f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Game Design/Development => Topic started by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 05:57:10 PM



Title: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 05:57:10 PM
Edit: New year, new redesign. Old stuff spoilered away.

And here are the new rules to date. If you care please comment, as any pointers as to what I can help make clearer are much appreciated.

If you have any design comments I'll also appreciate those.





Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: Samwise on January 12, 2012, 06:00:33 PM
Allow bluff cards to be played on top of bluff cards as fake augmentations?


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 06:06:34 PM
Allow bluff cards to be played on top of bluff cards as fake augmentations?

That is allowed already. You can play bluff cards on bluff cards, or bluff cards on real cards, to bluff an augmentation, however the problem here is that if cards are fixed you are forced to play them and/or forced to remember their combinations.

So I play X. You play Y. I then have to play A on X. It will usually be obvious as to where I might play my augmented piece if it is fixed (some make capturing certain types of cards easier) so it would rarely be in my best interests to waste one or two bluff cards to trick you. Also the means that every augmented card takes twice as long to lay. And you have to remember which cards are augmented, and how, and play them consistently like that for the rest of the game.

What I really want is a way of playing a card with an augmentation without having to take an extra turn to do so, and without having to give away the fact that the card I just played is augmented.

Apologies if this seems confusing.

Maybe a clearer example would be:

I have 4 cards. Card X with a power of 3, card A which "attached card gains 2 power" and two misdirection cards.
You have 4 cards. Card Y with a power of 4, card Z with a power of 2 and two misdirection cards.
There is a card N on the table. It has a resistance of 2.
There is a card M on the table. It has a power of 5.
There is a card L on the table. It has a power of 3.

I can capture M with XA. You can capture it with Y & Z.  I can capture N with X, or XA. You can capture it with Y or Z, or Y & Z.

If A it attached to X I have to play like this: Misdirect, Misdirect, X, A. or X, A, Misdirect, Misdirect. Any other combination makes it clear to you what cards are where. That means I can only play against two of the cards on the table, while you can play on all three without me gaining any real information about what cards you have played where. (Ie, to fake the augmented card I have to throw down two misdirects, while to fake any other card I need only one misdirect. This makes the augmented card much harder/more expensive to fake)

I guess a solution would be that you can play the augmentation at the very end (ie, after everyone has played their cards) but then you run into the problem of having to remember the connections by some method. I don't think player memory alone is enough, as there are possibly a number of augmentations going around, and a large number of rounds.

Maybe once I get further with playtesting it won't seem as big a problem as it is now.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: Margalis on January 12, 2012, 06:56:49 PM
If cards are played face down why do you need misdirection cards? Can't I misdirect you by just putting down a shitty card that looks the same as a good one?


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: Samwise on January 12, 2012, 07:20:10 PM
What I really want is a way of playing a card with an augmentation without having to take an extra turn to do so, and without having to give away the fact that the card I just played is augmented.

Okay, that's an easier way of stating the problem.

I feel like most card games handle this type of thing by having an "augmentation" be an upgraded version that replaces the old card.  I'm not sure how complex your cards are, but if they only have one "stat" on them, you could have the augmentation be a card that is discarded when played and allows you to swap out a card in your hand for one from some other pool that is N better.

If you've got a bunch of variables on each card and you want to have some cards permanently alter some of the variables and you want it all to be easy to track, I am thinking that maybe cards aren't the best way to represent your game.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 07:47:35 PM
If cards are played face down why do you need misdirection cards? Can't I misdirect you by just putting down a shitty card that looks the same as a good one?

You start with only one (identical) card each, apart from the misdirection cards.

Plus there are a number of different things a card can do, one might be shitty at different things, but rarely useless.

What I really want is a way of playing a card with an augmentation without having to take an extra turn to do so, and without having to give away the fact that the card I just played is augmented.

Okay, that's an easier way of stating the problem.

I feel like most card games handle this type of thing by having an "augmentation" be an upgraded version that replaces the old card.  I'm not sure how complex your cards are, but if they only have one "stat" on them, you could have the augmentation be a card that is discarded when played and allows you to swap out a card in your hand for one from some other pool that is N better.

If you've got a bunch of variables on each card and you want to have some cards permanently alter some of the variables and you want it all to be easy to track, I am thinking that maybe cards aren't the best way to represent your game.

Yeah, the problem is that the cards have a number of variable stats (5 at the moment) and a suite of special abilities.

Example:

Card X

Power: 3
Defence: 5
Influence: 2

Card Y:

Attached card gains 5 power and noisy (this card must be played face up)

I'm leaning towards putting in a cost and making things moveable. But then cards like the above (card Y) become problematic.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: Sheepherder on January 12, 2012, 08:46:33 PM
Write changes down on a sheet of paper.  Keep your augments in a separate discard pile for reference.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 09:16:07 PM
Write changes down on a sheet of paper.  Keep your augments in a separate discard pile for reference.

Doable, but makes things a lot less simple. At the moment all you have to track round to round is how much money you have, and a health value. Given the complexity of the play I don't want the scoring to be too complicated.

Oh well, I will shelve the issue for now. Lots more to do still.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: Trippy on January 12, 2012, 09:32:53 PM
Is there deck building in this game or are the cards fixed?

The way this is handled in CCGs is you have cards in your hand that the opponent can't see that can modify other cards or perform actions during play. So in your game the augmentations could be something you keep in your hand. That serves the same purpose as playing it face down on the table but allowing a player to move it around afterwards.

The WH40K CCG and the Star Trek CCG both had hidden card deployment mechanics so you might want to take a look at those games to see how they did it. Finding the rules online for the WH40K CCG is unfortunately proving difficult.

There's a rules summary for the WH40K CCG here but it's pretty confusing if you've never seen how the game is played before: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/7437/wh40kccg-rians-rtf?

The Star Trek CCG rules are here: http://www.trekcc.org/

Edit: there's store on Amazon that's selling WH40KCCG starter decks if you want to get a hold of some cards and the rules that way:

http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-000-Battle-Pandora-Prime/dp/B0037T1F8W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1326433796&sr=8-3


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 10:04:52 PM
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

It's a LCG, so both players play from the one deck, with exactly the same starting hands. The only 'deckbuilding' takes place in the game itself, where you add cards from the open board to your hand / area by competing for them with the other player.

There are three general neutral areas on the board:

Recruitment; where you compete through price (a card auction) to gain unit cards (held hidden in your hand and actively played each turn).
Domination; where you compete through influence (a unit attribute) to gain land cards (held face up in your area and passively supporting you).
Science; where you compete through research (a unit attribute) to gain equipment (augment units) and renovation (augment land)  cards, which are (ideally) played once and fixed to either a unit or a land permanently.

The problem, to add to what I said earlier, is:

Quote
I really want is a way of playing a card with an augmentation without having to take an extra turn to do so, and without having to give away the fact that the card I just played is augmented. But with that augmentation being fixed to the card that I first play it on for the rest of the game.

This is not a problem for lands, as they are played face up and are never part of a player's hand (they never 'reset', so to speak), but problematic for unit because they do - they have movement from round to round (ie, influencing, researching, attacking or defending).


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: ezrast on January 12, 2012, 11:15:12 PM
at the end of each round both players have all their cards revealed on the table
Why not keep them there, and have the player instead hold a "hand" of tokens that correspond to their tableau of cards? So if I have three cards available to play, they would stay face up and be marked 1-3, and during my turn I could play the "3" token, face down, on whatever I wanted to capture.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2012, 11:45:46 PM
at the end of each round both players have all their cards revealed on the table
Why not keep them there, and have the player instead hold a "hand" of tokens that correspond to their tableau of cards? So if I have three cards available to play, they would stay face up and be marked 1-3, and during my turn I could play the "3" token, face down, on whatever I wanted to capture.

EDIT: Ah! I get it!

That could be a really good idea. It's an extra layer of complexity (or less streamlined resolution) but it's pretty easy to learn and really nice. You lose playing the cards with the art and etc directly (which might lessen player connectivity with the theme), but it solves my problem really well, and has the advantage of making the game less reliant on people remembering what the other player had exactly.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm on about two hours sleep so my brain might have just shut down.

At the moment you play like (simplified):

Recruit unit cards until there are no units left to recruit, or both players elect not to bid.

Both players take turns playing cards from their hand facedown.

Once all cards have been played all the cards are turned face up and resolved in game order.

Then final turn things are done, upkeep costs, new land and recruitment cards are turned over if necessary, etc

Then both players gather up their unit and equipment cards and we go again.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: ezrast on January 13, 2012, 12:16:25 AM
That's okay, I had to read your post two or three times before I understood it as well. :-P

Happy to help. Depending on your theme, it could also help connectivity by giving each player a permanent space on the table where they can arrange their forces how they want or whatever. Tokens could be "battle plans" or something.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 13, 2012, 12:59:52 AM
Aye. Current terms are 'turf' and 'jobs' as I'm thinking of it as a gang warfare kind of thing. Land cards are buildings and influence is 'protection'.

There are some other elements that tie in to this too.

NFI how I'm going to handle art for the many cards.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: cironian on January 13, 2012, 03:04:16 PM
Oh, this is fun. Unless I'm misunderstanding the gameplay this might work:

 - All Modifier cards get a different back color than main cards.
 - There is an open stack of "blank" modifier cards, which simply do not change their attached unit in any way. At game start, each player gets four (or whatever) of them.
 - When a player plays a Moddable Unit, he must always play it paired with a Modifier card. That Modifier may or may not be a blank.
 - After such a play, the player picks up a fresh "replacement" blank from the blank modifier stack, so he won't run out of them. (This also happens when he played a real modifier of course)
 - For attachment of modifiers at a later time (as allowed by your rules), the player can flip over the blank modifier card, revealing that until now the unit was non-modified and replace that blank with a fresh face-down modifier. For additional fun, that new modifier card might still be a blank in order to confuse the opponent, however to discourage using this trick too often, the player does never get a fresh blank card when doing this delayed modification move.

What remains to be decided by you is what happens if the face-down modifier was not a blank before replacement. Some options:
a) The replacement goes through anyway, old modifier is discarded
b) No replacement takes place, the old modifier remains, although the opponent knows about it now
c) Unit and attachment are destroyed. Better luck keeping track of your own armies next time.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 13, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
Hmm, I see the potential, but I think that becomes a bit much. I want the amount of misinformation to be very low; so it creates uncertainty but not complete confusion. I want you to be able to deduce a number of possibilities that your opponent is planning, and then work out what the best way to handle that it, rather than it being more of a lucky dip.

At the moment both players start with one unit and one misdirection card. So misdirection is powerful early, but as your forces gain units it becomes less significant, being just a key move or two rather than complete doubt.

Eg. There is a unit card that has the 'hunter' ability. It means that you can attack an enemy in the neutral zones (land and research areas) as well as on their turf. However very few other units can do this, so it is likely you will only ever have one of them. Thus if you want to fake a hunter attack you need to commit your misdirection there, meaning your unit placement elsewhere becomes much more obvious.

Say A has a hunter, a scientist and a misdirection card.
Say B has a straight fighter, an influence unit (takes land more easily), and a misdirection card.

The question becomes where each side is going to fake, will A fake the location of the bounty hunter and try and take out the influence unit. Will B fake the location of the influence unit and try and try and kill an overcommitted bounty hunter? (Ie, A plays scientist on research, B plays misdirection on land, A plays hunter on B's land misdirection, B plays fighter on A's hunter.) Will B fake the hunter and go for a straight attack? (Ie. A plays scientist on research, B plays misdirection on land, A plays misdirection on B's land misdirection, B plays fighter on A's hunter, B plays hunter on attack.)

Misdirection is very powerful and causes a lot of doubt, so I want to limit it so the game doesn't degenerate into a lucky dip of confusion. Having an extra layer of it with equipment might be a bit much. There is a enough bluffing with hidden play as it is.

Also I have too many cards already:

Headquaters   2
Underboss   2
Red' Misdirection Cards   4
Blue' Misdirection Cards   4
Red' Mission Cards   15
Blue' Mission Cards   15
Red' Marker Cards   15
Blue' Marker Cards   15

With a slew of unique unit, land and research cards as well.

Tempted to just make equipment redeployed each hand, and cut those extra 60 cards from the game.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 14, 2012, 11:02:23 PM
Ok, if anyone is really bored (or especially helpful) here is my attempt to write up the current rules.

At the moment I haven't put in anything about how the game is resolved, what I am more concerned about is if things make sense. Any comments appreciated.

Rules updated on last edit, now in PDF form!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193068/Dystopia%20-%20Rules.pdf


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question
Post by: lamaros on January 16, 2012, 06:02:51 PM
I have decided to go back to a version of ezrast's solution as the best way of handling things. I have taken out hidden augmentation as I'm not sure it added a lot.

It is coming together a bit more. I have put the rules as a pdf as that makes them much more readable.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question(s)
Post by: lamaros on January 17, 2012, 06:13:29 PM
I have done some basic mock-ups of cards, to see how things work with the numbers currently.

Colours and fonts and etc are all just basic, what I'm trying to see is if the number of values on the card make it look confusing or complicated.

Comments appreciated.


Title: Re: Card Game Design Question(s)
Post by: ghost on January 19, 2012, 12:45:30 PM
I haven't had a chance to look at the rules closely (I will this evening) but why have dedicated misdirection cards at all? 

A way you could do this is to have specific markers for different cards in the play deck(some form of symbol, e.g. moon, cross, etc..  Then you have a separate deck (master key deck, for lack of a better term) that you draw from that will give each symbol card their "special ability", e.g. misdirection, x2 influence over the card you want to steal, damage to opponent if you win the card, reinforce other strategic point, etc.  Each master key card would have one symbol on it and each card could have varying effects even for the same symbol.  The cards from the play deck will be standard.  Both sides know what is on them and how they can potentially work.  They would be played face up, but you really wouldn't know exactly what they would be played for unless you had an idea of what is on the master key card.  For instance, if you played a really badass card that is only going to be at half strength due to your master key card because you want to take another point that your opponent isn't really expecting you to take would be nice misdirection.  That is how the bluffing would work.  You could really do it up nice with differing factions, etc. with different powers. 

Example:
-play deck with 60 cards of 20 different types (trolls, orcs, whatever different card for your genre)
-each card is marked with a different symbol
      -so if you have a common orc set of 5, each one could have a different symbol, or even multiple symbols
-draw a set of 5 key cards, keeping three to flesh out your strategy
-play cards to win your target utilizing the key card to formulate your strategy

There's a lot that could be hashed out from just this basic mechanic.  The beauty of it is your opponent would get to see your card and formulate their opinion off of that, rather than the back of the card. 


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 19, 2012, 04:01:55 PM
When would you have the key cards being revealed or played? Face down with the normal cards?

That would be interesting, but it'd also be a very different kind of game. I want the game to be balanced between bluffing and smart play, which I might not really have at the moment, but I think that key cards like that might make it a different game every turn. I want the units to have personality and develop over the game, and consistency of ability is required for that.

I have the misdirection cards in to make the early game less of a stalemate, though it might not be 100% necessary. I do like the opportunities that 1 misdirection card adds in terms of bluffing, but it might not be necessary. Unfortunately I haven't been able to do much play testing as yet, given the bluffing central nature of the game it is pretty impossible to work through much solo. I hope to get a bit done in the next couple of weeks and see how things play out a bit better.

I have updated the original post and will try to keep a current outline on the state of the game up there.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: ghost on January 20, 2012, 06:35:16 AM
It could make it as different as you wanted, I suppose. 

I guess my main critique, or concern, about your potential system, as I understand it, is the playing of the cards face down as you go along, building to a climax where you turn over all the cards and sort everything out.  That doesn't seem particularly enjoyable to me.  I would prefer a system where the tension actually builds with each card played, with a little "take that" thrown in as you go.

Also, I was trying to pull up the rules and wasn't able to.  You might want to check your link. 


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Margalis on January 20, 2012, 07:52:19 AM
I read through, and some of this feedback may be a function of me being lazy rather the legit, but it's hard to pinpoint what the core of the game is. It has bluffing but it's not a bluffing game. It has a bidding element but it's not an auction game. (Non-blind bidding seems a bit pointless to me, I would expect in playtesting you'll have a lot of tedious exchanges where people go back and forth going up by 1 each time)

Compounding that is the fact that each phase has subphases, and each way you can play a card is actually 3 ways.

I think if you look at something like Magic: The Gathering the rules are actually quite complicated and there is a ton of content you have to learn but the core of the game is still graspable pretty easily. A beginner can sort of fudge their way through a lot of it and still be playing roughly the same game and have some fun.

From reading the rules it's hard to say what this game is actually about, if that makes sense. A lot of disparate elements and to me maybe undercooked systems (the bluffing, the auction stuff) and unlike Magic I don't think you could fudge your way through it and play the game.

You can design an entire game around bluffing. To have that be a minor component of the game strikes me as symptomatic of a larger problem. I'm going to predict that if you playtest with people who have not participated in development in any way you are going to get a lot of comments about how there is just too much stuff going on in general. It's ok to have a lot of stuff when you drill down, but there is a lot of stuff here even at the high levels.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Johny Cee on January 20, 2012, 08:56:51 AM
Speaking of MTG:

On Wizards website, they have regular columns on game designing/state of the game by the developers that you might find interesting.  They talk a great deal about why the make decisions, what the goals are, and where they want to go in general with play.  The Mark Rosewater articles in particular are pretty interesting, and some points are very broad.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: ghost on January 20, 2012, 09:39:06 AM
After reading through the rules I agree with Margalis. 

It also may be a good idea to look at games like Innovation and Glory to Rome to see how they handle the "same card, multiple actions" situation.  That might help you with what you are trying to do.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 20, 2012, 02:38:43 PM
I have been tossing up between blind and open auctions and will test both.

I'm also worried/interested to see how the bluffing nature of things go in practice. It could fall flat, or it might work. The goal is to create a strategic fog rather than out and out bluffing, because out and out bluffing will leave you out of position when the cards are revealed. I anticipate most of the real bluffing power will be in attacking and defending, so I might need to make that more open. Also I have some concerns about the power of going last and first.  But I will have to see. I might need to change things significantly.

The plan is to have a play test version ready this Sunday.

I'm not too worried about the game not being super simple. I would rather have it less streamlined and retain all the conflict and building elements rather than simplify it and make it one or the other.

The fundamental idea is for a card table building (im not a huge fan of deck builders like dominion and ascention) game with direct conflict, and I'd rather start over with a new game than take that out.

Johnny Cee: yeah I find a lot of those posts interesting and take a look from time to time. I'll go and have another look now that the design is fresh in my mind.

Will take a look at Innovation too. I've read thought the GtR rules a bit, but maybe a should get my hands on the game itself to play.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 22, 2012, 05:29:23 AM
I have attempted to isolate further what I consider to be the fundamental elements of this game: it is a combat game with base building. Bluffing is soley a mechanism to provide strategic depth, and I will remove it if I can find better solutions.

I am ok with the building effects for now, they seem simple enough to me.

1. You have a blind (after playing some mock draws here I found it was better and faster this way) auction to gain unit cards. Using money.
2. You play unit cards to either,
A: gain money
B: develop your base
C: acquire improvements for your units or base
or
D: fight the other player.

A allows you to continue with 1
B allows you to do A, C & D better
C allows you to do A, B, C & D better
D allows you to make the other player do A B C & D worse / win the game.

I think the playing of cards in different ways is pretty clear: if you are doing A look at this stat. If B look at this stat, etc.

Also: win conditions are going to vary game to game is the plan. I aim to make objective card that detail specific win conditions (elimination will always be one in every game) and restrictions, such as first to a base with 10 buildings, first to 100 money in the bank, etc. all that will follow after the mechanics prove playable.

The real problem at the moment is having conflict that isn't either boring or chaotic. If you can see what the other person is doing then its a cagey experience, but if you have no idea at all it's somewhat random. More strategy seems centred in the blind auction than the rest of play at the moment, and I want to bring that in to balance.

Most card games control these elements through individual card drawing, but that is something I really don't want to do here. I'm also not a huge fan of the worker placement systems where players 'follow' each other. Not that they're unfun, but it's a very different feel to what I'm trying to find.

If its not obvious, the game is inspired by chaos overlords and I'm trying to capture some of the turn based strategy fun from it.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Margalis on January 22, 2012, 08:08:01 PM
I have attempted to isolate further what I consider to be the fundamental elements of this game: it is a combat game with base building.

Is it?

Combat is only a small amount of the rules by volume and the combat itself is pretty simple. Unit special abilities don't seem particularly combat-centric. My impression reading the rules is that combat is a thing you can do, but certainly not the thing.

To me the game sound fundamentally similar to Ticket to Ride in that there are a bunch of things you can do in a given turn, out of which you can only perform a subset, and the meat of the game is figuring out what to do when. (essentially how to invest your resources on a given turn) However your rules are like a billion times more complicated than TTR, and having played TTR a few times I still feel like I don't have a good grasp of the tradeoffs and strategy.

Quote
The real problem at the moment is having conflict that isn't either boring or chaotic.

IMO this is most likely a function of having too much stuff going on. If there are too many things you can do and that you have to keep in mind things often devolve into white noise. It's like an RTS that has way too many unit types per side - it seems like that would make the game more complicated but in the end everything runs into each other and the number of meaningful distinctions decreases.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 23, 2012, 04:03:06 PM
Perhaps it isnt' a combat game per se, maybe more of a Civ builder with combat at the heart.

Hmm, I guess I should rewrite the rules a bit. They're pretty simple I think. (Though I accept the possibility that they're not, and I'm just very close to them).

1: Recruit units.

2: Give your units orders. Each unit can have only one order per round.

A: try to capture buildings.
B: try to research.
C: attack or defend.
D: make money.

3: resolve everything.

It's 3 that is by far the most complicated, but even then it's mostly just simple addition and subtraction.

In Glory to Rome you have cards that are four things at the same time, depending how you play it. In this I have cards that are one thing, but do four different things, depending where you play them.

I will put up the pdfs of the cards later tonight. Maybe that will clear up the ideas I have in my head.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: schild on January 23, 2012, 05:29:32 PM
I will be absolutely truthful about this because you've clearly put a lot of work into it:

Card games are basically my favorite type of game ever. The board setup diagram and design examples of cards is far too intimidating for me to even care about the rules.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 23, 2012, 05:43:27 PM
 :awesome_for_real: And yet you play Magic?




Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: schild on January 23, 2012, 05:59:25 PM
I've refused to play Glory to Rome until my Black Box (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cambridgegames/glory-to-rome-black-box-edition-rome-demands-beaut?ref=live) version comes in. Just because one game had terrible visuals and people liked it doesn't mean other games should also.

In addition, is there a version of your game that looks simple, introduces the core concepts, and slowly rolls you into the complicated ones?

Basically, do you have a version of Red Deck Wins versus White Weenie and can you explain it in under 3 minutes?

Anyway, I was trying to be nice. Your shit is intimidating. Simplify it.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 23, 2012, 06:20:38 PM
I appreciate the comments. I'm doing my best so far. I also hate how ugly GtR is.

Putting some basic images to stuff now so I can print out a decent playtest version. Will hopefully get some good plays and feedback as I'm on holiday for a week after this weekend.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 12:07:08 AM
I think I have to scrap everything take a step back and start from the beginning.

I watched a video review of Eclipse, and realised that what I'm trying to make is really more a board game in that vein. And it's not really going to work unless I make it a board game. Which I don't want to do. So I am going to get back to basics and rebuild the core elements.

The core things are card laying for base building, direct conflict, and a shared draw deck with similar start points.

New ideas!

So far I am thinking I would like to do something with these cards. (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193068/Board%20Builder.pdf) (I noticed I missed one card possibility, point out if you notice I missed any more).

Retaining some of the ideas I had before, but much simpler. A tile laying card game of sorts.

Current idea is something like:

Each player starts with one card in front of them (the card with three 'roads' - dark borders - at the one end and three 'moats' - empty borders - at the other).

Cards are double sided. One side are the cards linked above, land cards. The other side are unit cards. Each land card is divided in to two plots. north and south. A unit card is also divided, but the unit only takes up one half. The other is empty.

Players alternate turns. On each turn they may elect to:

A: Draw card(s).
B: Play a card/cards from their hand.
C: Move unit card over the land.
D: Take control of a piece of land.
E: Active a plot's power.

The game ends when a player gets a unit card to the opposing player's starting land or the deck runs out of cards.

Scoring: I have no idea yet!

Actions further:

A: Draw cards from the deck to add to you hand.
B: 'Explore' a new land by attaching it to another piece of land currently on the board. It must be connected by a road in some way.
C: To move the unit card must be moved or rotated so that it moves to any adjacent 'plot' of land. An adjacent 'plot' is the other half of the card they are on, or any plot of land on an adjacent card that is directly connected to their current plot by a road. If a unit moves on to a plot occupied by another unit then they fight! Or something. (Or I could do away with all this and have 6 way movement on each land and no plots).
D: Place a marker of your colour on the circle in the middle of the land currently occupied by one of your units.
E: If the plot of land one of your units is currently on has a special power you may activate it.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 02:44:17 AM


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Margalis on January 24, 2012, 11:20:13 AM
I don't see why you gave up on your original idea without doing much to iterate on it. (And the iterating on it you did made it more complicated!)

You aren't going to have a great idea right off the top. What you originally presented was a bit of a mess but there is probably a cool game in there somewhere.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 01:38:24 PM
Not so much giving up, just putting the current rules and cards to the side for a bit while I work out some basic interactions for the underlying objectives. I have my cards for the game to date and I'm going to take them with me on holiday still. All 160 of them.

I tend to be a bit obsessive, so this is just to clear my brain for a bit, and prototype some simpler stuff.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Sheepherder on January 24, 2012, 01:50:22 PM
Dystopia is a terrible name, by the way.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 02:02:51 PM
Dystopia is a terrible name, by the way.

That's probably why it has "(working title)" next to it?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Sheepherder on January 24, 2012, 03:45:46 PM
That's the problem, it's not working. :oh_i_see:

If you ever resurrect the original concept you had it might be wise to remember that not all unintended consequences are bad.  Like your original problem: attaching an augmentation card reveals the identity of the augmented card unless there is at least one other in play.  Maybe you should just consider that the price of playing an augmentation card early.  Maybe a player could use the augmented card to feint an attack.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 05:16:11 PM
Hilarious. Thanks for coming into the thread and being dickhead, I really appreciate it.

Quote
Like your original problem: attaching an augmentation card reveals the identity of the augmented card unless there is at least one other in play.  Maybe you should just consider that the price of playing an augmentation card early.  Maybe a player could use the augmented card to feint an attack.

The problem is that it defeats the purpose of the cards and complicates things without adding any more depth. Also it requires more memory, or some way to fix cards together. Blah blah blah.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: Sheepherder on January 24, 2012, 08:13:21 PM
Apparently you're in no mood for jest.

The problem is that it defeats the purpose of the cards and complicates things without adding any more depth. Also it requires more memory, or some way to fix cards together. Blah blah blah.

Just keep the two cards stacked one atop the other.  Yes, if the opponent has seen your sole augmented card before you have lost the element of surprise.  But you know what?  Maybe that's what you pay for fielding a powerful card before you have the means to misdirect him.  Sometimes looking at the problem from a different angle reveals that it doesn't need to be solved.


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 08:47:28 PM
Apparently you're in no mood for jest.

I don't exactly get the humor in saying "that's a shit name" and "your game doesn't work yet". Maybe it's a developed taste.

Anyhow, my disappointingly thin skin aside:

Quote
Just keep the two cards stacked one atop the other.  Yes, if the opponent has seen your sole augmented card before you have lost the element of surprise.  But you know what?  Maybe that's what you pay for fielding a powerful card before you have the means to misdirect him.  Sometimes looking at the problem from a different angle reveals that it doesn't need to be solved.

They problem is when you return all your cards to you hand at the end of each round. You need to keep them together then, to make sure you don't forget (rule #1: people are stupid and will fuck up if there is a chance to do so) otherwise you might completely ruin the upcoming round by playing things out of turn, or not linking things that are now linked.

If it was the centre of the game it might be manageable, but unfortunately I have it surrounded by a bunch of other stuff that people need to keep track of.

I originally had combat working in a magic sort of model, with cards either dying or returning at full health next round. But that wasn't working because combat was something of a lucky dip with the bluffing added. So I thought I'd change defence to health, and give units higher health values, meaning they would rarely die in one round alone.

But of course that can only be tracked with counters of sorts (or cards you can write on) so then you need to go back to the 'every card is played face up and has a stand in card played from the hand' solution.

And it's all fast becoming a bit of a confused mess, because that makes the resolution phase even less clear (as you have to refer back and forth between each stand in card to the one it depicts every single time you resolve something). And a lot of this problem comes from the bluffing added to complexity, so either I get rid of the bluffing (or do it in an entirely different way) or I get rid of the complexity (damage tokens, augmenting, etc).

So I'm going to strip out the damage tokens and augmentation for now and see what works that way. Then maybe strip out the bluffing and put the other stuff in and see what works that way.

Anyhow. Another thing I wanted to have was movement. In the end I cut that because I couldn't really find a simple way to do it and have bluffing, but now I am re-thinking the lot, so I am going to fiddle with my domino-like land cards, to see if I can get a solution there. (The hope being that movement restrictions would make up for the lack of bluffing).


Title: Re: My Card Game Design (With Question(s))
Post by: lamaros on January 24, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
On a completely unrelated note, I wonder if it might be possible to make a deck-building game (dominion or ascention like) with some of the capture mechanics from Scopa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopa).

Ascension has some elements like this, in that you play cards from your deck to destroy cards in the shared zone, but unlike scopa you don't lose the use of your card in your hand when you do that. I wonder how it might work if each turn you had to play a card from your hand into the middle, but that card then had to stay in the middle or leave the game for good (trash pile or victory piles), while in return you added cards from the middle to your hand or they left the game for good (trash pile or victory piles).

Scoring would either related to cards left in your hand once the draw deck was empty and/or cards in your victory pile.

Scopa is a pretty simple game and mostly luck based, but there is a bit of thinking involved in working out when to capture cards or when to play to protect the middle. As someone who likes games that have more direct conflict between players I wondered how to add something like this to the (personally) boring deck-builders.

(Been playing a bit of scopa recently with the GF.)


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on January 25, 2012, 05:07:25 PM
I have thought about my simple card laying card game a bit more. The current idea:

Components:

You have a deck of 50 land cards. These are a varied of cards from the following: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193068/Dungeon%20Battle/Visible%20Print.pdf These cards are double sided. One side signifies it is neutral, the other signifies it is occupied.
You have a deck of 25 unit cards. These are half sized cards (would fit into the middle space when played on the land cards). These cards are double sided, identical apart from a colour marker.
You have a few dice.
You have a number of red and blue markers.

Setup:

Each player starts with one land in front of them. This card is turned on to its back, with a red/blue marker at the top/bottom to signify that those players control it.
Each player starts with one unit card on their land card. This card is turned over to the red/blue side, depending on the owner.

10 unit cards and 10 land cards are selected at random. These cards are turned face up on the table. Each player takes turn selecting one card each to add to their hand. Once all players have 5 cards each the remaining cards are returned to their card piles.

The rest of the land cards are shuffled and placed face down in a draw deck.
The rest of the unit cards are shuffled and placed face down in a draw deck.

Gameplay:

Each player takes turns to do an action. On each turn they may elect to:

A: Draw card(s) from either the land or unit deck.
These cards are added to the player's hand.

B: Play a card from their hand.
Lands may be played adjacent to any other land that is connected in some way with their starting land. Lands may not be played so that any point of the card is closer to the player than their starting land. Land must be played so that at least some part of the card played forms a valid path with an existing piece of land. Units may only be played on a land that player controls.

C: Move a unit card over the land.
Units may move to any adjacent land connected to their current land by the path. They may not move through walls. No two units may occupy the same piece of land. If a unit moves into the same piece of land as an enemy unit they enter combat.

D: Take control of a piece of land.
Players may take control of a piece of land if they have a unit on an unoccupied piece of territory.

E: Active a plot or unit power.
Some cards will have will have a special effect that a player can activate.

The game ends when a player gets a unit card in to the opposing player's starting land, removes all the units of the other player from the game board, or either the unit or land draw piles are depleted. In the later case the winner is scored as follows:

1 point for each piece of land controlled.
1 point for each unit controlled.
1 point for each card left in their hand.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: Paelos on January 27, 2012, 08:35:42 AM
Ok I have two questions. Bear in mind I'm a card game noob. Played some MtG a long time ago.

1 - What are half cards? Does this ruin flow? Wouldn't I lose or get these damaged trying to keep track of them. Are their continuity issues?
2 - Do the units support each other? If the goal is to strike into my land, what's the point of defending? Wouldn't the game just turn into a mad rush? Are there penalties or advantages to the defenders/attackers as they get deeper into the land?


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on January 27, 2012, 02:45:14 PM
Ok I have two questions. Bear in mind I'm a card game noob. Played some MtG a long time ago.

1 - What are half cards? Does this ruin flow? Wouldn't I lose or get these damaged trying to keep track of them. Are their continuity issues?
2 - Do the units support each other? If the goal is to strike into my land, what's the point of defending? Wouldn't the game just turn into a mad rush? Are there penalties or advantages to the defenders/attackers as they get deeper into the land?

Half sized or small sized just means that the dimensions are smaller. Ie normal cards 63x89mm, small are 41x63.

For this game they are small because you place them on the larger cards, and still need to be able to see the exits.

The units somewhat support each other. Currently I have 5.

Scout. 1/2. If this unit moves into a land with any unexplored exits you may add a land to one of those exits for free from either your hand or the top of the draw deck.
Commander. 2/3. If this unit moves into a land with any adjacent connected friendly units you may move each of those units once for free.
Soldier. 3/3. This unit may attack any adjacent enemy units for free.
Spy. 2/1. This unit may attempt to control a land for free once each turn. If this unit takes control of a land you may draw one card. This unit gains a control bonus equal to its defence.
Citizen. 1/1. This unit may move between adjacent controlled land for free. This unit may activate a land's ability for free once each turn.

The point of defending is to make it harder for the other player to strike you, or to build a winning score and win that way. There is a natural opportunity cost every turn because you have to choose between moving, building or influencing. So the player that rushes out for the base attack might find the other player blocking them by building every turn and not letting the lands connect up. Or controlling a strong square and defending through it, etc.

I have ideas for lands as giving attacking or defensive bonuses, movement bonuses. Extra actions per turn. Etc. some will be harder to control than others.

I anticipate that towards the end of the game players will be activating special abilities and using unit combinations to do more complicated moves than in this first, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the units and land the control, and the shape of the board.

New idea is to have the starting cards facing back to back in the middle, with three exits from each leading away from each other. As follows:

-|-
|_|
|  |
-|-

With the crosses being exits and the others being closed. So even though you are close and connected, you can't get to each other for a bit, and you can sort of block each other off.

(on an iPad. Will post an example with my cards when I get to my pc)


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: Margalis on January 27, 2012, 03:20:50 PM
Hmm..where do the starting lands start in relation to each other? Like can we sit 50 feet away from each other?

Also what guarantees they align properly? If I have my land in front of me and you have your land in from of you and we build towards each other where they meet can't they be off?


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on January 27, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
Hmm..where do the starting lands start in relation to each other? Like can we sit 50 feet away from each other?

Also what guarantees they align properly? If I have my land in front of me and you have your land in from of you and we build towards each other where they meet can't they be off?

I'm thinking (as mentioned in the end of the above post) to make them start adjacent to each other in the middle, rather on the extremes of each player's side. However they would be facing in different directions, so to establish a connection you would have to build around the side and it would take a few turns (at least three), even if both players were working towards it.

Arrangement is end on end, or side by side raised or lowered 50%. So tiled, so to speak.

Here is the current playtest layouts of the land cards, by way of example. They are all designed to fit together in this manner (apart from the one that has no openings/exits, of course):

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193068/Dungeon%20Battle/Land%20Cards.pdf

I am considering allowing it to just be straight up side by side as well, though I'm not sure on that.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on May 05, 2014, 12:44:06 AM
Ok! So I have played a lot more board games in the past two years that I had prior to that, so I new have quite a few ideas on how to resolve some of the things that were going on in my designs. Hopefully this time I can get through to finishing the prototypes to a fun level (though this will likely be after I have moved).

At the moment I'm going back to the original game, a sort of Chaos Overlords, experience. As per my current notes:

It will be a card game, with a grid board which can randomized through tiles. The card aspect will be similar in some ways to Race for the Galaxy, but it will be much more interactive.

There will be broadly three types of cards, action selection cards (like RftG), building/area tiles, and unit and development cards that go into a players hand.

Units are purchased, either directly or through auction, and are added to a player's hand when acquired. They have a number of values: attack, defense, influence, and upkeep. Some may have special abilities. I may also add in a 'tech level'.

Development cards are either played in combination with other cards in combos or modifiers, or do other such tricky things.

Players will choose 2-4 actions simultantiously (like RftG), then reveal and play them in turn one at a time. They may or may not be shared among all players like Race or not.

Actions will be: Recruit, move, control, collect income, develop, reorganise, and produce.

Board movement and card cycling will play similar to the game City of Remnants.

The game will be entirely symmetrical to start with.

There will be cubes to signify units, and discs to indicate players control of the board.

There will be engaged and and unengaged units similar to the game of archipelago.

The base board will have a fixed setup, but the main game will consist of varied setups determined by shuffling the tiles and playing them face down over areas or the entirety of the base board. (I have considered having the backs of these laminated in some way so that they can be marked to indicate which players have 'discovered' them and are allowed to check what they are if currently hidden).

Game Phases:

Reset
Actions
Upkeep (penalties for not being able
to pay)

Components:

Board (8x8ish)
Building titles
Unit cards
Development cards
Unit cubes
Control discs
Upkeep dials
Money tokens
Scoring tokens


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 25, 2015, 04:58:07 AM
Necro...

New wave of inspiration. Not that much like it was previously... But progress.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/193068/progress.jpg)


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 25, 2015, 07:46:26 PM
And here are the new rules to date. If you care please comment, as any pointers as to what I can help make clearer are much appreciated.

If you have any design comments I'll also appreciate those.

Link to rules here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/193068/Overlord%20Rules.docx), also spoilered below.



Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: Margalis on February 26, 2015, 05:50:15 AM
You need to contextualize these rules and present them an inverted pyramid fashion.

What is the game? It's very hard to understand this without parsing though it with a fine-toothed comb because there's no theme or metaphor. You've presented a long list of procedures but a procedure for what? And to what end?

Describe what the game is about ("it's a game of building and espionage" or whatever) along with some plain-english description of the basics, and maybe a less in-depth listing of the rules that doesn't include everything but sets it up and describes the overall flow.

Stuff like exactly how many cards you draw is only relevant if you're playing - when someone first reads the rules they won't be playing, they'll just be reading to try to understand the gist of it.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: MahrinSkel on February 26, 2015, 07:11:23 AM
Yeah, something like:

2-3 sentence description of the game theme and style.

6-10 sentence executive summary of the phases of play.

all that stuff you just infodumped, minus the pieces inventory

pieces inventory

The player is starting with no clear idea of what the game is about or its general structure, and you're throwing them in the deep end with detailed instructions that they have no context to provide meaning to. Like a lego set that comes with instructions for Ikea-style stepwise directions (attach red 2x8 block to red 2x8 block... ... ... ... ... You have a fire engine!

--Dave


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 26, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
Cheers for the feedback. Yeah I was just writing them up for myself, so I forgot to put the preamble in. Didn't remember that when I shared it.

Quick and dirty description follows. Note all the names and etc are placeholder.

General:

The aged overloard, ruler of the realm for over a generation, has died, and the power they controled and held in order has fallen apart in to chaos. New upstart players have seen their chance for glory and are seeking to step in to the power vacuum. But only one can win this competition of influence and power, who will step up and become the new overlord?!

Overlord is a game for 2-6 players that sets them in competition against each other to fight for power within the lands of The Realm. Over ten years players will recruit, deploy and manuver a team of agents throughout the lands to attempt to lay claim to positions of power. After ten years whoever has control of the most power points in areas under their control will see themselves crowned as the new overlord!

Players compete by assembling a team of agents and sending them throughout the realm to exert influence, gain money, and expose and compete with enemy agents. After ten years of competition whomever has gathered the most power fr themselves will be crowned as the new overlord of the realm.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 26, 2015, 03:05:00 PM
Simple game structure to follow.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: Margalis on February 26, 2015, 07:24:22 PM
It is worth mentioning that writing good board game rules is hard and something even many good games get wrong.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 26, 2015, 07:36:52 PM
Basic, sequence and flow of the game:

The board of the game is made up of a group of different hexagonal map tiles. These tiles have a number of enterances on them and when placed next to each other form the board on which players will play agents and move around. Each tile will be part of a certain map 'area' and when combine these tiles will form one board with a number of different connected areas.

Each map tile is further divided in to a number of sectors, which all have a power value. The aim of the game is to have control of a number of sectors which together add up to the greatest power value at the time the game ends.

The game is divided up in to a number of years (or 'rounds'). When the end of the final year is reached the game ends, and the player who controls the most power points in sectors they control wins.

Each round is further divided up in to a number of steps, which have the following basic flow:

1. Upkeep

In this step players pay and or receive money for the upkeep of their active agents.

2. Event step

In this step an game event will be drawn that will cause a special event or restriction of take place.

3. Agent auction

In this step a number of new agents will become available for players to recruit, via an auction. Each player will recruit one agent in this step from the available pool and deploy them on to the map.

4. Action steps

In this step players will take turns to take an action. Actions will involve basic actions such as further direct agent recruitment; agent actions such as moving agents and placing influence on board sectors, and special agent actions from the agents they control; as well as special area actions if they control the majority of sectors in a map area.

There are two action steps, one after each other.

5. Refresh and move year forward

Finally there will be a step where agents and other elements are readied for the next round, and the round will move on.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 26, 2015, 07:38:55 PM
It is worth mentioning that writing good board game rules is hard and something even many good games get wrong.

Yeah. I like to think I will get this one done ok, its not that complicated a game really. But I've been writing them for myself so far, and done it very quickly, so its a good exercise to post them here and then look at them through outsider eyes and make adjudtments and changes.

I appreciate any feedback!


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: Margalis on February 26, 2015, 11:23:07 PM
So my understanding is that you make a map out of tiles, then as the game goes by you collect and use agents, and each agent has special powers.

Two things seem a little weird to me:

1. What's the point in the players customizing the map? It seems like you would build the map out to favor some strategy, but you don't have any agents yet (?) - it's not clear to me that the map-building phase would be meaningful. It seems like it would be a lot more interesting if the player had some events or agents in hand already, so that they were building a map in a way that benefited them.

2. The idea that you have map tiles, but then each map tile is itself divided into sectors. It seems kind of weird to have map tiles, but then have something that exists at even finer resolution. This isn't any sort of dealbreaker, it just sounds a bit odd reading it.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on February 26, 2015, 11:41:54 PM
The map building is just for a varied board. The elements will be the same every game, just not always with the same connections.

I like this because I like games that require board analysis as a strategic skill, rather than fixed boards that tend to encourage rote plays. The goal is to have a similar outcome to something like Railways of the World, where you have general ideas and strategies, but have to adjust and take advantage of the opportunities the varied setup presents.

It also lets experienced player build and share a custom map for specific strategic implications.

And it also lets me design expansions that can easily swap in and out by including area sets with associated agent card sets.

Regarding the sectors division, this is partly to limit the board size while still having a large number of sectors. The alternative would be to have about 3x as many tiles of one sector each, but the exacerbates setup times and requires them to be smaller and more fiddly.

Secondly large subdivided tiles allows me to design them for certain purposes to some extent, so the game is not completely random each time. You'll always have a tile that has a high value sector surrounded by a few no value ones, for example. Which adds to the strategic elements for repeat plays. You won't know how everything connects each game, but you will know what will generally be in each region.

It is a little less than ideal in some ways, but I'm not keen on building a 60 tiles map, or having a fixed board. Will see how it goes in playtests.

TLDR

1. This is not really much skill in setting up the map, its just for variation and as setup. It could easily just be set up by one individual.

2. I need about 15 sectors per player to make the world large enough I think, so the subdivision is a means to do this without making the board setup too long and the board too fiddly. Also it allows more fixed designed strategic elements.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on March 01, 2015, 12:52:08 AM
Had a playtest today and a few things came from that which have me trying to go with just one sector tiles. I think I can get away without having to build 60 tile maps.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on March 04, 2015, 03:22:57 PM
Feeling better about how things are coming together now. Having just one scoring area per tile has allowed me to simplify some things, which is always good, and focused the area control elements. Also bringing more emphasis on spatial relationships, movent, and terrain evaluation. In turn I'm hoping these increase the significant of the agent auctions and tighten the play up.

Previously I had a bit of an idea about teams of agents comboing together, but I'm strippng that back to synergising instead, and getting a clearer idea on what kind of play styles I want the game to allow.

At the moment I'm trying to add in the agents that allows these styles: spreading broadly or locking down key spots, focusing on denying the other sides or accelerating ones own game, etc

I've got another 15 (of 40) agents to do, then there will be more play testing. Feeling good, but the proof of the pudding...

The economy is likely still a mess.



Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: Margalis on March 11, 2015, 07:50:17 AM
Had a playtest today and a few things came from that which have me trying to go with just one sector tiles. I think I can get away without having to build 60 tile maps.

"I told you so."  :awesome_for_real:

I'm curious what range of abilities the agents have. That's really the core of the game no? My guess is that coming up with agent abilities such that there are an interesting number of viable strategies is going to be the tough part.

You also want to avoid a situation where everyone's strategy becomes clear after one or two rounds of drafting and then there's no real competition for agents because everyone is on a different path. So you probably want agents that are applicable to more than one strategy.


Title: Re: My Card Game Designs WIPs
Post by: lamaros on March 11, 2015, 03:13:15 PM
Yeah second playtest had some stuff come out of it. At this point I have two directions I might take it which are pretty much two different games. I'm tempted to try and make both of them.

Keeping the agents transparent enough to other players but still flexible and creative and fun is the real balancing act. But I'm still ironing out economy issues which make the auctions lack something too. The game isn't as dynamic as I'd hope yet.

One other problem being the tests so far have been two player, and I think that will possibly be the worst player count. But if I can get it working there it should shine with more, as it really tests the basic mechanics.