TCG Idea and Quandary

[Covenance]

Hi folks!

So I spent the latter of last night... up until 2:30 am to be exact, pouring over the many posts found within these forum boards.

I have to say that there was a 'lot' of information and I feel like I have a better grip on what I want to do and its direction.

However, I face a quandary at step I: It's setting.  Allow me to preface if you will...

I am a huge fan of battles in space; ship vs ship, boarding parties, interdictions, littoral combat warfare (yes, “littoral” is a real word and no it's not misspelled), etc...

(By the way, I am a Navy vet that retired after 20 years of service in 2008; so I have a professional interest that is driven by personal fascination from a gamer point of view – odd mix, I know.)

So, I have been designing a Space Warfare Combat TCG for little a while now (complete with true Dogfighting Maneuvers played as "Tactic Cards") but I have hit an epiphany that could derail the whole thing and cause me to go a completely different direction.

There have been many Sci Fi based TCGs but I have yet to see one stay on the market for any length of time.  My thinking behind the reason for this is fairly straightforward and simple: There is only so much creativity you can muster out of a "Starship." (Think of it as a "Creature" card which is the way I want to utilize Starships).

Magic, Multi World, Realm, etc - Fantasy based games suffer no restrictions in this aspect because frankly anything you put on a card can be supported by the lore of the genre in itself.  No question exists on whether or not something, an ability, spell, or what have you would be possible because it’s “Fantasy.”

However once you step into the world of science, albeit ‘Sci Fi,’ an instant level of expectation of what would be realistic in our minds (at least mine) occurs.  For example I would instinctively reject a card with a picture of a Single Pilot Starfighter on a card where the text reads:

"Pilots grim visage induces fear: target Card suffers trepidation.  Place one counter of fear per turn until 'visage' is broken.  While feared card cannot attack or perform Offensive Tactics."

Really?

Starships go "pew pew" or "whoosh goes the missile bizzach!" What are you talking about my frown causing "fear?"  How could the enemy even see my face in the middle of lightening fast dogfighting in space anyway?

That may not be a good example but that's the gist of my thinking that is hanging my creative flow up at the moment.  Sci Fi is based on science and physics - even if loosely adapted for gameplay.  However, the very fact that it is something we can tangably connect with in reality creates a subconscious and instant "judgement" on if it's "realistic" with all things Sci Fi related... which in itself is an oxymoron.

So I guess what I'm asking, sincerely, are what are your thoughts on this?  And before you ask as I have seen asked many times in other posts when someone asks for input; yes, it is intended to be a fully supported commercial product.  We already have artists, writers, scripters, even a music studio with a signed band for what we are doing so that isn't a blockade for us like a lot of other teams are faced with.

What I am asking is; do you think, as consumers, that a Starship Combat game has any form of long term viability whatsoever?  Why or why not, please?

Depending on responses I will reveal more of our design as we develop it.  It is still in its rudimentary phases so we would not be losing (“too” much) if we had to shift or design in a different direction, so please be frank, brutal, and honest.

Thank you all for you time.  I truly appreciate it.

- CC

[jorch72]

What I am asking is; do you think, as consumers, that a Starship Combat game has any form of long term viability whatsoever?  Why or why not, please?

Please define long term (a couple of years or Magic like).
I believe that any CCG can last a long time as long as:
-It's fun to play for everyone (it has different ways of winning, to attract different player types)
-Very little power creep (1 or 2 cards card per expansion)
-Each expansion adds a new mechanic but support previous ones and don't make them obsolete, and if posible adds to previous ones.
-Every once in a while, add a totally different way of playing (start with ships and in a few expansions add planets then maybe ground troops, etc.)
-And one of the key elements of magic, a great tournament structure and support.

The problem with most games is that after a few expansions, they stop being fun, either because of power creep or because no new stuff is added, just more of the same.

bye

[Covenance]

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my enquiry!

What I am asking is; do you think, as consumers, that a Starship Combat game has any form of long term viability whatsoever?  Why or why not, please?

Please define long term (a couple of years or Magic like).

Well, honestly I would be lying if I said I don?t have lofty goals.  I would really like to have a product that would last, at an absolute minimum, of 5 years.  To be honest I would consider that a personal failure if it only lasted that long.

I believe that any CCG can last a long time as long as:
-It's fun to play for everyone (it has different ways of winning, to attract different player types)

I am interested in hearing what other ways of winning in ship to ship combat do you envision as viable mechanics besides simply wiping out your opponent?  Please don?t include the ?when you have no more cards? trope.  A Commanding Officer never runs out of orders, tactics, or grit until all of his assets are depleted.  Thus, I plan on implementing a ?pick up the tactics deck and reshuffle? mechanic.

-Very little power creep (1 or 2 cards card per expansion)

Concur.  The challenge for every game is to introduce new and exciting ?bad assery? without functionally toppling what is already there.  I always believed the ?lifespan? of legal play cards was a great mechanism to do this with.  Also, it allows developers to backtrack sometimes and ?re-introduce? concepts that were obsolete and therefore illegal to play last season.

-Each expansion adds a new mechanic but support previous ones and don't make them obsolete, and if posible adds to previous ones.
-Every once in a while, add a totally different way of playing (start with ships and in a few expansions add planets then maybe ground troops, etc.)

I like the idea, although I have mixed feelings about introducing such ?major? elements like entire planet systems or ?dirtside? combat.  We are attempting to make a gritty in your face yet tactical space battle between a Flagship, some Warships, and several Starships.  Those elements are so weighty in what they could inject into the game it may slow it down tremendously.
Yet, as I have seen too many times before, someone much sharper and creative could easily come up with a crafty system that blows my notions completely irrelevant ? so, we?ll see.

-And one of the key elements of magic, a great tournament structure and support.

This is one area I honestly would have no idea even where to begin.
Our production milestone goal is to make this an online PC game that is accessible to everyone and can play against each other much like Pokemon Online.  As far as having physical cards in your hand ? we haven?t gone past the aspect of simply musing about that.  That adds an entirely hugely complex schema to the production of the product that we are simply not equipped to handle? yet.

The problem with most games is that after a few expansions, they stop being fun, either because of power creep or because no new stuff is added, just more of the same.

And this my friend is why I?m here.  I want to put my ?assumptions? of what people would like on the shelf and plum the community here for what they really *do* enjoy, free from my own personal gaming biases.

Thank you very much for all that!  I?m looking forward to hearing from others in this discussion as well. 
- CC

[Dan55]

For me, it would depend.

If the system was a fun game, I'd give it a try no matter what.  However, if it was based on the Customisable Card Game game engine (ie - new cards come out every so often requiring updated decks) then I wouldn't be very interested.  I'm tired of the CCG game design - to be successful they all depend on churning cards.

But, if it was a stand alone game that just happened to use cards (ie - Dominon) and had interesting game play, I would be much more interested.  Expansions would be welcome in that case.

[Wisp]

There's a book called "Embassytown" by "China Mieville". It's a sci-fi novel and although it's not specifically about space travel, space travel is quite significant to the fiction. When long distances need to be travelled, it is done by 'immersing' into the 'Immer' which is like an alternate dimension of space or something. It would be worth having a look at, since it was what first occurred to me myself when thinking of a way to make space combat games more interesting. You could make the nature of the environment and the scope for interaction with the environment so much more than you could with just ordinary space.

[Covenance]

Ordered.

http://www.amazon.com/Embassytown-China-Mieville/dp/0345524497/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354116343&sr=8-1&keywords=embassytown

Thank you Wisp!

(If you guys suggest something - I will give it attention.  I'm not here as a sightseer.)

- CC

[gwago]

Magic, Multi World, Realm, etc - Fantasy based games suffer no restrictions in this aspect because frankly anything you put on a card can be supported by the lore of the genre in itself.  No question exists on whether or not something, an ability, spell, or what have you would be possible because it?s ?Fantasy.?

However once you step into the world of science, albeit ?Sci Fi,? an instant level of expectation of what would be realistic in our minds (at least mine) occurs.  For example I would instinctively reject a card with a picture of a Single Pilot Starfighter on a card where the text reads:

"Pilots grim visage induces fear: target Card suffers trepidation.  Place one counter of fear per turn until 'visage' is broken.  While feared card cannot attack or perform Offensive Tactics."

Really?

Starships go "pew pew" or "whoosh goes the missile bizzach!" What are you talking about my frown causing "fear?"  How could the enemy even see my face in the middle of lightening fast dogfighting in space anyway?

That may not be a good example but that's the gist of my thinking that is hanging my creative flow up at the moment.  Sci Fi is based on science and physics - even if loosely adapted for gameplay.  However, the very fact that it is something we can tangably connect with in reality creates a subconscious and instant "judgement" on if it's "realistic" with all things Sci Fi related... which in itself is an oxymoron.

So I guess what I'm asking, sincerely, are what are your thoughts on this?

I agree, and I've put a lot of thought into this problem. In a fantasy setting you can get away with anything; other settings are much harder to rationalize. With sci-fi though it's not so bad; in the above example, the pilot could be inducing fear through telepathy, which is inherent to his race/color. I don't know how much of an alien/sci-fi element you want to include, however, but you can make anything possible with a little stretching.

Also - and this isn't meant to be a plug - I've put some thought into a space battle CCG of my own; you might want to gleam over it for ideas/inspiration. http://www.lackeyccg.com/forum/index.php?topic=1718.0

Good luck!

[Covenance]

Thank you Gwago.  I appreciate your input.

I spent quite a while going through honestly about 70% of the posts on this forum before putting up this thread... because as I am sure you have seen before; how annoying is it when somebody registers and posts a question as his very first post on a forum... that was already answered in another thread merely a few days beforehand?

So yes, I have seen your thread.  Me and you share almost identical ideas (Crews, Orders, and Tactics) but I didn't want to get too deep into it because I don't want to be accused of 'copying' something that we both have thought of.

Regarding Ship Components, I won't be doing a "build the Command Ship with these Component cards" type of mechanic.  I guess the best way for everyone to get a rough and dirty grasp on how the current concept of Star Lords works is by using M:TG as a comparison model... actually now that I think about it looks like this is actually a very good analogy:

Imagine your "Mage" (which is what the original concept in M:TG was, back when I had 4 Alpha Black Lotuses in my deck and we got excited when we learned what ?trampling? was... no kidding) as the "Command Ship."  In essence, that's you.  Different Command Ships will have different strengths, special abilities, and weaknesses based on what faction you have built your Command Ship and its Fleet with.  I figure you're a Star Lord - controlling vast reaches of space.  Therefore you will have access to many different factions / races / etc to build your deck with.  Hopefully, that adds variety.

The "Resource" mechanism was a B*zzch to come up with that would be believable / acceptable in a Sci Fi setting.  We opted for a "two tier" approach with "three tiers of ships"

The First Resource comes from you, directly, as the Command Ship / Commanding Officer.  That Resource is aptly called "Command and Control."  It is a fixed number (right now set for 20).  The CaC allows you to... "Command and Control" specific "Warships" or "Support Ships" collectively called "Fleet Ships."  These Fleet Ship units cost a specific amount of CaC and is also maintained by that same amount.  Thus a maximum amount of Fleet Ship units can be in play at any given time.  You don't get "more" CaC.  It's not a physical (or ethereal) manifestation you can collect and spend like Mana.  CaC represents how many assets you as a Commanding Officer can effectively "Command" on the ebon field of battle.

Thus, CaC is "maintained" at the same cost by the Fleet Ship as it took to bring it into play.  If a Player has 20 CaC points worth of Fleet Ships in Play, that's it.  He doesn't get more next turn... should one of them become destroyed however that immediately frees up the CaC resource cost for the destroyed Fleet Ship for the Commanding Officer to use at will for other Fleet Ships (or specials unmentioned as of yet) to be brought into play.

The second Resource comes from the Fleet Ships themselves.  But it is not an overall pool.  Each Fleet Ship has their own amount of Fleet Support Points.  Think of it this way:  A Star Carrier may have 15 FSP's allowing it to launch 3 wings of Star Fighters (at a cost 4 FSP's each).  If all three are launched the carrier would effectively have 3 FSP's left.  Does this mean I can take an FSP from a Frigate and give it to the Carrier so it can launch a 4th wing?  No, that makes no tangible sense.

Thus, Fleet Ships resources (such as Star Fighters, Mine Fields, Missile Salvos, etc...) are supported by the specific Fleet ship it wields.

Fleet Ships could be compared to "Creatures" in M:TG.  The Resources provided by the Fleet Ships could therefore be easily compared to Spells (Plasma Beam), Enchantments (Power Overdrive to Shields), or even other types of Creatures (Star Fighters, Recon Ships, etc).

There ya have it.

So... micromanaging the Command Ship on a component level, imho, would severely slow down what I have in mind for play structure.

It's actually pretty straight forward - nothing genre bending here.  However, as one person said earlier in the year "every car has four wheels and a steering wheel."  I happen to agree.  Tried and true mechanics are just that - tried and true, so no reason to build one from scratch.  The trick is to *adapt* them to logically fit within the setting or genre you are trying to create.

I believe the CaC and FSP Resource mechanics addresses that without being too burdensome to the player.

What do you think sir?

- CC

[Kevashim]

As far as objectives that go beyond simply defeating all of your opponents (or in this case, destroying their Command Ship), you could consider inclusion of a set of capturable objectives/locations. For example, each Command Ship is based in a home location with a number of "frontier" locations between themselves and the enemy. Each players fleet may be sent to any of the frontier locations to try and capture it, or they can be sent directly to assault the enemy Command Ship. This would force players to consider splitting their fleet between offence and defence and whether they want to assault the enemy Command Ship directly or attempt to capture X number of frontiers (asserting their dominance over the field of engagement and forcing enemy surrender).

Just a thought anyway, it provides a second victory condition that could lead to very different play-styles from your players. Through the use of tactics and possibly the addition of mobility based traits to ships there could be a number of interactions with the frontiers.

[Wisp]

I think the title is too cheesy

[Covenance]

I totally 100% agree that the title is cheesy.

... you'll never forget it.  It rolls off the tongue, causes a chuckle, and makes you curious as to what it is.

Mission accomplished.



(It also gives us the flexibility of going High Sci Fi Fantasy fusion should we go that direction - without locking us into a "hardcore" expectation of pure science drudgery (looking at YOU "Traveller"))

[jorch72]

I am interested in hearing what other ways of winning in ship to ship combat do you envision as viable mechanics besides simply wiping out your opponent?

At the top of my head I can think of 2 3 ways:
-Yugioh Style: when have a combination of cards on the table, at eot you win (Exodia)
-Magic Style: have a card on table with a condition/mission, as soon as it's achieved/acomplished you win (Test Of Endurance)
-Poison mechanic, but adapted to the flavor of the game (assasins, crystals, relics, obelisks, alien artifact, etc)

[gwago]

It's a nice system, but why do you have three types of ships? It seems to me like it could be simpler and just as effective by having you as the Command Ship (or Fleet Ship as it sounds cooler) and having you control the Star Fighters and other smaller units. Alternatively, you could be the Command Ship and have you control the Fleet Ships; smaller units could be represented by tokens or non-permanents ("Fighter Wing Strafe"). As a matter of fact, I think this might be pretty elegant; consider your "creatures" to be Fleet Ships, while they launch the missile salvos and fighters which are represented by tokens. This way you also get to nix one of your resources so you only have one to deal with. It would still be essentially the same, as the Fleet Ship could only make so many tokens, and it would make deckbuilding decisions a little more streamlined.