Buhallin said:

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

My contention was never that a game with unlimited card counts was untenable, simply that it's against the design principles behind the LCG ecosystem.  It doesn't matter if it's a "rare" in the core set or a "common" in the monthly pack that's the "killer" card, allowing unlimited card counts  in the LCG format breaks that draw.

I played just about every CCG in the first few years of the craze.  Some had unlimited card counts some didn't.  Some worked some didn't, most aren't still around for one reason or another.  The point is we're not talking about a CCG, we're talking about a LCG who's history and design principles have dictated a fixed card count.  Wether this will hurt or help Netrunner specifically remains to be seen, I'm on the help to neutral effect camp.

Aahzmandius_Karrde said:

You said:

"And the point is that we're not in a collectible environment. We're in an environment where you can buy exactly what you want. If there are no limits on card count then you're back to "he with the most money".

That's the very specific point which I was addressing.  IMHO, a game which is won by whoever can buy the power cards is not a tenable design any more.  I apologize if my use of the term was incorrect, but the entirety of my argument has focused on the single issue you raise - specifically, that unlimited card counts push a game towards being more expensive in order to compete.  My counterargument was that the money is more a function of design choices than simply unlimited card counts, and both Surreal and I provided evidence of other games where unlimited card counts weren't the primary driver of the cost of a deck - rarity of the card was.  And that is unchanged whether you're in a CCG or LCG environment.

Buhallin said:

Actually no, no it doesn't. But it is evident that you do enjoy holding up a double standard about what is and is not acceptable uses of specific kinds of information, anecdotal evidence, and personal philosophy, and hard facts. Congrats on that. You don't want to be part of the conversation, just walk away.

Every point I made in that post about powerful cards becoming commons rather than rares is 100% true. That you chose to conflate it to mean something else is on you. I choose to ignore that strawman you so kindly set up for me to tilt at.

I've already pointed out in Netrunner a problem, you refuted with what boils down to 'they did it wrong.' Then you claimed Star Wars as an example where it was done right, and I pointed, rightly that they took a feature of the game and then used three features of the game to minimize said feature. When you point to a system where they had to design three times as many elements to keep one in check your argument is so heavily weakened as to be able to be safely ignored.

Buhallin said:

But the two by the very nature of rarity and card counts go hand in hand. They literally cannot be separated and retain any meaningful connection to the reality of the game. That is after all why there are so many threads about what the distribution is in the Core Set. That I only need four or five of a rare in a game that lets me put 30 in my deck if I choose is not an improvement. Probability dictates that there will be cards of a rarity (or that will at least due to the randomness of booster packs and boxes in the CCG model) that will be needed X amount of times in a deck and in my collection Y times. This is what drives the purchase of additional packs and the secondary market. Probability also suggests that it is likely at some point that a card of a certain rarity is going to be part of a top deck that will be required in a high amount to make it work. Again I already demonstrated in one game where this was the case. Design mistakes happen, because the games will not receive enough testing to balance everything perfectly and remain profitable for the company and interesting for the consumer.

You can theorycraft all you want, but every ccg/lcg that I've seen make it to print bears this out ::cough::Defensive Shields::cough::.