On Power Creep

Power creep is often the subject of criticism. Power creep pops up in several different games in different ways. Power creep is the tendency to increase the strength of the elements of any given game, over time. It's a natural part of most modern games. Each game has their own for of power creep. In TCG's we can look at the pro's and cons. Power creep allows for developers to travel new design spaces. Businesses that sell cards have to add power creep, because if the new cards aren't as strong as the old cards, then cards won't be sold and they lose money. Lastly, players want power creep because playing with new and stronger cards is just fun. The negatives can be daunting. If a player has to spend too much money on a new set to get all the cards they want to play, they just might not bother. If a player skips a year of playing a game only to find that power creep is so strong that their entire collection is unplayable they would won't want to play. If players don't want to play because of too much power creep, they stop playing, the business losses money, which in turn hurts the devs. There must be a balance to how fast power creeps. FFTCG is not exempt from power creep. I'd like to explore some of the aspects of power creep in FFTCG

My favorite example of power creep in FFTCG is the opus 11 summons when compared to the Opus 1 Summons, but I only want to focus on Ifrit

Ifrit (1-004C) to Ifrit (11-001R)

Shiva (11-039C) to Shiva(1-0034R)

Ramuh(1-143C) to Adramalech(11-100R)

I love this examples because this isn't a great example of power creep. We can see bigger numbers and the same cost, so it would be very easy to instantly call this power creep. Yet, these cards weren't strong enough when they came out and they definitely aren't strong enough ten sets and 3 years later. The stronger summons may not even in line with the current power of the game. At the 2019 National Championships there were 3 decks in top 8 that were mono fire. All three were of an Ifrit archetype, with each deck using 12 Ifrits. Across 36 Ifrits in the national championship, not a single one was the opus 1 version. This Ifrit just didn't make the cut. At the time (Opus 9.5) , those deck valued a high count of Ifrits yet, the quality of Opus 1 Ifrit was not high enough even before Opus XI was released.

Yet, there is a good example of power creep with Ifrit in the previous set.

Opus X Ifrit does highlight power creep. Most cards with the name Ifrit deal damage and if they meet the right conditions deal damage above curve. Opus X Ifrit simply deals damage above curve. There are no conditions to meet. For 3 cp you deal 8k damage. Additionally, he buffs fire forwards by granting an additional +2000 power, allowing for more interesting combat interactions. The only downside that this card has is that it doesn't have the Ex brst icon. This card is the card that fire summons will be compared until the next strongest fire summon. That is power creep.

Meia to Amon

Amon was a prevalent card when opus 2 came out, and rightfully so. The stats are on curve and provides board control. In offensive strategies, it can "turn off" a blocker and allow for other forwards to deal damage unblocked. In defensive strategies, it can turn off an attacker, before it has a chance to attack. Amon is a good card, but has fallen out of favor. Enter Opus 9 Meia, long after Amon's fall from grace, Meia fulfills the role that Amon used to fill. Meia can dull a forward every turn, but doesn't dull herself. This allows her to deal damage in addition to controlling the board. While she lacks defensive options, tempo lightning decks don't want defensive options at the cost of offensive options. In the decks that had Amon on the list, defending was a losing option. In those cases having first strike or haste is often a better option, both of which are things that Meia can provide if dulling doesn't help. More importantly, Meia costs 1 cp less. This puts it leagues ahead of Amon. If Amon costs 1 less, Meia would still outclass him with her flexibilty and versatility.

This isn't an example of direct power creep. Amon wasn't pushed out when Meia was printed. This comparison is the metric that we can see power creep. There are several other cards that provided better board control in between Meia and Amon, but none that were this similar.

Emperor Gestahl to Chaos

This is a good example of healthy power creep.

Emperor Gestahl and Chaos do almost the exact same things. Released 2 sets apart, they both fill a very interesting role. For 5 CP Emperor Gestahl can break any forward and then on another turn you may play a dark forward from your hand for "free". Chaos only costs 1, but if you pay the cost of a forward in your break zone, you can play it to the field. On a following turn, Chaos can break himself to remove a character from the game for 3 cp.

Both Emperor and Chaos act as removal, and they both play a forward to your side of the field.

While Emperor Ghstahl costs 5 and chaos only costs 1, the total costs are more similar. We can add the total costs and compare. to play Gestahl, you must pay 5. To use the second effect you pay 0 but he breaks himself. This is a grand total of 5. For chaos the second effect costs 3 and, again, a self break. The first effect is tricky. Chaos itself costs 1 but we also add the cost of the card he summons because you have to pay that. Since the minimum cost of the forward 5 and highest cost forward in the game is 9. So the range of the entry is 6-10. The grand total is a whopping 9-13. So if we can compare the costs of Gestahl(5) and Chaos (6-9) and we get a clear winner. But that simply is not the case. The first effect isn't mandatory, even if you want to play a card from break zone. The cost of entry isn't 6-9, the cost can just be 1. The removal effect of Chaos is more powerful. While Gestahl breaks, Chaos will remove from the game. While Gestahl targets a forward, Chaos targets a character. Chaos is far more flexible than Gestahl. Chaos can't play dark forwards to the field with his effect, and Gestahl can only play dark forwards to the field. Yet, you don't want to play the emperor when the opponent has no forwards and you certainly almost never want to play Gestahl on turn 1. Chaos on the other hand is playable when there are no targets in the break zone and can be played on turn 1.

Chaos is stronger and more flexible but, overall, more expensive. Emperor Gestahl is weaker and clunkier, but cheaper.

Naturally, these comparisons are a bit superficial. The game is deeper than the numbers on the card and it would be irresponsible to ignore some other relevant factors. These factors are Category tags and Name clashing. Emperor Gestahl has the category tag of 6. Category 6 is quite premium as it supports the category 6 archetype (Locke 4-048L, Celes 8-037R, Setzer 4-036h), which has been historically strong. Chaos, on the other hand, clashes with another [card name (Chaos)] which enables the dark archetype. This means that emperor will have positive synergy with certain decks, while chaos will have negative synergy with other dark cards.

The depth of the game makes it hard to anticipate the strength of cards. Comparing two very similar cards can be difficult. We have to take into account the all the basic factors and then we have to consider things like the name and the category. At the same time this depth allows for these intricate cards to be printed. This depth also allows for slower power creep. We don't need to crank the strengths of each card to make it good. We can tweak the dark synergies, we can add a popular category, we can shift the cost up and add flexibility.