")

 

[disruptive_]

Again, good posts.

Game mechanics:
Jamir, we can always partner for some testing. As i say before, i will give some product on 3 weeks or less. It will most likely be a thread on map development plus an alpha version.
Right now i'm suffering the temptation to modify some things, but what i need to find is another stat (tactics is placeholder and i'm against its current effect) that can be meaningful to the game.
I also have a turn based card game idea i've been perfecting a bit (gameplay wise), but i will focus on this project as of now.

Hard Stone:
When it first came out i played hearthstone but didn't like it too much, atleast mechanically speaking. Never played it regularly even. I guess i simply didn't like it. I still remember that when your turn ended the famous peasant "Job's Done!" (with that severely idiotic voice) sounded. That never failed to give me a smile. The flavour texts, the taunts, the unit sounds add lots of points.
On rare ocassions i end up watching hearthstone videos on youtube and i still see the updates Blizzard make for most of their games, but with a clear intent on keep myself on the "informational vanguard" of good games and not even to search an opportunity to buy them. I've effectively played and own(ed) Starcraft I and II, also played Diablo I (or it was Diablo II?) but never owned a copy.

To be or not to be (popular).
I don't know if i'm modding for popularity (shame on me for not knowing myself), but i'm must accept that i'm of very suggestible here. If people like what i do then i will presume it's good, i will not doubt this too much, then i also became good (or bad). But no doubts that in this regard, as i read what you tell me, your intent is much more authentic than mine, maybe it has to do with introversion/extroversion (maybe i'm too focused on the effects on the outside than the inside), well... i don't know how to explain this idea to be fair.

One of the things i always liked is the mechancal side with a clear desire to simplify and make more intuitive the features that doesn't have such qualities. Maybe this is my call? Still, when i see the natural WC3 UI i don't want to destroy it altogether, but rather i want to use it for my ideas. I've always thought that the wc3 inventory is another exploitable resource UI-wise (not just showing hero items).

Deckbuild as you play (is this the essence of dominion?).
I actually thought about this. On a basic level the deck is builded with a drafting system. Right now there are 40 offers, each with 6 (6 is the maximum possible anyway) different options. But this values are still placeholder. I will feature a pregame ban phase (visually speaking this will be a pain in the ass to make).
But i also feature something that i call "missions". Completing those missions will award the player with some loose benefical effect, that could be a group of cards for the completing force. Since there are 2 missions, each force or player side, can decide to either go for different missions or go for no mission at all, since to complete one mission they recquire to use cards, ie. units and some skills. Right now i made 2 units that instead of raiding the enemy will continiously atempt missions (one will grant completing points to the allied force, and the other will substract completing points to the opposing force). Most missions have a natural way of gaining completing points, ie. kill an enemy unit, kill a creature that this mission spawns. I'm debating about making mission completion another win condition (seems natural).

 

[Lordlycan]

This is ascension and play similair to dominion but is more focussed on interaction between players where dominion is more focussed on your own economy versus your opponents economy