LackeyCCG

LackeyCCG Forum => CCG Design Forum => Topic started by: Malagar on December 12, 2011, 03:35:41 PM

Title: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 12, 2011, 03:35:41 PM
Hello Community,
I opened this thread because few of us started to discuss a possible community CCG project elsewhere on this forum. I know this is not the first try and maybe not the last. But I would like to consolidate all ideas about a possible LackeyCCG community project in a single thread.

First of all - I have no plans in creating or leading such a project, but would participate and help with my skills if an idea would develop enough to reach maturity. Right now - just discussing a possible, open-source community project in theory is interesting and could spawn clever ideas and maybe a foundation for the future.

Second, i have no idea what game to create. But i would vote for a classic empire building game of some sort. in my oppinion we need a broad scope to keep the game expandable. a zombie game for example is lot of fun at first, but the well of ideas dries up very fast (this is also true for fighting games and a few others). I imagine a game spanning warfare, diplomacy, intrigue, micro- and macro management, as well as politics, and some kind of magic (or psi). this enables factions, thematic deckbuilding and lots of background to keep a senario open-ended and interesting. remember this is a community project and possibly every community member will start to design cards or even expansions once we agreed on the core rules. so, the initial idea may not be too limited or there wont be much design freedom once the first few hundred cards are designed. also community members may want to design their own "races", "factions" or whatever - and the rules have to support a wide variety of fighting styles / culture / characteristics. a big idea like a sci-fi planetary conquest may sound overwhelming at first - but dont narrow the initial idea of the game down to much, or after the 300th move card of a street fighter clone - there wont be any new ideas any more. but actually - im open for any idea, as long as its good!

Third - what i could contribute to a project like this is creating and playtesting rules. as i consider myself experienced with CCGs and game development (like most people on here). in addition to that, i am able to provide professional looking templates (altough i would need help depending on the size of the project) - take a look around this forum or at my website for examples. and - working in a internet based retail company, i could also provide website, a domain and technology for free.

Number four - I am 31, full time employed, happy with my wife, my life and my job. i have no plans to create the next "blogbuster megalomaniac ccg idea to sell for millions of dollars". I want a free game, a realistic game - with realistic expectations and a sincere background story. i would not participate in a game with capitalistic thoughts in mind - it would have to be free, but developed and represented as professional as possible. i also would not join a simple "fun-game" or one with a absurd background story.

Number five - the game would only exist in the internet and would only be playable through LackeyCCG. we all live scattered across the planet and printing cards is not only expensive but absurd. its much easier to gather and link a game community using the power of WWW instead of creating local game groups everywhere and try to promote a selfmade card game. finally: creating cards for online use only, requires much less resolution of graphics and makes acquiring new artwork and designs much, much, much easier.

my 2 cents on a community project. let this thread be a brainstorming experiment or let it die in peace.

Malagar over and out!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 12, 2011, 06:18:52 PM
I like the idea mainly because I think it is kinda absurd that anyone thinks they could take a game to maturity on their own or with limited feedback. Thus, groups like these are totally necessary.

I also have a fairly busy schedule, but can check in at least once per week. I think forum-type discussion with monthly (and not mandatory) real-time chat sessions would be enough to keep everyone on the same page.

I don't think the right way to do a community project is to have it up to any user to make cards/sets/whatever. Cards should always be made by a team or the entire community (most likely come up with by a team, and then tweaked by the community).

I feel like I have a very good understanding of game theory in general and, moreso than that, meta-game theory. So my real strength is in designing groups of cards and deep analysis of groups of cards.

If it doesn't turn into a community project, can we at least get a dedicated (to the degree one can be dedicated) team together? 4-6 peeps? We can have a sweet name and make free to play games for the world to enjoy!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 13, 2011, 01:05:57 AM
@Cyrus

Yay for community projects!

I meant: One can design cards or a expansion. But of course the community would have to test them and mark them as official.

And: Yes, I think its better to have a small team of 4-6 people developing the core. Later on community members can enjoy the finished product or participate in creating expansions. Its hard to coordinate a 30 people design team, but very rewarding to have a 30 people community.

I write before/during/after work on this board, so we should limit discussion to just here for now.

@all

To start, we need some ideas. I mentioned a Space Opera kind of game where every player builds a galactic civilisation in my opening thread.

Here is another idea: a typical dungeon crawler in CCG form where one player is the dungeon master and the others are the heroes. Its simple, asymmetrical and endlessly expandable (adding new scenarios, dungeons, heroes, skills, spells, monsters, traps, treasure, armor, weapons etc. etc. etc.).

Think of a Roguelike computer game or diablo 1-3 in card game form. I bet there is enough meat on a design like this to turn it into pseudo-open-source card-based-roleplaying-game.

just thoughts! are you thinking too?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Trevor on December 13, 2011, 09:20:07 AM
I don't think CCG community projects tend to work out. It's usually a case of too many cooks spoiling the pot, as well as too many chiefs and not enough indians. With lots of suggestions, some of the suggestions will be bad, and there needs to be a small amount of people overseeing all of it and making the tough decisions.

No one can make a professional CCG all by themselves, but the core design of the game is usually done mostly by a single person. The many other people involved are usually content creators (like artists) and playtesters (who also give a lot of helpful feedback about the overall design). That's the reality of game design. I'm not saying that's the only way to do things, but that's usually how things are done with successful CCGs.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 13, 2011, 10:36:52 AM
That's why I asked to define "community project". After doing so many community projects, I came to realize that the only successful projects are the ones where it is clear that the project belongs to one person and everyone else is there to give them input. If that sounds familiar, that's because that's what's already happening on these boards. People come here for input, and how much they come here for input dictates how much of a community project it is. For example, LackeyCCG is an Open Source project, but we all know that Trevor controls the project and says what does and doesn't go.

Inversely, if a person says "let's do a community project that is 100% Open Source", you end up with a project that A) gets overloaded with crap from different people with clashing ideas, B) gets shattered by everyone with egos clashing, and C) dies away as people lose interest in a project full of turmoil, watered down and never coming to fruition.

That's why you see in the Open Source projects headed by corporations saying "this project belongs to the corporation, but we're letting you give your input, but our designers will make the final judgments about what's included." Thus, !00% Open Source is a Fail and rarely gets anything accomplished, if ever, while an Open Source project where everyone understands and appreciates that they don't actually own the project and are just helping someone else to complete it, get a whole lot more done.

That said, everything posted to these boards by designers is essentially making their game open source to some extent. It's just a matter of how much control the owner of the project claims and how much they let out to the community. My suggestion is, start with a core idea and make sure everyone knows it's your project, not theirs. To do that, simply refer to it as "my TCG" and "my game" and make choices about what goes in and what doesn't.

The more you ask for the community's help on your TCG project, the more Open Source it will be. Once you have finished designing the game and acquired interest in it, then you can form a committee tasked with continuing to design cards and effects for the game based upon the rules you set up. Heck, at that point you could even leave the project behind and that crew will take care of its continuation. Just know that they might make some decisions that you don't like. Even then, that committee needs a chairperson who makes the final decisions about the direction of each set and the set's overall strategy.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 13, 2011, 01:30:54 PM
I kinda agree. This kind of projects usually shut down after a while or turn out to be bad. It's better to post an idea and ask for input.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 13, 2011, 01:40:11 PM
All right Malagar, it's just me and you. And both of the game themes you mentioned are things I'm both really into and have lots of ideas for. So let's start a sweet free-to-play card/board gaming "company" made up of people that have lives but also want to make a game. I'm almost positive Wisp is down, and if he is we can use some of his nicely developed ideas as well. As long as we're all on the same page time-commitment wise, there's no reason to ever fully abandon the project, we can just come back to it when our lives/free time fall back into place.

We can keep talking here or start a new thread/forum, whatever you think would be best. Maybe Yudencow is down? He has a super cool resource mechanic idea that I'd love to use, especially if we go for galactic battles type ccg. I'll hit up Wisp too.

A history of failure is just a sign that it hasn't been done right yet!!!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 13, 2011, 03:19:00 PM
@All

The only problem with the "one owns the project - while all others help" is what i experienced while working on a computer project years ago: one (the owner) is doing all the hard work while all others (the helpers) just stand there, staring and yelling orders to "the owner".

@Cyrus

cool answer, i appreciate that opinion! just wanted to write a grim post about how this thread develops. But I guess its better to focus on the real thing and start rocking!

@All (or is it just me and @Cyrus?)

So, after my introductory opening post i would like to go more into detail about what a possible semi-open-source project could actually be.

Building up on my first idea of a galactic empire building game i like to present you a few possible scenarios, concentrating on the background / grand theme for now and discussing possible mechanics later. and of course you are welcome to throw your own ideas into the mix - as long as you concentrate on creative and productive comments instead of thread-disassembly.

Scenario #1:
A space wargame with heavy focus on combat and less focus on empire building. this game could support multiplayer games where every player is the leader of a alien race of his choice. there could be race or faction cards the players choose from, each with their own technology, fighting style, advantages and disadvantages. the games point of view would be quite "zoomed out" - concentrating on whole planets instead of countries and buildings. the resource system would consider the productivity of a whole planet and not a single facility or patch of minerals on a planet. being combat heavy, this scenario would allow a wide variety of spaceships and weapons and even some system to customize them (like attaching weapon systems to a chassis).

Scenario #2:
This would be more like a space opera and include more micro-management and non-battle thematics as the first scenario. Imagine a world like star trek or babylon 5, where there is also lot of room for diplomacy, intrigue and politics. the scale of the game would also be interplanetary, focusing on solar systems instead of single planets. this approach would allow much more theatrical grand-scale actions like political factions, diplomatic contracts, conspiracies, racism/racial war / religious war, as well as solar system wide economics, riots and plagues. Think of this approach like a "Sid Meiers Civilisation in space" - but instead of controlling single cities, you would control whole planets. game mechanics would have to be simplified in order to correctly display the macroversum without slowing the game down too much.

Scenario #3:
Unlike the first two sencarios, this one would take place only on a single planet. Imagine two alien races meet on a desolate planet to fight over resources. there would be flying units and maybe spacecraft to support the ground troops, but all in all this scenario does not take into account the universe around the planet at all. Remember "Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri"? This scenario would be somewhat similar: A planet-based civ-building game in distant future with a solid mix of combat and non-combat themed mechanics.

Imagine the three scenarios as different "zoom levels" or scale of the map. When scenario 3 is a close-up, scenario 1 is the medium zoom level and Scenario 2 would be the "zoomed out" version.

There are many more ideas for a game scenario and parts of all three could be mixed. The question to our appreciated community is now on wich scale we should agree and how many focus we put on combat or other concepts.

@All (or is it just me and @Cyrus?)

Regarding Yudencow's resource system (the one in the other thread, if you meant that): This could well be adapted to a space game, where your "mana" represents the captains power in different tiers like "military", "command" and "leadership". Then you can distribute theese "mana-points" onto your ships to give them orders every turn.

BRAINSTORM EDIT 1: Actually this idea could be expanded even further. You are not a captain, you represent your whole race as stated on your "faction card" and the different tiers represent the pillars of society like "military", "economy", "culture" and so on. maybe 5 or 7 tiers to satisfy the law of fives (or seven: http://umop.com/rps7.htm). during your turn you can decide how to distribute your points in order to generate certain effects like attacking your enemy (requires military) or building new starships and bases (requires economy), or advancing your culture to achieve your agenda (requires culture).

BRAINSTORM EDIT 2: thinking about from where your rescoures come, we could take this idea even further like: your faction card provides you with a basic "income" (e.g. 2 military, 2 economy, 1 culture) every turn. but planets add to your resources (like planet Xanlith gains you another 1 military point while Venus grants you another 1 culture). then you add it all up (3 military, 2 economy, 2 culture in this example) and start distributing it on on fleets, planets or even your faction card. putting points on fleets lets them move or attack, putting points on planets lets you build new fleets or increases your culture (or whatever), and putting points on your faction card generates a faction specific special effect.

BRAINSTORM EDIT 3: Theese edits render the first part of my post obsolete, but i guess that is the way how brainstorming works. so, the overall picture of the game is still quite cozy - but i can already see some card types at the horizon:

1. faction cards - representing your nation as whole, you start with exactly one card in play that represents a sentient, intelligent race. this can be anything from humans to insectoids, lizardmen, amoeba, ugly aliens or parasites.

2. planet cards - a player should start with at least one planet in play and loose play once his last planet is lost. planets grant additional resources and provide ways to spend resource in order to generate effects. planets also host and launch fleets.

3. landmark cards - big, monumental sites or buildings on a planet. we do not bother with factories or cannon towers here. this card type represents planetary shields, epical worshipping sites or even orbital attachments like space stations. landmarks increase production or provide bonus or ways to spend resources.

4. fleet cards - maybe this category can be broken down into different ship types. where larger ship types are represented by a single craft and the smaller ones by a squadron of fighters or bombers. fleets are the main force to attack and conquer enemy planets.

5. technology cards - not attached to planets they represent global achiements of your nation that can be done by spending enough points of the tier the technology belongs to. some technology increase attack or defense of your fleets, while others generate special effects.

BRAINSTORM EDIT 4: A final edit for today, this shows a RPS-7 distribution of possible "pillars of society" or "tiers" for the faction cards. should be enough for a game foundation. each tier could be tied to a mechanic, as well to certain resource production and spending methods and tied to a victory conditions as well. (names, positions and influence arrows are just for testing purposes - nothing is fixed here as this is just a very basic idea).

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/pillars.gif)



is that enough for the moment?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 13, 2011, 05:14:10 PM
Very cool stuff you got going here Malagar. I think the card types are about right, but I'd want to include important characters as well, so we can have spies and other saboteurs, and great leaders, etc.
I think, by using characters and fleets as well as having an important element of all decks be the way they produce and expand their production of resources, we could make a really good wargame with focus on micro- and macro-management.

Me and Yudencow have talked a little by PM, here's the jist...

The resource system would works as follows...

At the beginning of the game you have a Resource Cap of 5 (or maybe determined by a Faction card). This means every turn you generate 5 minus [the amount of stacked resources you control] resources.
When a resource is SPENT, it is taken from your resource pool and placed back amongst your other tokens.
When a resource is STACKED (or some better word), it is placed onto a card, allowing for some sort of effect (fleet cards would become more powerful, structures would be enhanced in some way, and perhaps military structures could produce fleet tokens this way).

We also talked about the possibility of two decks, one for everything but Fleets (essentially) and one for Fleets. Basically you'd have your Production deck and your Products deck. Using Structures you could bring cards from your Product deck into play, which would mostly be "searched" instead of drawing a hand from.

I was also thinking that in addition to a free card draw per turn, you could also spend a resource to draw a card, but the game would have a hand size cap that you'd have to discard down to every turn. Also, when the deck is depleted, it simply recycles (perhaps at some cost, or maybe you need a Structure to do this), so you can get through your Production deck and build up your planets with fair ease. This would remove a decent amount of luck from the game, allowing it to really focus on set-up, knowledge of game-state, and just generally more on player skill.

While it might seem complicated, I don't think its outside the scope of a free-to-play game at all. Intentionally always free games are usually more complicated to a certain degree, because the people making and playing them are tired of playing boring, toned down, mainstream games, and want something a little more out of a game. At least that's how I feel.

This is fun :)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 13, 2011, 05:26:22 PM
(DOUBLE POOOOST)

Here's a PM I just sent Yudencow. Its in response to him mentioning some cool ideas about developing civ trees, and my take on it. I also mentioned to him to check out this thread, so we can all start talking here instead of through PMs.

Quote
I think we're kinda mixing Civ with Military, with a focus being that you can't have one without the other. At least that's what I'd like to do.
Without getting too fancy with civ trees (which could be really cool, but could also require a ton of cards to be made) we could easily create cards that require a certain Tech Level before you can play them. Thus, building a deck that tried to quickly build Science structures so as to bring out their factions top tech stuff could be a deck archtype, while having just a couple Science structures in a normal deck could also be useful.

Tech Level could actually be a good way to build in counter-strategies without having to give people sideboards. Most of the tech units would sit happily in the Product deck (as opposed to the Production deck), so they wouldn't clog up your hands. So you could devote some space in your Product deck to some higher tech level units that are really good against certain strategies, but not as useful against others. This way you only have to worry about bothering to build your next tech building if the units it will grant you are actually useful. Some decks could omit later tech structures completely if they felt like the space in the Production & Product decks was more precious than the ability to bring in those units, while most decks could safely run 1 of each tech structure for their faction, and rely on drawing or special "tutor" functions to find them if they need them.

I also want to add that I believe an important design element to this game will be limiting the size of the Production and Product decks. Otherwise, obviously, you could pretty much just run every unit in your Product deck. So, maybe 40 cards a piece? Obviously not something that needs focus now, just thought I'd throw that out there.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 14, 2011, 02:05:57 AM
its important for me to agree on the comat/civ ratio of the game, because i dont want this to be a 100% wargame. but your thoughts are good - so maybe 60% combat and 40% civ-building might fit.

regarding complexity: i dont care if this gets a bit more complex than the usual CCG we could actually mix some boardgame elements into it. but: rules have to be streamlined and fast even with higher numbers of players.

i like the idea of two decks, we could call them "Civilisation" and "Warfare" decks or whatever. maybe we can even limit both decks to just 40 cards (this has to be tested).

the character card type is also a good idea, this allows us to add kings and leaders to planets and spaceships, increasing their abilities.

the yudencow resource system sounds interesting, but i dont think it will work well in this game without some modifications. i like the stacking on resources on cards, because this is basically what i wanted to do when i said "distribute your resurces on cards". what i dislike is the 5-minus rule (actually a good idea). but i want the resource production to be tied to your faction card and the number of planets you control. i think this is easier done by writing it on the cards and let players tap those cards to generate resources.

i also like the idea of reshuffling your deck when its empty, this is absolutely okay

the draw-for-resource rule would be something i would put on a faction card, it could be a special ability of an alien nation.

the maximum hand size could also be stated on the faction card.

also i recommend to have the faction cards sideways, because they are never part of a deck or held in hand.

in general i would put as many rules on the cards themselves to keep the rulebook to a minimum. its much easier to remember information when its chunked down to single cards and only visible when those cards are part of play.

i also had the idea to win the game via technology-victory: if you research - lets say 12 - technologies, you are the most technological advanced race in the universe and win the game. BUT: this could also be a special victory condition stated on a faction card.

aw, we should change the name of faction cards to nation cards, it suits better i think.

One more thing: I dont want to tie the building of fleets to special structures like "spaceship factory", because this limits what you can build early in the game and leads to mulligan-effects all over the game. instead you can build anything anytime if you got the resources - but certain structures could make building ship-types easier. all in all i dont want to go too much into focus about single structures (micro-management) like in a realtime-strategy-game (where you need a base, a harvester, a resource-mine, a infantry barrack, a factory etc. etc.). its about planets, and planets are big - we can assume there are plenty of installments on everyplanet. lets focus on macro-management instead. i think micro-management is better suited for games with smaller scale - taking place on one single planet for example or in a medieval setting.

hmm thats all for now - more input someone?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: xchokeholdx on December 14, 2011, 02:27:29 AM
Here's some imput.

Having worked on numerous CCG's myself, both "solo", and as a group project (4GXG) if anyone remembers, the biggest problem (and trevor already mentioned this) is that SOMEONE or TWO (not more), should make the hard decisions. You have to decide what setting, what mechanics and what card ultimately end up into the game.

I have seen at least 4-5 of these projects die down due to too many people wanting a hand in it, but noone stood up and made a final decision, resulting in a split camp and ultimately the downfall of the project.

BEFORE you go all wild on brainstorming (the fun part), please make sure that you appoint yourself and/or 1 other person to set the boundaries and make quick and FIRM decisions.

Do not be afraid to simply say : NO! to an idea, instead of trying to implement it into the game, watering down everything you wanted to accomplish in the first place.

since you already got something going, I would suggest to quickly set the setting in STONE, and go from there. There's no use to wait for months and months of discussion if we should include X or Y in the setting.

lastly, set deadlines. offer an idea, get opinions, and lock it after a certain date. I have seen too many project fall to the everlasting discussions of "counter card in or out" (for example).

YOU decide what goes in or not. Have an open mind to new and refreshing ideas, ask for help and offer GOOD feedback, but please do not Water the game down, just to include someone's idea because you are afraid he or she might leave the project if you don΄t..

Having said that: What can I offer?

I can do Templating if needed (see sig for example game), have a good insight in balance, and can do some good number crunching for game purposes.

will post more after some reading and actual work.. :)


EDIT: did some brainstorming:

7 factions:

• Ecomomy
• Politics
• Culture
• Spirituality
• Ecology
• Science
• Military

you could make each of these factions (give them another name of course. the Economy faction suck arse.., maybe The Bank Guild?) be friendly to each of their neighbors, meaning you could have cards of their faction in your deck.

for example: Ecology faction, lets call them Green Unicorns, can use cards from the Science and the Spirituality faction, but not from the others.

here's an idea for a setting:

Imagine a distant Star where 10 planets (7 habitable) are orbiting star X.

add some cosmic encounter (alien, or natural phenomena) that forces the people on those planets to conquer/steal/negotiate in order to survive/overcome that cosmic encounter.

each faction is tied to a planet.
the 3 other planets can be used later on for expansions, or special events within the setting..

still pretty rough, hopefully you get the idea..
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 14, 2011, 02:50:39 AM
Before finally getting some real(-life) work done, i would like to settle this issue once and for all:

"I proclaim myself as the patron of this project - my application is justified because:
1. I was the thread opener
2. I had the initial idea"

I therefore set in stone:

1. This project is a semi-open-source CCG game, only available on the internet
2. It takes places in a vast sci-fi universe where a multitude of alien civilisations clash in interplanetary conflict
3. References are "Comsic Encounter", "Race for the Stars (or how it was called", and some computer games like "Ascendancy" or "Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri".

@xchokeholdx

Thanks for your input! Glad to have your valueable thoughts here, i followed your past projects with interest.

But - I dont want to the be "Economy" things to be factions - i want theese to be "attributes" shared by all factions. Factions would be the alien races themselves.

So we have races like:

- human
- lizardmen
- insectoids
- amoeba

and each race has on its faction card attribute ratings like:

- human (military:1 / economy:2 / culture:1)
- lizardmen (military:2 / economy:1 / culture:0)
- etc.

some would be better at combat while others are better in sprituality. what attributes and how many - i dont care. i just dont want to reduce the game to "power" / "toughness"!

i really have to get off for work now - i post more later!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 14, 2011, 04:36:23 AM
As I am reading this thread i got some ideas. We culd do that you invest mana/resources in your nation to evelobe like a cit hall in rpg. meaning you have to upgrade it to be able to build more advance buildings, and this will be the only building-based prequisite.

To units the building could offer upgrades to certain subtypes rather than having to have them to be summoned.

About the attributes, there are too many, I think you should narrow it down to 3-5 and have different factions master 1-2 of the aforemantioned attributes. Every race of course needs to have their own agneda and thus a morality.

I think the races you mantioned as examples need to be more specific and not just drawing the simple examples.

About victory conditions, I think there should be a domination victory for taking 50% of the planets, a political victory for winning 7 votes, a technological victory for geytting all your nation to your maximum and millitary victory for destroying all the other factions.

Well how long wll it take you to have a first draft of the rules?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Trevor on December 14, 2011, 08:40:36 AM
How can an amoeba be complicated enough to be sentient? They are single cells.

Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 14, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
How can an amoeba be complicated enough to be sentient? They are single cells.
There is a race in the Star Frontiers RPG (or the Star Frontiers setting of the d20 Future PRG), called a Dralasite that is amoebic in nature. Thus, he means an amoeba the size of a fat child.  :)

For the factions, it's good to call them by what they are (lizardman, amoeba, etc.) for that cheesy sci-fi feel (who doesn't like cheesy sci-fi?), but in the flavor text, you can call them by their racial name they give themselves. (Example: Silurians from Dr. Who are Lizard men.) Doing it this way could give your game real flavor.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 14, 2011, 10:00:34 AM
Okay, try this on for size:

As I was reading, I noticed that you 1) want imperial conquest, 2) Want political intrigue, 3) Want space battles, 4) want planetary skirmishes, 5) want to fight over planets, 6) have racial factions, with each person playing a race, and 7) you want both individuals and space units.

Alright, so here is what I propose:

A) Fast pace, which means to keep things as simple as possible. Each action is wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. In other words, you lay a card down or make a declaration and you're done.
B) Multiple Locations (Planets). Each person sets down a planet card back-and-forth until 5 planets are on the board. (One person has 3 planets, the other 2. We can figure out which player gets which later, when we figure out which player should have the most or least starting board position.)
C) Planetary Resources. Each planet provides a resource (activated? or simply static?).
D) Diplomacy Cards. Players start out playing cards involving diplomacy. These cards affect trade, construction, treachery and conflict.
E) Command Units. When a war stats, Command units may be played that control the conflict.
F) Fleet Units. Each player has space fleet cards. These aren't just single units, but whole fleets.
G) Diplomatic Restoration. Once combat ends for a planet, diplomacy resumes and stability returns to the region.
H) Fluid play. The game is fluid in that there are no "turns" (beyond back and forth play), only card play. So you decide at any time what your action is going to be for any given planet. Players play back and forth.
I) Object of the Game. To control all the resources. (Regardless of whether you actually control a planet.)
J) Resources Directly Affect Actions. The more resources a player possesses, the more things they get for their units, planets and ability to play Diplomacy cards. Science can improve power, Medical can improve healing, Mining can improve material resource, Politics can improve Diplomacy, etc.
K) Resource Icons. For each resource you control, you gain a resource icon. If you control two Science resources, then your power improves that much.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 14, 2011, 10:58:02 AM
I don't mean this to be a plug, but maybe you could get some ideas from the newly developed Space Empires board game developed by Jim Krohn.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 14, 2011, 12:57:07 PM
We do have quite a few cooks filling up the kitchen already don't we...

I'm fine on not going super tough into the RTS style feel, leaves room for me to make the greatest fan-game adaptation possible still. I like that structures would just increase your ability to play certain types of cards or whatnot.

The way the Game of Thrones LCG does it (at least on the cards I've seen) is that certain locations (which would be structures in our game) can tap to reduce the cost of a card with a certain criterion by a certain amount, thus providing a much more specific resource type. I like this because it would allow decks to have good reason to build structures throughout the game, and players can choose to build a variety of them or a more focused group of them.

Or, a new idea for structures and the way things are played...
Instead of their being a "Lizardman's Basic Ships" structure that allowed you to play a few of the lower power Lizardman ships, perhaps it would be more like the Tech Level idea from before.
So, each Nation card lays down how good that group is at the 7 different attributes (and I actually like 7, btw)
Structures (and other cards in play) can increase how good you are at the different attributes.
So instead of requiring a certain card to be in play to bring certain units into play, why don't we make it so that most Barracks type buildings increase your Military level, allowing you to play things that require that higher level. So Science and Military would kinda be the two resources for playing Units. I think its innovative, perhaps a little too much to deal with still in terms of this project.

If you wanna start drafting up rules Malagar please do. For the most part, as long as the game is fairly cool, I will have a good time designing things for it. Sometimes you've gotta turn off that designer part of me, because it'll almost never be happy until I'm almost making a Decipher game, and everyone but me hates those lol
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 14, 2011, 01:07:02 PM
Im writing from work, so i have to keep this short.

@yudencrow:

I dont like the term "city hall" - but i do like the upgrade idea. it could also read: "you can only build heavy warships when you reached tech level 2" or something like that.

yes, its too many stats. i realise by now. im thinking about 5.

the victory condition thing you speak of also sounds very interesting.

i think a rulebook will be far on the horizon (probably spring next year).

@ascent / yudencrow:

yeah the races where just dumb placeholder ideas. there have to be cool races of course with a bit of background histoy and good names.

@Ascent:

A.) could be, but it does not have to be "fast pace" all over the place.
B.) good idea! maybe the one who goes first, places one planet less?
C.) yep, i would say activated, but dont know yet.
D.) Hmm....thinking about it.
E.) Yeah good point, but you could also attach command units permanetly to fleets (even during peace time) and let them travel with the fleet or so.
F.) generally spoken i agree, but dont know yet - i want a "fleet" to be 1-6 cards or something (2 fighter squadron cards, 2 bomber cards, 1 carrier card and maybe 1 commandship card). otherwise combat gets too shallow, it is a combat game after all.
G.) Tied to D., sounds interesting.
H.) "no turns" sounds intriguing, but i dont know if plays well in reality.
I.) i rather go with Yudencrows victory condition idea.
J.) definetly yes, resources are tied to attributes wich are tied to main mechanics.
K.) definetly yes.

@r0cknes

I'll check it out later

Here are some cards from the old Babylon 5 CCG, i liked that game very much although it was slow and clumsy sometimes. but, i dont want to make a copycat of that game (pictures just for inspiration):

(http://b5ccg.mahasamatman.com/Shadows/Gallery/023.JPG)(http://b5ccg.mahasamatman.com/Shadows/Gallery/053.JPG)(http://b5ccg.mahasamatman.com/Shadows/Gallery/207.JPG)

(http://b5ccg.mahasamatman.com/Shadows/Gallery/102.JPG)
(http://b5ccg.mahasamatman.com/Shadows/Gallery/198.JPG)
(http://b5ccg.mahasamatman.com/Shadows/Gallery/143.JPG)

@Cyrus

sorry, no time to answer your post - later!

Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 15, 2011, 02:59:45 AM
Im leaving for work now - did not have much time to come up with new ideas. im thinking about the number of attributes and wich mechanics to tie to them. maybe we step back a bit and remove attributes like "ecology" and "spirituality" - i got the idea from Civ games, but its not really suited for a card game. instead im thinking about theese attributes:

1. military - measurement of combat strength, provides resources to bring fleets into play, enables installment of military tech cards
2. science - measurement of tech level, provides resources to bring structures and non-combat fleets/personel into play, enables installment of science tech cards
3. diplomay (WIP)
4. intrigue (WIP)
5. PSI ??? (WIP)
6./7. do we need 7 attribute???

here is a quick mockup of how i think the gameboard could look (2 players red/blue), just to get a feeling for it. nothing is set in stone yet!

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/gameboard.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: xchokeholdx on December 15, 2011, 03:25:25 AM
: That looks really the same as the "old" Star Trek CCG (first edition) ccg.  :o

Biggest problem I have (voicing opinion here), that these kind of set-ups really creates either very complicated board states (star wars from Decipher kinda feeling here / Babylone 5), or you give in with too many concessions and are left with a broken game that no serious player wants to play (star wars from wizards / Young Jedi.).

Before to you all in deep with mechanics, please let us know what your goal of the game should be, what demographic of players you want to address. Hardcore ccg players, fast Magic grinders, your Pokemon players?

to add something useful to the discussion, how about this:

each player brings x planet cards at the start of the game. each planet card can tap for resources. ALL players use the SAME planet cards (thus yours AND opponents) to pay for resources. Each time you tap a planet for a resource, add 1 token to it.

planet generates resources = 1+amount of tokens on it. thus you might want to tap that planet to gain some resources for yourself, but my opponent will gain more of it next turn when he uses it, etc..etc....

anyhow, just some simple resource management thingy I just thought of.

Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 15, 2011, 09:09:39 AM
Do you want the main point of this game to build an empire, or destroy the other one. In my opinion if it is about building an empire fleet should play a much smaller part in the game. Possibly their main purpose would to defend against event cards played by another player rather than the fleet battling each other the entire game.

If it is about Fleet battle then I am afraid that adding planets and structures and those type of cards would just complicate things too much. The only purpose For those cards would to build resources to build more of them.

I do like the tech cards for both platforms however. I am looking forward to this game, whatever it turns out to be. I will try to help as much in the process as possible.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 15, 2011, 10:31:08 AM
Diplomacy & intrigue is pretty much the same. (Well, it has the same impact.)

The tier system sounds pretty neat.

Also, remember rule #2! KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 15, 2011, 11:12:16 AM
To be honest, I think to have it as a board game is more suitable. Then the players in the begginning can build a customized planet/star system/galaxy at their will before the game be alternately revealing certain cards.

I do think it should focus on aggrisiveness and battle rather than diplomacy and civlization-building. Meaning making the deck out of technological support cards, defensive structures card and offensive ships.

I think letting each player to stat with a hero will be awesome.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 15, 2011, 12:09:43 PM
I think making it a board game is an option, however not completely necessary. You can make this a card game easily if you make sure the the final goal is easily understood. Kill an empire verses build an empire. I also like the ability to build a deck around your strategy. I think that makes for much more replay value. If you made this a board game, you also run the risk of making the game too complicated for a casual player such as myself.

The factions could have different strategies. One faction might create more resources, while another has better ships, while yet another has more technological advantages. I think having custom decks allows for more of that, rather than just picking a faction before the game.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 15, 2011, 02:49:37 PM
@xchokeholdx

i thought the same when i made the mockup: too big, too complicated and too much focused on warfare. well, at least we have something to look at, i try another layout once i gathered enough input.

ps: i think hardcore is the right target audience ;-) - but this does not mean its super-complicated or slow

@r0ocknes

yes, the whole fleet thing not only takes up too much of the board - but too much of the game.

and yes, if it would be fleet based - we could just remove the planet thing at whole!

but i dont want this game fleet based - i want it empire/civ based with a ---touch--- of fleets to it

@yudencow

nope, sorry - im not making boardgames, im all into card games.

@r0cknes

exact, i rather like a little bit more complicated card game than a full blown boardgame.

with the second part of your post, you exactly described the deck building aproach im thinking about.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 15, 2011, 03:07:52 PM
i feel more like a thread moderator than someone who is giving valueable input, so i decided to share a random thought:

as i want combat to be only one part of the game, there have to be ways for the players to interact with each other in different ways. lets tie mechanics to the attributes and some nations are better at certain mechanics than others (= they have higher/lower attribute ratings), combat would be just one of many mechanics and not the grandstand.

....

Non-Combat Mechanic-Idea-Snippet:

Nations should be able to switch between "Peaceful" and "At War" states (Ascent also mentioned this before). But i dont want the bookkeeping involved tracking who is at war with who. So we simplify this: a player can tap its nations card to declare that he is "At War", while with an untapped card his nation is considered to be "peaceful".

Now, we have a simple mechanic to attach systems to: Players can perform certain actions only if they are "at War" while other actions are only possible when being "Peaceful". Attacking with fleets for example is only possible when at war, while trading is only possible when being "peaceful".

Let me complete this example with one mechanic I had in mind: Trade. Players can only trade with other players when both of their nations are in "Peaceful" state. Trade is based on a attribute - lets call it "Commerce" for now. A player can declare a trade during his turn, targeting an opponent. The player with the higher "Commerce"-Attribute may set the trade-factor. this factor can be 3:1 , 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3 resources. then his opponent can agree, and only if he agrees the trade takes place. as the tradeable resources are tied to the attributes, players could trade "Military" against "Commerce" or "Science" against "Diplomacy".

BUT: this means the resources have to be permament and carried over the next turn, wich also makes the game and bookeeping more complex.

....

Also i think the current layout of the game is too "realistic", we have planets with structures and fleets hovering above them (its almost like the objects in a RTS - yuck!). Maybe we go with a little more "abstract" aproach. What do we really need to represent and play a space opera? We need diplomacy, trade, intrigue, big characters, big ships, tragic storylines, personality, historic events and of course a bit of warfare.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 15, 2011, 03:29:11 PM
Sorry, triple post - but our game has a (working) title!

And therefore thou shalt be called GALAXIAN!

I know its cheesy, but who cares.  ::)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 15, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Maybe You could start the Game with each player controlling 3 or so home planets. More minor planets could be added to those as the came progresses.

You could have ships also complete "objectives" or "obstacle" played by either you or the opponent plays.

Tech cards could be used to upgrade either planets or ships.

The obstacle or objective cards could give you bonuses if completed, and hinder you while it is in play. These also could also include back story.

Event cards to affect play.

Minor planets would be just like Home planets except not as good.

Do you plan on this being a more than 2 player game.

I like the trade idea you had. The objective cards would help keep the combat down as well.

Some things I am not sure about.

This game should be based on some sort of victory point system. If so what determines when you get them? Maybe objectives?

Should Home worlds be attacked or just other ships. I am thinking leaving Home worlds untouchable, but minor planets being able to be destroyed by an opponent, for lack of a better term.

What stats would the Ships have? Maybe similar to the Will power in LOTR lcg and attack and defense. You could even add a hull for HP if you wanted.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 15, 2011, 04:07:26 PM
We could give each faction is own unique ivctory condition tied to its strong attributes as long with other common victory conditions.

About the name, you can just call it "Galaxy CCG". A more suitable name for a hardcore player card game.

I think we should define the card types. If you wanted tragic storylines we could have "challange" cards that one player targets another player, that player must complete the challange or to suffer the panelty. I think planet cards are redundent. there should be hero(es) which begin the game with the player, fleets which attack, technology which upgrades and challanges which hinders the opposition.

We could have the diplomacy attribute working like votes. if a card creates a vote and you succees you can claim something as your diplomacy attirbute.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 15, 2011, 04:40:13 PM
In my opinion there has to be some sort of resource mechanic in this game. If so then planets make more sense for collecting them then heros. What do you mean by the are redundant? Maybe I just misunderstood you.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 16, 2011, 12:25:08 AM
Galaxian is a old computer game from 1970 - we could also call it Galagan (like its successor) :-)

Okay, back to the serious stuff again:

@r0cknes - i like the obstacle/objective idea a lot! lets call it "Agenda". something like: you can bring them into play for free but you have to place resource tokens on them to trigger their effects. There are Agendas that help you (objectives) and some that harm your opponent (obstacles). something like that, but the core idea is very good.

@yudencow - that diplomacy votes thing is brilliant! it blends well into the trade idea and could make up a second mechanics block. there could be "decree" cards wich work like enchantments, event cards or interupt-spells to change the current situation. those cards can be played for free but: players have to vote either "for" or "against" the card. diplomacy would work like a vote based counterspell system.

Also i think we should rename Technologies into "Achievements". They are still global in sit in a line at your side of the table. "Achievements" affect some or all other cards in play and work much like global enchantments (magic:tg), but some of them could also be tapped to produce once-per-turn effects.

Achivements could be aligned to the 7 attributes, this would split them up in sub-groups. you need the coresponding resources to bring them into play (a military achievement requires you to pay military resource points etc.).

Military Achievement ->Warfare
Science Achievement -> Technology
Diplomatic Achievement -> Decree
...
...

One more: in my mockup i had 5 planets in total (Ascent stated this a few posts ago), where one player chooses 3 starting planets and the other only 2. Maybe we reduce that number to simplify the gameboard at least a bit. Lets say 3 planets, where the player who is going first may only bring one starting planet into play, and the player who is going second, the other two. This does not solve our core problems, but maybe its a step into the (hopefully) right direction.

Finally, i hope you understand why i dont want to start writing a rulebook anywhere near spring 2012, right now this "pile of ideas" is nothing but a big, creative mess. we really should take our time to do it right.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: BrotherM on December 16, 2011, 12:29:02 AM
I'd like to offer a suggestion:

I think having all the different elements: military, economic, etc really calls for a victory point system.  Here's an idea I think would be cool: Only award victory points to epic-level achievements and then play to 2 victory points.

You could award vp for things like destroying another player's home base, building a level X technology, achieving Y amount of wealth, harvesting Z resources, etc.

Then, the tension ratchets up when someone earns their first vp, which might lead to some really fun moments in multiplayer especially.  Lots of possibilities for negotiations etc to arise.  Sort of like Cosmic Encounter's win condition, but even more tense.

Also, you could have lots of deckbuilding strategies, either specializing in a specific area to try to score 2 points in that area, or else playing some combination where you may score points in different ways.

Use it if you like- I just thought of it and I don't think I've ever seen it used.  I really like what you've done so far! :)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 16, 2011, 03:24:15 AM
Hmmm... maybe Yudencow is right in that planet cards are sort of redundant...

If you have a Structure row that represents all the structures you have available to you on all of your planets, and a Fleet/Hero row for the cards they bring in to play then you can just assume the placement of planets, to an extent. In a way, it actually cuts the military side of the game, which I think is kind of important to the space opera thing.

We could, however, have a limit on the number of structures you can have until you have explored more planets, with planets being more like a generic thing you stack up. That might call for too much out of a deck though (requiring exploration teams or whatnot to allow you to bring planets into play into your structure row, thus allowing you more structures...)

I like a lot of the ideas that are being throw out at this point. I think what we should do is keep brainstorming for a minute, then someone (who might be me) can go through and try to make a prettier looking list of possible mechanic ideas, and then a few of us can look over things and decide what we want to be the backbone of a rules set to start trying out. I definitely think that spring is faaaaar to far ahead to expect a general layout rules set, those sorts of things need to happen sooner than later so we can weed out ideas that just aren't going to work.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 16, 2011, 08:56:14 AM
@BrotherM

I like the idea of just 2 victory points, mabe we can squeeze that in.

@Cyrus

Well, what if we remove the cards from the planets? So there can be planets that grant you resources and effects, but fleets and structs are not attached to them. this would literally untie the design knot we currently have. so there would be cards placed just on your side of the board, in a big cluster. physical attachment and distance or location of cards would be completely removed.

I dont want to stress with the rulebook. at them moment (im writing from work) there are thousands of parcels leaving our company and we need all the manpower for packaking and "real-work". so i decided for a long timeline instead of a narrow deadline that just stresses us. but if you Cyrus - want to give it a try its okay, but be prepared for a LOT of changes over the next weeks as we are still in the middle of brainstorming phase.

i would suggest to brainstorm more, we just started exploring the better ideas. later we can pick the best out of this thread and try to make a plan.

'till later
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 16, 2011, 10:07:27 AM
I think that both techs & planets could be narrowed down to resources. You could play them, and then they stay in play.

I like the victory mechanic. Maybe add more points than 2 :/

To add in to the war/peace mechanic, I tought of the following. There is only one stat at start, peace. Each card/action has an agression rating, and add to the global agression score. When the agression reaches 40(?) War breaks out. Certain actions can only be done during peace or war. (combat, for example)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 16, 2011, 12:48:18 PM
I have compiled a summary of what we have talked about so far. Maybe this will clear up some mechanics and card types that should and should not be used.

Overall Theme


Mechanics desired


Card Types


I may have missed a few things here and there so feel free to add to my list.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 16, 2011, 01:01:03 PM
Alright follow my logic. How many space games, movies, or tv shows have covered the topic of space empires. In many of them, the Uber Super large empires had several races or "factions" within them. Yes, there were those Space alien empires made up of one race. Androids are an example of that. What I am saying is we should leave room for many factions to be used by the same player to form his empire. I think that will increase the deck building strategy even more.

Maybe we should have only one resource type, but cards can only be played from your hand based on the faction and how many resources you have in that factions resource pool. Or each card in play has a resource stat on them and the card must be exhausted in order to play the card from your hand. The idea is that the card that is exhausted uses its efforts to produce the card, therefore it does not have time to do anything else in that phase or turn.

What do you guys think?

Also what is our balance of cards on the board at a time? What I mean is do we want each player to have 20 cards in front of him? Or do we want around 5 - 10?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 16, 2011, 01:40:22 PM
@Dragoon / r0cknes

I also like to stick with planets, my initial idea was that your nation card provides resources. then planets add additional resources and effects. so you can increase your resource pool by adding more planets, but you are not forced to do so - because you already have some base resources on your nation card. also, when you loose a planet or all planets - you can still bring cards into play via your resource card.

@r0cknes

thats a good summary so far.

I also like to narrow resources down, thats a good idea - one resource is enough. but lets stick to the attributes with mechanics tied to them, i really like that idea. maybe the cards are color-coded and you need a nation card or planet of matching color to bring cards into play.

i have no solution for the "more than one nation in a deck" idea - but it sounds reasonable.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 16, 2011, 01:56:52 PM
Just one more quick mockup. This time the layout is for one player and it was drastically reduced to the bare minimum, it represents a really large setup maybe during the endgame of a match (4 ships and 2 personalities, 2 planets, 2 structures, 2 tech's = 12 cards in play):

There are now two rows, a fleet (or front) row and a support row. in the fleet row goes everything that is able to fight or participate in challenges. in the support row is the rest.

cards are not attached to planets anymore and tech's are not attached to ships. there are no attachments at all, we just assume the board represents your empire at whole. there are no distances or locations, your ships are fast enough to cover any distance and when you are attacked - your empire is attacked at whole.

idea: when attacking you have to target your opponents fleet row. if its empty or there are unblocked attackers, the remaining attacks target the support row. something like that.

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/gameboard2.jpg)

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/galaxian.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 17, 2011, 10:48:50 AM
if rockness wants planets so hard we could have them like the story in call of cthulu ccg by ffg. it is a neutral deck which the game starts randomly with 4 planets, once a player conquered it, he/she gets the victory points or whatever and reveal another planet. we can make so conquesring a planet can be done in numerous ways.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: BrotherM on December 17, 2011, 12:38:24 PM
(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/gameboard2.jpg)

I think that looks just about right.  Nice work.  I also like generic resources which = faction card + (planet bonuses * tech bonuses) Maybe not multiplication but some kind of faster-than-linear benefit would be nice for technology.

I personally hate having deckbuilding be restricted by faction- I could never get into L5R because of that.  Every card needs to be available.  How about assigning each attribute to a color/symbol.  The faction card gives you your starting attributes you can play cards from (maybe 1-3).  Planets are neutral and have a set of requirements for playing them (military > 4 OR diplomacy > 2) and then can make the other attributes become available. So maybe if you pay the military cost, it makes diplomacy become available or vice versa for that example, or it could make a 3rd like economic available instead.

I guess the flavor would be that taking over a smaller civilization makes their abilities now available to you.  It also gives a really nice reason to try to attack opponents' planets- to stop them playing off-faction cards.  Maybe you could even gain control of someone else's planet, rather than just destroy it.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 17, 2011, 01:03:06 PM
I am liking the neutral planet thing. That makes a lot of sense. You can have some planets require diplomacy to win it, or you could have a hostile planets that require military conquer. Some planets could be uninhabited so they just need colonization. Those planets would be less productive then the more developed planets, although easier to control. You could even have when revealed events on some planets. Nothing severe, but enough to add to the game. Too much random good and bad effects would be bad for the game I think. Good idea yudencow!

The problem with having planets determine the winner is that if they are the cards adding resources then the player that takes the lead will have too much of an advantage. So either planets can't determine the winner or they can't determine the resources. I am ok with planets not adding resources now that there are no attachment cards. Structures could add resources beyond your factions regular resource.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 17, 2011, 01:10:50 PM
I started working on a pseudo-rulebook thing, its just a mere start - i post a text file as soon as there is one:

GALAXIAN - Customizable Card Game - Core Rules v 1.0a
==================================================

Prologue (shamlessly stolen from the old Ascendancy computer game)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the galaxy consists
of three hundred billion stars
sixty thousand centuries ago
there were over twenty billion
life sustaining planets
orbiting those stars
some of the life on these worlds
evolved intelligence
some species learned
to travel through space
as they explored
they encountered one another
wildly different cultures
competed for the same worlds
in the enormous upheaval
that followed
one of these species
would gain ascendancy"

Game Overview
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Galaxian CCG is a game for 2 to 6 or even more players. Each player chooses one of the many
NATIONS available and is in control of FLEETS, PLANETS and PERSONALITIES of that race. Players will
build a small empire and set up one or more AGENDAs to pursue. By fulfilling AGENDAs, you gain
valueable POWER. Two points of POWER are already enough for a player to win the game and be
appointed new ruler of the galaxy, the so called GALAXIAN.

Deck Building
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each player brings his own deck of exactly 60 cards. A deck may not include more than THREE copies
of a card with the same title. In addition to that, a player also chooses a NATION card to begin the
game with. Please note that a deck may include cards from various factions and players are not
limited to the race stated on his NATION card.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 17, 2011, 04:22:01 PM
@ r0ckness
Thank you.
We could limit the natural planet deck to 20~ cards.
The planets will not bring resources unless you attempt to "mine" it or something which will cost one thing to another.
Concquering a planet will only leadto gaining additional resources instead of victory points, so players will might have to gang up on the stronger player that gathered a lot of resources i.e. conquered a lot of planets.
Once a plkanet is stripped out of all of it resources or was clamed for conquest it is removed a new one is revealed.

@Malagar
I liked the rulebook introduction.

I think players should have a super-personality card, an "admiral", which starts the game in play.
Thhe admiral will give additional resources as the faction cards, but he canalso be targetted and killed for making the opponent lose resources for a turn and claiming them for their own.
I think you can change the faction card to a "home planet" or at least include the name of it in the faction card.

@BortherM
I agree the resources from the tech should feel like they are accelerating. You could have cards placed upside down half under the tech (I hope you understand what I mean), to signify that you upgraded them for a cost on the tech card itself of course which consequently, will be much useful.
I think the structures, tech and planets should be resource gathering independent, if they are connected to mush useless math.
I agree that limiting it per faction might be annoying but we can have allinaces. Factions belonged into a cretain alliance can be played as "support" to other factions in that alliance. They will cost +1 more to summon.
Again, I reckon this to be a special effect from cards to mimic and disable the enemy's tech and not just annexing weaker player, which will mostly annoying.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 18, 2011, 02:50:23 AM
I am not a big fan of games with two decks (side-decks, extra-decks or whatever). but if we really need a second deck, i can cope with it.

far more important for me is that we keep book-keeping to a minimum. also extra calculations and the basic rules should be as simple as possible. im a big fan of the slogan: "the rules are on the cards". nothing is worse than a situation like this: "...ah yes, on page 214 of the rulebook it says that when all players have less than 3 level 2 tech cards in play, the cost of all military-aligned fleet cards is increased by +1".  :P

i want a vast game, but also a fast game. this is why im clinging to the nation card and a single deck. also i recommend the fleets to have just one combat attribute (called military also), keep it simple keep it straight.

possible first turn example:

shuffle deck, draw 7 cards, turn your ""space-elf"" nation card face up.

""space-elf-nation"" reads: tap to gain 3 resources

tap the nation card, gain 3 resources.

pay 1 resource and bring ""elf-exploration-fleet"" into play in your fleet-zone.

pay 2 resources and bring the ""matter-converter" tech card into play in your support zone.

turn end.

wham-bam! thats it. i rather have 20 different nations, 200 techs and 200 different fleets instead of just a few over-complicated cards that take ages to develop and play. just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 18, 2011, 03:09:02 AM
sorry, double posts all the time. more thoughts:

1. lets narrow down the card types even more. we really dont need so many card types:
*lets join Planets and Structures (or locations) all into -> RESOURCES
*join Technologies, Achievements (or whatever) all into -> ENHANCEMENTS

2. lets remove built-in victory conditions from the game. instead we put victory conditions on the AGENDA card type. every player should include at least a few agendas, they are easy to bring into play - but rather hard to fulfill. each agenda grants 1 victory point when fulfilled, with 2 points you win the game (i like that idea very much). agendas could be selected to fit deck strategy, ideas:
* bring 6 enhancements into play to score this agenda
* conquer a planet-resource to score this agenda
* for each fleet you destroy, put a counter on this, 8 counters let you score this agenda
* for every 3 resources you pay, put a conter on this, 8 counters let you score this agenda

3. as some of you already stated, lets join the resource all into one single resource and make playing cards dependant on icons on the resource producing cards. imagine you have a planet that features the military and science icons and provides 3 income. then you can use that income only to play military or science cards. this would make the resource system much easier and streamlined.

4. current card types summary:

RESOURCE
ENHANCEMENT
AGENDA
FLEET
EVENT
PERSONALITY (could also be groups or factions with personality as a subtype)
NATION (but theese do not really count)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 18, 2011, 04:51:25 AM
PERSONALITY -> CHARACTER
NATION -> FACTION/ALLIANCE

Some personally nitpicking on naming  :P

Other thoughts.
1. Agenda system is pretty flexible, but there should also be a common victory claim, as nothing is more annoying than not drawing that sole agenda you'll need to win.
2. Simple resource systems is better.

As Yudencow asked, I present some design rules I use for myself.

1. Easy to learn, hard to master.
New player's are able to learn the game quick, but it has pretty deep strategic choices.

2. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!)
Speaks for itself. Less is more.

3. No deep calculations.
People came to play the game, not solve formula's

4. It's better to be underpowered, than overpowered.
Getting the power level of cards right is hard to do. So, having a few underpowered cards is fine (as they won't be played) than having overpowered cards (those will break your game.)

Well, that's the gist of it.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 18, 2011, 05:34:24 AM
@dragoon

hey lets agree on naming convention later - we can do this via poll once everything is set up.
Also we can agree on terminology and game name later on (again via poll).

@All

So, i started putting together all the thoughts of the last few days and boiled them down to the bare minimum. here is a permanent link to the tiny little textfile rulebook so far. this is not a complete rulebook, but just the first few text sections so far.

remember the link as i will replace the file with updates in the next days/weeks/months.

http://www.zockergilde.net/files/galaxian-rulebook.txt

Im now off enjoying my weekend - cya!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 18, 2011, 07:10:02 AM
I am not sure I like the agenda card idea. I think it is a little too random as it stands right now. What happens to the poor player that shuffled his 3 or so agenda cards at the bottom of his pile? Maybe once an agenda card is played it becomes neutral. Obviously the player of the card will think that he has the advantage to complete the task required and in most cases he will, but it still give the opposing players a chance to compete for that agenda point. That would increase player interaction also.

Also, I am sure after play testing this we can work this out, but I think 2 Victory points is just a little low. I think 3 would be better. Still short, but doesn't allow the first player to complete an agenda to be one point away from victory. Again that can be determined through play testing though.

One last thing, I love the way this is going. I am so happy this is not going to be a shoot 'em up game. The way it sounds is that all 6 players will still be playing when there is a winner. That just makes sense, there is no way one could hunt down and destroy every person in an empire. That is nearly impossible to do on earth let alone a vast galaxy. Boy, that sounded a little dark! :o I think ship to ship combat should certainly be apart of the game though. Look at "Deep Space Nine". Does anyone remember any episodes, before they had the Cardassian space battles?

Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 18, 2011, 08:09:08 AM
@r0cknes

Thanks!

About the Agenda thing: Please read the rulebook, i have added a "built-in" agenda to all nation cards. As only two agendas are needed this should reduce the chance of a bad-draw by at least 50%

yeah, we could later decide for 3 victory points - but not more. i really like the idea of low numbers, this creates lots of tension against players on their road to victory.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 18, 2011, 09:39:19 AM
I did read the rule book and I think the integrated agenda might be a good idea, but I still think the neutral agenda would be a good add. Think about what the agendas would be. Maybe we have different ideas for agenda cards. The ones I am thinking of are not faction specific, but instead relating to generic events taking place in the galaxy, such as taking control of a council or even conquering a specific planet. If you want to go the generic route it allows for neutral agenda. Remember that he agenda are not a neutral deck, but are played from the hand of a player, so they would be played when that player feels they have a good chance to complete the agenda. Instead of every player tossing out agenda cards to clog up the table. Players will have to pick the right time to bring it out. That leads to much less unessecary cards on the table.

Another idea is to make agendas hidden and players must use intelligence type cards to view another players agenda.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 18, 2011, 11:05:42 AM
@r0cknes

I like all of your agenda ideas. i remember having a discussion about agenda cards for a different game elsewhere. maybe we are able to squeeze all the ideas in, by dividing agendas into subtypes like:

* Built-in agendas on nation cards
* Agendas that apply only to the player who brought them into play
* Agendas that apply to all players
* Hidden Agendas
and more...

Phew - we still have a long way to go, but i see the game slowly taking shape. and i really, really like the idea so far! its grand scale galactic conquest, a space opera where warfare ist just one option among many. later on we need a cool background world and well described faction and this baby could really kick some ass! (eherm, excuse my over-caffeinated speech)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: BrotherM on December 18, 2011, 04:32:50 PM
Good call on the agendas.  I have a similar thing going in my own project, so I obviously like that idea a lot.  I hadn't thought of having the agendas be open to all players though.  I think it's bloody brilliant :)

I didn't really mean to suggest there is actual math involved in calculating resources.  Clearly, that would be a terrible idea.  I was just trying to shorthand the idea.

I would suggest trying to narrow down to specific attributes soon, to make sure that every one is represented in the core mechanics.  For example:

military = building ships, attacking players, conquering planets
diplomacy = settling planets, voting on laws
economy = resource production, trade?
technology = enhancements
culture = building wonders?, leaders?

I think some of them are getting pretty well-defined but it's not very even yet.  For economy, how would trading function?  I don't really have a brilliant suggestion here.  And for the 5th attribute (I think the other 4 are pretty well agreed on), most traditional civ games have wonder-building.  That would be kind of hard to do in space, though.  Maybe it allows you to play more powerful leaders?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 18, 2011, 05:24:09 PM
About the agndas:
I think having agendas within the deck is a bad idea. It causes a great weakness for combo decks to be able to begin their true strategy way after the other decks. I do think the hidden agendas is cool and the best way to do it is to faction cards: one is shown to everybody and one you keep for yourself and only you can see it.
I support having a neutral deck of agendas this time. Completing agendas gives resources/victory points/tech advancement. The neutral agendas, of course effect all players. I think you got me wrong before Malagar. There is one neutral deck per game not per player.

I agree as I said before to lower the skills to 3 this time but to have different roots to them. I think the attributes for an emppire should be:

Military: technology, training, doctrine
Diplomacy: trade, religion, intelligence (shadow war)
Economy: manufacture, agriculture, cybernatics
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 18, 2011, 07:44:12 PM
Agendas in a neutral deck is even more dangerous than having them in a players deck. If they are in your deck then you can plan for them specifically. You can't plan for 10 to 15 random agendas that could pop up at any moment. Too much randomness in my opinion. Think about it. You build a deck that excels in diplomacy and lacks in the military department a bit. It is not a bad deck, but it is just leaning on the diplomacy side of the game. How bad would it be if the first 3 agendas that came out were military related. If they were in your deck however you would have agendas that you know your deck could fulfill. Also, to add to my previous idea, making the agendas neutral as they come out allows for players that don't have agendas in their hand a chance to still earn a victory point. So yes there is still random, but most of that is taken care of because other players still have a chance to take the agenda.

Say I have built a deck on a strong economy and a decent military. I have played a good amount of cards, and as far as the game looks, I am in the best position to complete my agendas. I have not drawn an agenda yet. Someone else who has a strong economy plays a face down agenda card. I take my chances and with a special card reveal that agenda hoping that it is one I can fulfill. I reveal it and it is one that my economy can succeed in.

Notice, with this the player who played the agenda did not make a bad move. The reason that he did not make a bad move is that he had no way of knowing that I could reveal his agenda. Had I not he would have had a serious advantage in completing the agenda. However, because I was able to reveal the now neutral agenda, my dominating style of play is not hindered by a random draw of cards.

I hope that I don't sound like I think I am the boss or anything. That is not my intention. I just want to make sure that this game has more strategy than random drawings. So that being said, no one should suggest to roll dice to see how many cards we can draw this turn. >:(
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 18, 2011, 10:59:51 PM
You could treat Fleet cards less like a unit and more like an "Action" card. You can still have stats, but the stats have more to do with pitting resources against each other than actual battle. Maybe they could represent a hub within the board position that the other cards play off of and/or utilize.

For example, a fleet is put on the board. The more fleets you put down at a planet, the greater your strengths toward that planet. The support cards apply to what you or your opponent can or can't do like normal games. The more restrictions upon your opponent and the more capabilities played by your own cards, the better your board position, until your opponent's position in relation to the planet collapses and they can no longer maintain the planet. We could say that a player may hold on to a planet until they can't, in which they forfeit their fleet, or they can abandon the planet before they lose the battle entirely, in which they keep their fleet, but lose their planet earlier, known as a strategic retreat.

The 5 planets I provided before I didn't mean for so much complicated structure as you depicted. The fleet(s) simply move from planet to planet to affect attempts to acquire the planet for resources or to simply demonstrate a show of force. The planet resources can enhance fleet capabilities, but also enhance support card playability and the ability to use effects.

Comparisons of fleets and the support cards in play at that planet and planets under your control demonstrate what is accomplished. So if you play a card that causes your opponent to discard a card in play, bump up a resource, reduce your opponent's resource, or send their fleet packing, this strengthens your board position. The fleet has only played a roll, rather than being a unit used in direct combat. It merely represents your attention upon a particular planet and your ability to affect the strength of your board position, particularly in respects to that planet. Thus, a more cerebral conquest game is established.

You don't need to have a bunch of different battles going on at the same time (unless you happen to be stalemating for a long time and both happen to be able to build up your fleets). But even then, you're still only going to have 1 particular support card in play to help and another type of support card that lets you perform instant actions, and maybe another long-term support card in play that helps trickle resources through some kind of switch mechanic.

You could also limit the number of fleets to 1. So you perform all your conquest actions with a single fleet. If you lose the fleet, you lose. And if you lose your last planet, you lose.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 19, 2011, 01:59:23 AM
I am against extra decks, just can't repeat that one enough. Lets keep the agenda ideas: personal agendas, public agendas, hidden agendas and the one on the nation cards. Don't you think thats enough for a foundation? I added it that way to the rulebook (online update later).

Im adding things here and there to the rulebook, in a way I imagine the game to work. As soon as we have the overall picture ready, maybe we have to re-check the mechanics again. right now, i just put together how i see fit - but i dont want to be the sole decision maker.

Okay, so i came across a few problems while working on the rules, maybe we shift our focus from agendas to a few other aspects that really need work:

1. Attributes
We have to finally decide for the attributes. i thought about removing this Culture thing and add PSI or whatever. Also, the leadership attribute idea was from babylon 5, im still not sure how to use it effectively in the game. I came up with a total of 7, but we could narrow it down if one or two of them provide not to be useful:

Military (final)
Diplomacy (final)
Intrigue (final in my oppinion)
Science (?)
Commerce (?)
PSI (?)
Leadership (?)

I agree with both yudencow and r0cknes that we must narrow them down. but 3 is not enough in my oppinion. This Intrigue thing is really intriguing by the way! It opens a whole new area of possibilities (sabotage, assassination, black mail etc.). Also i want to keep either Science or Commerce (Economy), but we could join them all to one Attribute. PSI was just an idea to have an extra/special attribute that allows us to add some sort of "magic-system" later on.

2. Bringing cards into play
Another problem i came across: besides the cards you pay for - how do we bring cards into play? For example Resource (planet) cards and Agendas. Are they completely free? Do we want a action point system that limits what a player can do per turn? this could mean: you have 3 actions, bringing a card into play costs 1 action. or what?

3. Destruction of cards
As fleets, pesonalities and enhancements (technologies, structures) are not directly aligned to planets anymore in the newest rules version. how do they get destroyed? can a player directly destroy other players cards or do they stay in play forever until a very specific effect targets them? how do you get rid of enemy planets/structures etc. ?

4. Useless fleets
right now, the whole front row of the gameboard is reserved for fleet cards. but fleets play a very underrated role in the game right now. you cannot win through fleets without an agenda and you cannot really destroy anything besides other fleets. also - depending on the number of attributes - there are at least 3 to 6 other winning strategies, narrowing the useability of fleets down even further.

any thoughts? this concept is like a tin full of worms!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 19, 2011, 02:51:27 AM
Lots of cool stuff going on here, sorry I haven't been near a computer to comment on any of it...

I like the agendas idea, but in a way I feel like they should all be available to all players, except hidden agendas. As far as everyone being worried that your agendas won't come up or will be shuffled to the bottom or what have you... well, could that sort of be a part of deckbuilding? There could be a decent amount of cards that let you tutor for agendas when you don't have one in play, or that could be a rule of the game. An easy way to make it very clear - make it a "phase" of the turn. During the Agenda phase you check to see if you have completed any of the available agendas, and any player without an agenda in play may search their deck for one and bring it into play. This way if someone else completes your agenda you aren't screwed cuz you get to search another one out.

It's kinda funny to see combat taking a back sear here in the design, and by "funny" I mean "refreshing." It'll be interesting to get this part right, especially depending on how much military power you want to be "required" for a standard deck to compete.

Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 19, 2011, 10:20:25 AM
1. Attributes

Military: Great! Both offense and defense
Diplomacy: This has so many opportunities that it has to stay in. This is what the game is about.
Intrigue: I kind of like the name because it doesn't have to be just espionage, but it could be other cards as well.
Commerce: I think you could get away with including science with this attribute. Science is used to produce military, diplomacy, and intelligence enhancements. It takes money to produce science. A "science card" could require a certain amount of commerce and either military, diplomacy, or commerce to play the card.

Forgive me, but I am not sure what you mean by PSI

Leadership: I don't think this has much place in the game. A good leader would already have a good amount of the other attribute that he specializes in.

2. Playing Cards.

Well, to "pay for a card" you have to tap enough cards to add up the required resources, but you could also include other attribute totals as well. For instance, A structure that has a militery type action applied to the card might require 4 commerce and 2 military to play.

I don't think agendas need to have a cost. The cost will be to complete the agenda before others may. Maybe the agenda cards could only be played during the agenda phase which happens at the end of a turn, that would allow for each player to plan accordingly.

Planets: If we do use planets of some sort, then to play planets out of your hand they do need a cost. Otherwise you will have people filling their decks with the good planets and the other planets will not have a place in the game. Also, while I am here, planets must be able to be tapped. Either to provide resources or even to perform an action on the planet. Well I am thinking the planets could have a different type of cost. Instead of requiring attributes, you could require to tap a certain number of fleets. Ships find the planets after all. Why not keep that view in this game. If we do it this way, playing a planet would have to be done at the right time in the game, plus it will encourage the deck builder to include lesser planets especially for the beginning of the game.

3. Destroying cards

I am kind of lost when I get here. Maybe we could include a HP system on each permanent card. That way they can be destroyed, but it would also hinder the attacker, because his ship would be exhausted for the remainder of the turn.

4. Useless fleets

This is somewhat fixed in my playing of planet cards issue. Also, it is helped by the destroying other cards issue. I don't think they are useless. Remember we can have a large number of these fleets have actions that would do certain things inside the game. For instance add an effect to one of the fleets that reads: When this fleet is exhausted add +1 military to each ship you own. Or : When this fleet is exhausted you may ready another fleet of your choice. Or: When this fleet is exhausted you may ready a planet of the Omega sector. The possibilities are endless. These effects would not happen every time the cards are exhausted or "tapped", but just when they are tapped to use those particular actions. If I use a fleet to "pay" for a planet, then I may not use the action on that fleet. I can only do one or the other. I think fleets have a huge role in this game, it is just not the traditional role, which I love.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: BrotherM on December 19, 2011, 12:48:13 PM
1.  Military, diplomacy, intrigue, commerce - check.  I didn't catch the intrigue idea before, but yeah I like that a lot for interaction.  Maybe instead of psi, call it "supernatural" or something- representing all the crazy shit that goes on in the depths of space.  A human faction would be at 0 in that, and then scaling up from there.  Or another possibility could be "population."  It would be impacted by planets, and could give bonuses to the other attributes (stronger military, easier to get out fleets, etc) plus a really thematic agenda.

2.  Yes to tapping fleets to pay for planets!  Brilliant thematic solution. :)  I agree Agenda cards don't need a cost- there is just one per player in play and all that stuff happens in the Agenda phase at the end of the turn.  I don't think we need Action Points other than just the # of cards in hand- the player has control over it that way.

3.  Maybe HP for fleets, stuff on the back row is one-shot kill if attacked.  Maybe if you attack an undefended player, you just get to destroy one back row card?  That # could be increased by cards maybe.  For characters, maybe intrigue cards could be used, ie assassinations.  Hell, strong enough intrigue and maybe you could destroy a planet.

4.  r0cknes idea ^ is a very good solution.  Between tapping to play planets, attacking, and defending attacks, they would not be useless anymore.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 19, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
@r0cknes
@BrotherM

Thank you for most valueable input!

1. Attributes
Military, Diplomacy, Intrigue, Commerce, Psionics - thats five, wich satisfies the law of fives. okay so far, we can discuss additional attributes later if we need more or see something fit.

2. Planets and Fleets
Love the idea! So fleets are used to explore planets. Agendas have no cost. Brilliant.

3. yeah we could add HP (maybe called Integrity) to cards. but that is not really necessary: we could assume that all cards have just 1 hp, except when a card has a military attribute rating. then the HP of the card equal the military rating. So a fleet with military 3 is able to sustain 3 damage before destroyed etc.

4. yep, adding the exploration mechanic to fleets solves the problem to certain degree.

ATTENTION: About Resources and Income
A few posts earlier we decided to simplify the income/resource system and i really would like your final thoughts on this because i want to go on with the next rulebook chapters. So please tell me in short if you prefer the new or the old resource system (i prefer the new although its a bit complicated at first sight):

OLD: Tapping resource cards provides you with one or more of five different resources. These resources are equal to the attributes. to play a card you have to pay the necessary resources in quantity and matching type. this equals the mana system of magic: the gathering.

NEW: Tapping resource cards provides you with Solaris (the interstellar currency). To play a card you just have to pay its cost in solaris. But: Cards also feature attributes and to bring a card into play, the resource card wich provides the solaris must also feature the matching attribute icons.

Example: You want to bring a cost 3 enhancement card into play that features both Intrigue and Military attributes. So you have to tap a resource that not only provides at least 3 solaris, but also features both intrigue and military icons. This equals a single-currency system with color-coded cards.

thanks for the input guys, you really take part in shaping this project from A to Z !

PS: i got some ideas for the first faction/nation/alliance/race of the game called "The Omikron Combine":

<start flavor text>an alien society with hyper-advanced technology geared towards optimization and productivity. they maintain a pseudo-religious caste system and worship the "machine god". its a society where all aspects like politics, religion and culture are geared towards productivity. there is no state and there is no church, there are no companies - there is just the combine. they live to serve the combine and dying for it is an even greater honor. hail the machine god!<end flavor text>

i add your suggestions to the rulebook, more later - im really tired today.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 19, 2011, 04:47:07 PM
I am not a fan of the super natural aspect being added into the game. Honestly, I would prefer just a bunch of races just trying to take over the galaxy. I don't feel there is any reason for "magic" in the game. That being said, I am not sure that even the flavor text should even talk about "gods" Good thought other than that though.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 19, 2011, 05:04:35 PM
New resource system is better for sure, easy to understand I think. Gotta have cards that require higher amounts of military and such.

I like how Fleets are coming together, way more for them to do = goodness!

Also, I dig the first race!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 19, 2011, 07:53:11 PM
Either no one understood a word I said, or no one saw my last post. It went completely unaddressed, even if to say none of it should be used. If you didn't see it, could you look back?

You all want to know how to deal with fleets, I gave a decent offer.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 19, 2011, 08:30:12 PM
I know I and malagar read your post, but I cannot speak for the others. I know malagar did because he did respond to you. He said he is against extra neutral decks. The way this game is going I tend to agree with him. I am sorry you felt ignored, but rest assured we did read and respond to you post.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 19, 2011, 08:34:00 PM
I never mentioned extra decks. I could see someone interpreting YOUR "neutral decks" post as claiming extra decks. My post doesn't mention decks at all, only the cards in them. So, if you read my post and came out with "extra decks", you clearly didn't understand it. MY post addressed Fleets and their use within the game.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 19, 2011, 08:55:20 PM
Ok I am sorry that I misunderstood you. Please share with us your input in such a way that even I could understand. Did you mean that you would play a planet card from your hand and then use your fleets to conquer the planet. I believe the consensus has been that movement around the galaxy as a whole is omnipresent. A ship doesn't have to be "near" a planet to defend it.

I did at one time mention a neutral deck, but I accepted the arguments against it. I now stand of the opinion that they are unessecary to this game. I have been swade by clear argumentation.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 19, 2011, 09:05:53 PM
My idea was fairly abstract. There's a big focus on treating Fleets like units, but I'm suggesting using them as a hub of interaction. A means of facilitating the ability to play cards and get effects.

No, I wasn't saying to play planets down and then defend them. The idea of using planets as providers of resource icons was my idea originally, and I'm not changing the idea at all. My idea just focused on the Fleets, not the planets.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 19, 2011, 09:21:15 PM
I guess the part that confused me, and again I am not speaking for anyone else, was when you were talking about board position and ships around planets. It sounded like your opponent was trying to conquer the planet to me.

I am sorry for not mentioning your previous post. I am still not sure I completly understand it, but I do believe we are now using fleets more like a "hub" of interaction as you suggested. I am not sure you have noticed but most of my posts end with a very concrete example of my thoughts. I do that because I don't think abstractly very well. 8)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 19, 2011, 09:46:51 PM
My problem is that I'm seeing suggestions of "tapping" and "HP", which is very clearly thinking of the Fleets as units.

I guess you could break down the mechanics to that of resource, facilitation, effect and result, which is a managerial perspective. A manager, even a General or Admiral, think of their circumstances in terms of these aspects. They want to know what their resources are, how to transform those resources into effects they can use to get a final result. The planets provide the resources, the Fleets provide the facilitation that permit the effects cards to be played, netting you a stronger board position.

Think of it like a machine that provides various flavors for your drink. The containers holding the flavors are the planets, providing the reservoir. The fleet is like the spigot that is hooked to the flavors and you can move it to any place you like. The flavored fluids are like the effects pouring into the cup. The cup being your current board position.

Now to change up the analogy, by being a spigot, the Fleet is acting as a "hub", receiving and shipping out. This doesn't mean it needs to actually physically receive any cards (effects), but it is facilitating your ability to play effects of any kind. That is, card effects depend upon the Fleet in order for those cards to be playable and the time of when they can be played, because scheduling is also a part of facilitation.

So now let's say you have the 5 planets I originally proposed in play. 3 belong to you and 2 to your opponent (because he goes first), but now it's your turn, so you move a fleet from one of your planets to your opponent's planet. No actual attack is performed, because the Fleet is not a unit, but is a card facilitating the playing of other card effects. The Fleet says when and what type of cards can be played, based upon its stats. It may even have an effect of its own that does not involve attacking at all, perhaps more like a general location effect in another game. The Fleet's stats permit card effects to be played and define when they can be played and perhaps how many. The cards in turn provide effects that impact your opponent's ability to play cards and receive resources, or may give you boosts of some kind. At some point one player is going to be able to play cards and the other isn't. By some mechanic I haven't defined yet, the winner of that maneuver is determined and gains or maintains control of that location (and the other loses their Fleet if they don't prematurely move their fleet away from that planet). While not attempting to gain control of a planet, players attempt to build up their resources before making another attempt to take a planet. In the meantime, they can trade resources with each other, buy effects, perform embargoes on resources from one planet and strengthen their empire until expansion is required to grow any further or to overcome an embargo, in which they move their fleet in to acquire the planet upon which the embargo is based (since you're trading resources, they're obviously coming from planets under your opponent's control, so an embargo means you're cut off from those resources).

Perhaps the cards played in "peace time" (when a Fleet is not threatening an opponent's planet) would be different than the cards played in "war time" (when a fleet is threatening an opponent's planet). Maybe one card type would remain consistent for both.

By using a back-and-forth style of card play, rather than turn structures, you play off of each other's cards and respond immediately to various actions. Maybe some actions could be free, in that you could play a particular type of card at any time or declare a particular action at any time outside the back-and-forth, perhaps as legal responses (hard-coded in the rules).

Now this is just one idea based upon my original idea. You all wouldn't need to adopt all the other mechanics here in order to use the Fleet as facilitator concept. I just wanted to demonstrate what I meant by it.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 19, 2011, 10:42:10 PM
I also mentioned earlier about fleet to fleet comparison. Perhaps the players would compare the stats of their fleets, and wherever a player is deficient, they can't play certain effects, but where they exceed their opponent's comparable number, they can play certain effects pertaining to the stat that they are proficient in.

If you send one of your fleets to one of their planets, perhaps to overturn an embargo, if your opponent doesn't counter by moving their own fleet to it, or moving their own fleet away from it, you gain the planet.

Perhaps you don't even need to move your fleet card to it physically. You could simply use a marker of some kind representing your ship at that planet.

The fleet would only come into play when there is a challenge to the political allegiance of a planet. You don't really own a planet, but they are politically allied to your authority or your opponent's.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 19, 2011, 10:54:03 PM
Regarding planets in the way that r0cknes describes them, I don't think people would "choose the best" as if there's only one set that would be good to every faction. It is easy enough to design planets to be better for some factions and not for others, based upon how you define the faction, as well as better for some card types and not for others, and better for some effects than for others.

Flavor-wise, I'm not so sure tapping is the right thing for planets. Fleets, maybe, like turning the spigot, but planets, no. You don't void all your resources for any planet just because you use one of its resources.

I like r0cknes's ideas for fleets. I think if you can reconcile that to what I have here, you could have a very unique card type. Perhaps instead of tapping, the resource differential I mentioned could be used to turn effects on and off in the way r0cknes mentions. This would allow you to have more effects in play and thereby a more complex and strategic game.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 20, 2011, 02:09:03 AM
Wow, this thread is ablaze!

@Cyrus

Thats me and Cyrus for the new resource sytem, anyone else? any complains?

@r0cknes

Regarding PSI: Actually its not so important, the game is so grand-scale that a little bit of magic wont change the face of the galaxy at all. But: I thought of PSI (psionics) to be a force that certain characters could use to produce fancy effects, maybe tied to special enhancement cards. it would open up possibilities for weirding, witching, truth-saying, far-seeing, bending time and space, prophecies, rituals and the like. in every major sci-fi franchise - there are also psionics. again, its not ultimatively important to our game - but could be useful. any more thoughts?

@Ascent

Sorry, i did read your post - but just like r0cknes - i had problems understanding everything. you really have a talent to explain theoretical aspects in a way that leaves enough room for own ideas and further discussion. but, english is not my mother language - so sometimes i have to read it twice to comprehend.

i really like some of the aspects there, but you mention "targeting planets" for example, and we decided to remove any targeting, locations and distance from the combat. so this thought is obsolete (although i guess you meant it differently and in a more hypothetical way). also: we decided against starting planets, as your nation card is able to produce resources too. so there wont be many planets in play (maybe 1 or max 2 per player in a long game). we just removed the neccesity to have a "line of 5 planets" by shifting their role from "card attachment hub" to "additional resource provider".

all in all - your idea of the fleet as whole - being some kind of "hub" is brilliant. but i think we are already on the right way: the way fleets are working now is that they are the "arm" of your empire, and you use this arm to perform all the actions that require "phsycial force" may it be offensive or peaceful.

some ideas, like "tacking" effects, card draw capability or general "choice of options" to the fleet size, position and cards therein are really good - but i would rather put things like theese on card texts instead of the basic rules.

to sum it all up - i think we are on the right road to make the fleets more like "hubs" (in our style) and this list of possibities and drawbacks demonstrates it very well (i think):

* Fleets can attack other fleets
* Fleets can explore new planets
* Fleets can capture enemy planets (semi-new idea)
* Fleets can participate in certain Agendas
* Fleets can produce special effects written on the cards

* Without fleets you cannot defend your resources (planets and other permanent cards)
* Without fleets you cannot explore planets
* Without fleets you cannot capture enemy planets
* Without fleets you cannot participate in certain Agendas
* Without fleets you cannot produce special effects

Planets are like the energy and vitamin production facilities in the human body. while the fleet is the arm, that does various actions like grabbing, hitting, pushing, pulling by spending vitamins and energy. the planets define the type of energy, the arm uses that energy to perform certain actions.

* IDEA: we could remove tapping to certain degree. during your "income phase" a player would instead put as many solaris tokens on his planets as their income states. the player can use theese tokens to pay for various cards or "fleet maneuvers". at the end of the turn, the remaining tokens are lost and removed.

* IDEA: fleets also do not tap to certain degree. instead you spend the solaris tokens on planets to "pay" your fleets for performing maneuvers. you pay x solaris to make a fleet card attack, explore a new planet, participate in agendas or produce special effects.

Finally: I really want to stick to that "We are at war" and "We are peaceful" nation-card state thing by tapping. It sounds so good and we could make card that can only be played during "peace" or "war". But, i would say that a player cannot switch back to "peace" so easily.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 20, 2011, 03:52:24 AM
The only argument against the War and Peace thing is that it is all going to take place in the rules, which is something you (we) wanted to avoid...
I suppose maybe only cards (perhaps agendas?) can change your stance? If we used what I was talking about (agendas can be completed by anyone) then it might work. So until a nation shows its intention to complete a military objective, the galaxy is at peace. As soon as any player plays a military based agenda, however, all players will have the option to move to the War stance. Moving back to peace, like you said, should be more difficult, and maybe require an agenda as well to trigger it.

Also, should attacking a peaceful nation cost more? It's hard to say without cards (obviously) whether remaining peaceful would be worth it once war springs up. I guess the cards will be the judge (which isn't bad)!

I'm a big fan of both of your "*IDEA"s there Malagar! It should cost resources to pretty much do anything, as any good empire building game should really just come down to a resource management game (with lots of pretty pictures and cool words, of course).

Seems like we're coming up with lots of different ways decks can work, which is really cool. I could see any of the attributes being a pretty decent start for a deck foundation, as well as focusing on other mechanics such as exploring a bunch of planets (mana ramp!).

That's my thought-splosion for tonight, cheers!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 20, 2011, 06:02:19 AM
Wow ascent there are some really good ideas in there! I certainly think we can have some action cards that only certain fleets could use. Say fighters for example. I think thatmost of these actions would be restricted by the factions though.

The only problem I would have with paying you fleet to perform actions is that you will end up using some ships to defend and attack on the same turn. I know that location have been rightfully taken out of this game, but common sense tells me that if I want to go attack then I shouldn't be able to defend with the same ship.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: BrotherM on December 20, 2011, 12:59:18 PM
@Ascent:

I didn't respond to your first post because I didn't really understand it.  I have re-read it and your subsequent posts, and I am really trying, but I just don't get the gist of what you are saying.  It really sounds to me like you want to just restrict card play to certain planets based on where you have placed a "fleet" card.  Once that is at a planet, then you can build other stuff there and play instants there.  And somehow, both sides build up, and then have a showdown at some point.  Is that about right?  Cause if so, it really just sounds like a geographic restriction on cardplay (ie the "funnel" concept).  Geography has generally been decided to be abstract i believe, so it's not too useful for this particular project.

Another issue I have with it is that it leads to a runaway leader problem.  So, I have 3 planets and you have 2.  I am gaining more resources than you, so I attack one of yours and you ultimately can't defend it.  Now I have 4 and you have 1.  The same process happens and now I have 5 and you have 0.  That's not a very compelling game narrative for either side.  Or is there a catch-up mechanic in there somewhere I missed?

If I'm misunderstanding this, please help me understand how. :)

Later on, you mentioned "back-and-forth style of card play, rather than turn structures".  I believe you mean: I play a card then you play a card, etc vs Mtg-style turn structures.  If that's the case, I kind of agree with you on this point.  Really I think the turn structure should be similar to Power Grid or Through the Ages (for those familiar with boardgames):

1. Draw phase - everyone simultaneously draws according their faction or whatever
2. Resource phase - everyone collects their resources simultaneously (either getting physical markers or untapping their cards, however that's decided)
3. Action phase - everyone takes turns performing one action:
 - play a card
 - activate a card
 - attack someone
 - etc
Continue until everyone passes.  The turn order for the next turn is based on who passes first (so if i am the first to pass, i will be first player next turn)
4. Agenda phase - everyone simultaneously looks to see if they have completed any Agendas.  Any that have been completed are discarded, then players may play new ones if they wish.

This is just a basic idea, but I like this structure for this sort of game- way less downtime and lots of strategy in timing your actions.

@Malagar:

I'm still not sold on psionics either, but you are the boss here and if you really want it, I can live with that. :)  I think we just need to make it flavorful to the setting and it will be ok.

I like the "new" resource system better of those two, but my preference would be a modified version of it:
Everything costs neutral solaris, and you have to have the matching icons for the card, but the matching icons don't have to appear on the particular resource card you are tapping.  You just have to have it somewhere.

RE: your idea of "paying" your fleet to perform actions:
I ultimately think it's too fiddly.  That term is a little vague, but I mean it as: there would be too much physical manipulation of bits that wastes time and effort without including interesting decisions.  Counting out 12-15 or however many resources you might have late in the game, just to divvy them up and put them back in the supply takes a lot longer than just tapping/untapping cards.  It doesn't add enough flavor to make up for that, I don't think.

@Malagar and Cyrus:
I'm down with the war/peace thing.  I really like Cyrus's idea of that status being impacted by agendas.  Making someone declare their hostile intentions is cool.  And yeah, reverting back to peace should be difficult and probably include some sort of strong diplomatic push or sacrifice of resources.  Maybe rather than everything being tapped/untapped to represent it, just your faction card could be.  Or maybe the faction card is double-sided, one for wartime and one for peacetime?  Then you could represent changing your resource production etc as you gear up for war!

---
PHEW!  Lots of good stuff here guys.  This is honestly a blast.  Thanks to everyone for letting me play along! :D
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 20, 2011, 01:36:38 PM
Wow - i come home and see this thread almost cooking!

@BrotherM

PSI: Okay lets trash psionics (for now). I just wanted to mention it.

Resources: Good and already on its way into the rulebook. I was thinking about that already - its just stupid when the icons are tied to the planets, because then we could have different resources instead. So resource icons are "global" so to say. much simpler, faster, easier - neat.

Paying fleets: Was just an idea. lets trash it. because r0cknes also mentioned the problem with defending fleets. i guess there is no way around tapping here.

War/Peace: That double sided faction card is absolutely my flavor. There could be different icons/income on the cards depending on their state. also the nation card could have different abilities on both sides, even different built-in agendas. Thats perfect idea!

Regarding your answer to Ascent, simultanous turns:

We have to test it. but i also like the idea how you listed the phases and actions. it really removes downtime - especially in multiplayer games. we should get this working right.

...

Im trying to update the rulebook within the next few days, but there is so much stuff going on here (changes on a daily base) it could take longer. again - i add to the rules what and how i see fit. once we got the "skeleton" of our "golem" ready, we can discuss the details again.

can't wait to see the first cards/factions in action!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 20, 2011, 03:30:11 PM
Wow, this thread is ablaze!

@Cyrus

Thats me and Cyrus for the new resource sytem, anyone else? any complains?
Resources: Good and already on its way into the rulebook. I was thinking about that already - its just stupid when the icons are tied to the planets, because then we could have different resources instead. So resource icons are "global" so to say. much simpler, faster, easier - neat.
I'm kind of lost on what resource system was decided upon. I can't be sure what's being agreed upon. Can someone post the resource system or give me a link to the post?

Since you've already come to conclude not to use Psi, I won't bother with my objections to Psi in a game of galactic conquest.

@Ascent

to sum it all up - i think we are on the right road to make the fleets more like "hubs" (in our style) and this list of possibities and drawbacks demonstrates it very well (i think):

* Fleets can attack other fleets
* Fleets can explore new planets
* Fleets can capture enemy planets (semi-new idea)
* Fleets can participate in certain Agendas
* Fleets can produce special effects written on the cards

* Without fleets you cannot defend your resources (planets and other permanent cards)
* Without fleets you cannot explore planets
* Without fleets you cannot capture enemy planets
* Without fleets you cannot participate in certain Agendas
* Without fleets you cannot produce special effects

Planets are like the energy and vitamin production facilities in the human body. while the fleet is the arm, that does various actions like grabbing, hitting, pushing, pulling by spending vitamins and energy. the planets define the type of energy, the arm uses that energy to perform certain actions.
I was hoping to avoid the attack/defend, unit vs. unit aspect, as war, as mentioned by someone here, is about resource management. And being a fleet, there is no specific point of strike and strike back, because it's all over the place.

* IDEA: we could remove tapping to certain degree. during your "income phase" a player would instead put as many solaris tokens on his planets as their income states. the player can use theese tokens to pay for various cards or "fleet maneuvers". at the end of the turn, the remaining tokens are lost and removed.

* IDEA: fleets also do not tap to certain degree. instead you spend the solaris tokens on planets to "pay" your fleets for performing maneuvers. you pay x solaris to make a fleet card attack, explore a new planet, participate in agendas or produce special effects.

Finally: I really want to stick to that "We are at war" and "We are peaceful" nation-card state thing by tapping. It sounds so good and we could make card that can only be played during "peace" or "war". But, i would say that a player cannot switch back to "peace" so easily.
"Paying" for things, when you have so many resources can get confusing. That's why I proposed the trickle system. (See below for more details on that.)

@Ascent:

I didn't respond to your first post because I didn't really understand it.  I have re-read it and your subsequent posts, and I am really trying, but I just don't get the gist of what you are saying.  It really sounds to me like you want to just restrict card play to certain planets based on where you have placed a "fleet" card.  Once that is at a planet, then you can build other stuff there and play instants there.  And somehow, both sides build up, and then have a showdown at some point.  Is that about right?  Cause if so, it really just sounds like a geographic restriction on cardplay (ie the "funnel" concept).  Geography has generally been decided to be abstract i believe, so it's not too useful for this particular project.
While my idea is geographically restrictive, I think you misunderstood how the resource distribution takes place. There is a "peace time", in which you're fleet is not at your opponent's planet. Any time your fleet is at your opponent's planet it is "war time". Different things take place and different cards are allowed or disallowed based upon whether it is "peace time" or "war time". Geographically focusing it is meant to let players address a specific issue, rather than counting it as a galaxy-wide problem. It represents invasions or police actions.

Another issue I have with it is that it leads to a runaway leader problem.  So, I have 3 planets and you have 2.  I am gaining more resources than you, so I attack one of yours and you ultimately can't defend it.  Now I have 4 and you have 1.  The same process happens and now I have 5 and you have 0.  That's not a very compelling game narrative for either side.  Or is there a catch-up mechanic in there somewhere I missed?
I believe such issues can be addressed after the basic mechanics are formed. The idea is to give a means of addressing whoever has the unfair advantage, which is usually the starting player.

Later on, you mentioned "back-and-forth style of card play, rather than turn structures".  I believe you mean: I play a card then you play a card, etc vs Mtg-style turn structures.  If that's the case, I kind of agree with you on this point.  Really I think the turn structure should be similar to Power Grid or Through the Ages (for those familiar with boardgames):

1. Draw phase - everyone simultaneously draws according their faction or whatever
2. Resource phase - everyone collects their resources simultaneously (either getting physical markers or untapping their cards, however that's decided)
3. Action phase - everyone takes turns performing one action:
 - play a card
 - activate a card
 - attack someone
 - etc
Continue until everyone passes.  The turn order for the next turn is based on who passes first (so if i am the first to pass, i will be first player next turn)
4. Agenda phase - everyone simultaneously looks to see if they have completed any Agendas.  Any that have been completed are discarded, then players may play new ones if they wish.

This is just a basic idea, but I like this structure for this sort of game- way less downtime and lots of strategy in timing your actions.
Well, that's still the structure I was hoping to avoid. I was going for the player using resources on the fly using the trickle system. So in structured games, you compile all your resources at once and at some point lose certain resources. I'm talking about not having a set point to gain resources, but simply using a trickle of resources. That is, you can play a card based upon how much of a particular resource you have. So if your technology resource is 3, then you can play 1 card on your turn to play a card worth 3 or less. Because things are back-and-forth, there is a limit on the number of cards you can play, namely 1 (unless you play some sort of reactionary instants, such as "interference" or "trap" cards). So how expensive that card is is based upon the trickle number of the resource. This way you do not have to keep track of how many resource points you have with counters, gaining and spending. It is assumed that the resource is self-sustaining based upon how big the resource is. So using the resource doesn't drain it. The resource number simply limits what you can play. Your comments to Malagar would be resolved with this sort of resource system.

Paying fleets: Was just an idea. lets trash it. because r0cknes also mentioned the problem with defending fleets. i guess there is no way around tapping here.
Actually there is. If they have a resource cost associated, using the back-and-forth system and trickle system I proposed, then you only need to worry about whether you have a large enough resource number to play it, and you wouldn't have to track resources or tap.

War/Peace: That double sided faction card is absolutely my flavor. There could be different icons/income on the cards depending on their state. also the nation card could have different abilities on both sides, even different built-in agendas. Thats perfect idea!
I'm not sure who suggested it, but that sounds pretty cool.

If you say you want to use the gain and spend model of resource management, I won't mention the trickle resource management again.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 20, 2011, 05:53:58 PM
ATTENTION: About Resources and Income
A few posts earlier we decided to simplify the income/resource system and i really would like your final thoughts on this because i want to go on with the next rulebook chapters. So please tell me in short if you prefer the new or the old resource system (i prefer the new although its a bit complicated at first sight):

OLD: Tapping resource cards provides you with one or more of five different resources. These resources are equal to the attributes. to play a card you have to pay the necessary resources in quantity and matching type. this equals the mana system of magic: the gathering.

NEW: Tapping resource cards provides you with Solaris (the interstellar currency). To play a card you just have to pay its cost in solaris. But: Cards also feature attributes and to bring a card into play, the resource card wich provides the solaris must also feature the matching attribute icons.

Example: You want to bring a cost 3 enhancement card into play that features both Intrigue and Military attributes. So you have to tap a resource that not only provides at least 3 solaris, but also features both intrigue and military icons. This equals a single-currency system with color-coded cards.

I think the decision was to go with the second. I personally could go with either one. I am also ok with ascent's resource mechanic. I don't think it is a bad mechanic by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't like it for this game. If another game came out with it I would gladly play it. My preference is the new resource mechanic of the choices given. I do very much like the old one though. It is much like ascent's, except ascent's doesn't have tapping. I like tapping... can you tell ;D

I like the turn structure that was stated. I would be sure to add a refresh phase at the end to ready all exhausted cards though.

I also like the war peace idea. Double faced is the way to go I think.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 20, 2011, 06:03:31 PM
By "double-sided", I was thinking what was meant was a kings and queens style, in which half of the card is for peace time and half is for war time, joining at the middle. I strongly caution against cards with one thing on one side and another on the flip-side, as randomization vs. cheating becomes more problematic.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 21, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
Rulebook was updated (a bit), here is the link (i also added a permanent link to my sig):

http://www.zockergilde.net/files/galaxian-rulebook.txt

A new rule was added, called SPOTTING - because its needed to correctly explain the new resource system. its not my idea - the same rule is used in the HACK CCG as well as the newer LOTR CCG:

SPOTTING
================================================================
Certain effects require that the player SPOTs other cards, attribute icons or card types in play in
order to resolve. To SPOT or SPOTTING means that you have to locate the stated card, attribute icon
or card type among all cards in play, your cards in play or your opponents cards in play.

EXAMPLE: The card "Traitor" states that you have to SPOT two intrigue icons among the cards of your
opponent in order to resolve its effects. So you have to visually locate two cards featuring one
intrigue icon or one card with two intrigue icons on it.


I reply to your posts later!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: BrotherM on December 21, 2011, 01:13:18 PM
I think it will be easier to go item by item, rather than by poster:

Resources:  So if i understand it right, the rule is: To play a card, you must pay its cost in neutral resources AND have icons matching its icons somewhere among your permanents.

Regarding Ascent's idea, I see there was a key element I was missing.  Thanks for the further explanation. :)  I think it is a very interesting idea actually- the costs are really just a threshold, rather than a payment.  It would work really well with a game focused on developing an empire- maybe like a Civilization game where you move through eras.  I don't think that is the plan for this game, but that's unclear to me still.  I think we are simulating a relatively short time period here, not hundreds of generations of growth.

Actually, maybe it would be good to incorporate this "threshold" idea somewhere, like maybe for Technology costs? I like that different card types are being brought into play in different ways: planets and fleets are already much different.

Spotting: So is that an attempt to give a name to our current resource mechanic?  If so, I like it.  I hadn't thought of requiring icons on the opponent's tableau, but that is a clever idea too and opens up a lot more design space.

War/Peace: I'm glad you got the gist of my idea with the double-sided cards.  Having much different faction bonuses based on the War/Peace status would be really fun, I think.  And as long as they are restricted to a single card per player per game, which starts the game in play, we don't have to worry about shuffling them into decks so there is no issue with that.

Turn Structure: Yeah I think there will need to be some modifications to my suggestion, but I'm glad you guys are down with the basic idea.  I pretty much only play multiplayer games, so I always stress minimizing downtime as much as possible.

Psi: Are we going to replace it with anything?  Four attributes is not a bad number, but 5 is better.

Rulebook:  Don't sweat it too much yet.  There's still a lot to be sorted out before that's really necessary.  And everything is documented in this thread for now.  But go for it if it helps you. :)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 21, 2011, 02:20:52 PM
@BrotherM:

@Resources: Exactly, but maybe not all permanents - only "resource" card type permanents.

@Civ-era-idea: In the very beginning of this thread i thought we would base this game on Civilisation like empire building with eras and technology levels. But the current state is simulating a much shorter time period. We took this "generation-thing" completely out, and i would say we save it for another game - this is also true for most of Ascents ideas, as we already got a very good base for this game.

@Treshold: Maybe you can explain that in detail. Also i have to re-read Ascents post again.

@Spotting: Exactly, its a mechanic that explains how the "have matching resources in play" part of the resource system works. But the mechanic can also be used for special abilities and card effects. Regarding opponents icons: this would only apply to special abilities and not bringing cards into play.

So you can read every cards cost something like a code:

* pay 3 Solaris and spot 3 Science icons among your cards
* pay 2 Solaris and spot 2 Military and 1 Diplomacy icon among your cards
* pay 5 Solaris and spot 3 Military, 2 Science and 1 Diplomacy icon among your cards

@War/Peace: Yep, like it very much. Double Sided or Split Cards, i dont care - the idea is the same. Very good extension to the original War/Peace State Tapping Nation Card idea.

@Turn Structure: Right now its like all phases are simultanous but not the main phase of the game, wich slows the game down at its main bottleneck. but the idea is good, maybe we get a few more ideas later on. I could also imagine going further and turning the main phase also simultanous with some kind of "initative betting system" to see who is going first.

PS: like the idea of "who passes first - goes first next turn". good!

@Psi: Don't know, i really like to have 5 with the possibility to expand it to 7 in the future (maybe in a expansion or new core-set). I was thinking about dividing Science and Commerce again - we now have the space to do so (and im really looking forward designing some merchant guild factions with suitable special rules and cards :-)

@Rulebook: Yeah i know, for now i try to maintain the rulebook to keep a documentation besides this thread. And i proclaimed to be the "project leader", so i just have to do something extra - or not?

---

@All

1. I thought about distributing some actual work to the people who are into this project. I dont want to command people, so this is absolutely voluntary. the target is to give the game a more appealing look to get more people interested. some things i thought about are possible even without 100% of the rules being finished:

* template design (is xchokeholdx still online? he is good at templates)
* faction design (any ideas? we could already compile a list of houses/alien races)
* background story / history (a bit about the universe where our game takes place)

if anyone is interested, i would be glad to know your ideas - you can do very much without knowing the rules. the most of us are currently busy with the base rules, so a little help with templating and story elements would be really a godsend!

2. I guess we still need something special to add to the game. right now we keep most of the rules to the cards, with a few exceptions being basic rules and how the different card types are played. but most CCGS feature some core mechanic that makes them different. i dont want to bend physics too much here - but a single, simple, but really suitable mechanic would do wonders for the whole project.

I have seen betting systems in other ccgs, as well as the Burden and twilight pool in the newer LOTR game. in L5R there is the imperial favor. maybe something like that.

*IDEA: maybe our game universe is ruled from behind the scenes by a galactic council who favors a single nation and grants a special advantage. certain cards could gain or loose the councils favor (this is pretty much the same as in L5R, but just an idea).

3. *BIG IDEA: okay this is crazy, unrealistic and quirky - anyways:

building on my "we need something special idea", i thought about adding a real galactic council to the game. right now the personalities lack uniqueness and are somewhat underpowered compared to the other card types. what if, we enable them to promote to become galactic council members during the game? (galactic council = GC from now on)

in the beginning, the GC is empty and has no effect. once there are personalities in it, they are able to perform special global actions like granting a player to draw an additonal card or whatever. there could be 2-3 GC special actions in the rulebook. the rest would be written on a new card type called "laws", every player can bring laws into play - even without membes in the GC. but - the GC has to "Vote" for or against a "law" brought into play, only laws voted "for" enter play.

this voting process is done by tapping GC members or not. every player can tap his personalities in the GC to either support a "law" card or decline. also, members of the GC loose all their abilities and attribute ratings and cannot be used for normal actions anymore.

theese "law" cards could add various global game effects or even bend the core rules to some degree. this would force players to either add personalities as soon as possible to the GC or murder/blackmail/buy GC members to prevent "laws" from happening. it would also empower the personalities we have so far much, much more - giving them a real reason to "be in the game".

* "player x wants to draw an additonal card - is the GC for or against this?"
* "player x wants to go first next turn - is the GC for or against this"?
* "player x wants to explore a new planet without a fleet - is the GC for or against this?"
* "player x wants to bring a new law card into play - is the GC for or against this?"

background story snippet: the GC could be the responsible force that initated the "war for ascendancy" among the races of the universe. for the GC, the galactic fight is like a game - they play chess with living things. its a shadow cabinet that pulls the strings of all major forces of the galaxy, bending and breaking rules as they fit to position the nations of their liking on the galactic throne. a microscope council of elders compound of all races in the universe - trying to rule a macroscope galactic universe from within.

uahh - my brain - enough for today!

Still powering a 80-reply strong thread - Malagar out (for today)!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 21, 2011, 09:16:51 PM
@Malagar

That is for sure a different idea. I don't know if I like it. I will have to sleep on it. What happens in a 2 player game where one of the players has the majority of GC leaders. I can foresee that being a disaster. I like the idea of a council in the background "playing with" the different races, but the voting could get out of hand I am afraid. Maybe we could work it in without the voting. I don't have any thoughts right now, but I will think about it tomorrow.

I was just going to ask if we have any artists among us. I certainly am not. I wish I could help with the templates, but I am not much of a help there. Once I get more of a feel for this project I would be willing to work on a faction though.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 22, 2011, 12:43:36 PM
@r0cknes

Just a crazy idea!

Rulebook was updated to 0.1.1 alpha - thats all for today (tired)

http://www.zockergilde.net/files/galaxian-rulebook.txt
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 22, 2011, 01:30:31 PM
I can help with templates (if nescessary) and I can build a MSE plugin.

Vote system will be hell in a two player game O.o
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 22, 2011, 03:20:32 PM
I think instead of a council we could have a cult of galactus/unicron like being which will pretty much enslave and murder us all because it is so powerful. Players can decide to help the cult and thus gaining dark powers at a cost of turning their men into fanatics or fight against it along side the GC (which will be the good guys).  As you advance in either way (and you can't both), you become more powerful. It dosen't mean players aligning themselves with the cult or the GC can't fight each other, just that they can coordinate attack with each other against the other side for bonuses from the respective group.

Here is a solution without votes.

I still think there should be only 3 attributes and each one has 3 sub-attributes. That makes it so people can more focus on a certain build then others. Sorry to tell you but the of five, sevens, nines or any number other number is worthless. I can name from the top of my head a bunch of trilogies, and barely 1 pentology. Meaning intrigue is a sub-attribute of politics and science is a sub-attribute of military and so on.

I understand agendas rule now, and we could have it that certain agendas allow you to gain reputation to either group and thus accessing more power. I will like it if it will work like WoWTcg quests, but some become permanents once completed. I really see no reason for some players complete other players agendas if everyone can search for them in the beginning of the turn if you don't have an active one (which is an awesome idea). I see ways people hinder others to complete the agenda. For example, military agenda: destroy 3 fleet cards to increase your Military rating by 1. Another player has an efefct from a certain card which said, pay 4 solariom, destroy this card -> remove all progress from all agendas of all players but yourself and any other players you wish. That effect also causes interaction and real-life intrigue you like so much, Malagar.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 22, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
I got an idea: how about no council and no Galactus.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 23, 2011, 12:06:43 AM
@Ascent

The galactic council already voted against itself!

@Dragoon

I also help with templates once i got the time to do so. But if you want to give it a try, here you go! I thought about different space background for the various card types, the text and number boxes in a very modern style (almost like the computer interfaces in the star trek movies/games). if you want to provide a first scetch as a picture file, we can go from there.

@yudencow

as the others where not excited at all about the GC idea, i think we can trash it right away. and i guess the same is true for your galactus/unicron idea.

but, there is good stuff in your post. i have to think about the sub-attributes for a while, but the agenda stuff you recommend easily fits to what we already have. a good idea to make scored agendas permament and let them emit some kind of effect.

and yes, anti-agenda cards will surely play a role.

@all

about a possible unique feature:

maybe a more abstract approach, that uses a mechanic similar to LOTR twilight pool. There could be a gauge wich measures the balance of power between good and evil. i guess in every game and every fantasy world you can align all races to either good or evil. certain actions would increase/decrease the "good points" in the pool, while others increase/decrease the "bad points".

the pool is used like a shared resource by all players and some cards interact with it or require points
from the pool.

this would satisfy three of the things i initially wanted to see in the game:

1. a unique feature
2. a way to represent psi/overnatural forces - although in a abstract way
3. the galatic council and maybe its evil counterpart - although in a abstract way
4. a mechanic/feature/resource that is shared and influenced by all players

again: theese are just brainstorm bits while i try to get the rulebook basics ready!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 23, 2011, 05:05:49 AM
I think it should ba a gauge per player of 7 levels (holy, lawful, good, neutral, evil, chaotic, demonic) that certain effects can move it, certain effcts require it and certain effect capitalize on being extremely good or evil.

I am conitinuing to support the idea to have an agenda phase:
A. place an agenda card from your hand.
B. if you didn't do A search you deck for an agenda card if you don't have one active.
C. if you did B shuffle your deck.

When an agenda is completed it is activated on the spot, or becomes a permenant on the spot and is no longer active.

Players shouldn't be able to complete other people agendas, but to massively trying to stop them before they completing theirs.

The way to win the game should be simple, and it should be written on the nation card (the same for both war and peace), on top of trying to eliminate other players by killing all of their fleets and pesonalities.

I believe their should be a repeatable agenda from either side of the nation card (peace agenda and war agenda e.g. at peace time we will export you our media and in war time we will take your oil).
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 23, 2011, 08:07:38 AM
mock up of a card frame.

ADDENDUM: @yudencow: NO FRIGGIN' ALIGMENTS!

Okay, now I've calmed down. First, these levels of alignments only make sense in a fantasy based setting, not a space-based one. Second, the idea isn't that bad, it's just poorly worded/executed.

Hey, in fact I already posted something like that but I called it peace/war. :P

Hmm, I dunno about not being able to complete your opponent's agenda's. I think we should test that before saying that.



[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 23, 2011, 12:07:18 PM
@yudencow

well, better no alignments at all - just messes things up too much and adds to much extra book-keeping.

Agenda phase is okay, i already added it to the rulebook. Im just not sure if it is necessary to tutor a agenda automatically from your deck if you have none.

im more for a permanent, repeatable agenda on your nation card

yes, i support agendas being non-public. its not necessary in my eyes. but i could imagine a subtype called public-agendas, and those are attendable by all players.

@Dragoon

Yep, no alignments - but im still searching for something special to add. just a neat little special rule, a mechanic to add to the game to make it more unique. hey, its the galaxy!

well, maybe its better when i give the template a try later on  8)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 23, 2011, 02:36:53 PM
Dragoon, hold your horses, there is a civil way to say things, and you got to wear pants to do it. lol. I understand it's not fitting but it was on the top of my head so I brought it up. Your template is a nice start.

I'm against global agendas, keeping track on the is annoying. I'm for team agendas, other players can assist you complete your agendas, and sometimes they are necessary, but the player who brought it decides who to share the spoils. I'm the king of intrigue, Malagar.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 23, 2011, 09:25:27 PM
@ Malagar

Everything Rises or Falls on leadership. The deck builder is the one who determines the "Goodness" or "Evilness" or a race. It seems redundant to me to have a game mechanic that determines your race's "goodness" or "Evilness" when you already determined that before the game. What if you have a double side nation cards. Tapped is War. Untapped is peace. One side is a good nation. The other side is an "evil" race. Each side would have a special agenda related to it.

I don't think we will need to find an agenda during the agenda phase.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 23, 2011, 11:24:14 PM
I think the split card mechanic shouldn't be over-used.

Making the deck builder the one who determines whether the deck is evil or not is certainly a viable option, but not the only one. SWTCCG, SWTCG and all the other Star Wars card games have been dependent on one side being dark and one light. You can also design specific factions to be predominantly evil or predominantly benevolent in their own ways. In Starcross I will be making whole strategies that are evil and strategies that are not evil within various power bases.

There are many ways to do it, none better than the next, because each is about flavor.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 24, 2011, 12:24:55 AM
This is my first try on a galaxian card template. im not satisfied with it at all - but its a start.

now, happy holidays to you all!

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/galaxian-template.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 24, 2011, 08:39:31 AM
It's a start indeed.

What kind of stats are on the cards?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 24, 2011, 10:40:04 AM
Next iteration of the template is online and i like this one much, much, much better.

I can vary the background images, textures, distances, line thickness and fonts anyway you like. I think the basic layout is quite finished, it fits a "universal space template" quite good in my eyes. by varying color and textures we can adapt this template to other card types without changing too much.

@Dragoon:

Top left is Solaris cost, then (M)ilitary, (D)iplomacy, (I)ntrigue, (S)cience - the second template has also enough space for a fifth attribute.

Please ignore all card text for now. Also note that no card type should feature all stats at the same time, its still undecided if we display stat-boxes with zeroes in them or hide those stat-boxes.

did i miss any stuff on the template we need?

Merry christmas to you all!

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/galaxian-template-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 24, 2011, 10:52:56 AM
How are you making the awesome templates Malagar?
Is it just me or intrigue and diplomact are kind of stepping on the toes of one another, I think only one of them should stay.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 24, 2011, 01:32:14 PM
Intrigue involves scheming to undermine your opponent (Think along the lines of godmoding in forum RPGs. Diplomacy is negotiation with your opponent (Think along the lines of negotiating with someone for furthering the overall plot in a forum RPG). Intrigue is acquiring information and performing assassinations. Diplomacy is negotiating treaties and performing trade.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 24, 2011, 03:44:13 PM
Cool template. Altough I think I've seen it somewhere before.... Gah.. who cares :P

Diplomacy/Intrigue is a bit the same. They have too much overlap at each other.

Also, merry christmas too all!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 24, 2011, 04:44:08 PM
And merry Hanukah from Israel!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on December 24, 2011, 04:52:09 PM
Intrigue and Diplomacy are almost opposites, how is there overlap? Just gotta ask yourself - should a Spy have a high diplomacy stat?

Dragoon - I don't know if you meant to (or have meant to in the past, either), but you sort of come off as passive-aggressive. Are you trying to say that the template looks too common or like his other templates, or that they look like your templates, or what? Just come out and say it!!!!

Happy holidays to everybody!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 24, 2011, 06:26:33 PM
It does look like the Aliens vs. Predator template.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 24, 2011, 06:28:57 PM
In the Deck Building Rules section, it states "A deck may not include more than THREE copies
of a card with the same title." I've noted that, for whatever reason, sometimes designers forget that a card was already given the same name or perhaps choose to have two different cards with the same name. I think you shouldn't cut that off from the designers or the players. So I suggest modifying the rule to simply state: "A deck may not include more than THREE copies
of the same card."

Regarding agendas, I have a feeling that it would be more fun if you make Agendas easier to obtain and therefore would want to increase the number of agendas required to win the game. I've been wanting to play a sci-fi game with this sort of mechanic for a long time. This is a true Mission. I still want to produce a hard core space battle game to utilize this mechanic.

I didn't really think too hard about it before, but I guess spotting is similar to the trickle (limiting) mechanic I was referring to.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 24, 2011, 08:58:18 PM
I second Ascent, you should search you library or play from your hand agendas if you don't have one active already. It could be that completeing each agenda gives you Dominance, and you need a certain amount of dominance to win.

If the cards have subtitles it is okay and even welcomed to have different cards with same name/title.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 25, 2011, 02:11:29 AM
@Template: Yes it is based on the Aliens VS. Predator template you saw elsewhere. Actually its based on my "bubbly boxes" template wich is easy to modify and replicate. who cares? i guess no one, as long as it looks good. feedback appreciated!

@Ascent/Card Copies: Already changed it. Thanks for the monitoring.

@Intrigue/Diplomacy: both of them stay. word.

@Agendas: I liked the initial idea of 2 victory points (VP) being enough to win the game. it really helps building the tension against the player on the road to victory. but - we could increase the number just a little bit to get more freedom in agenda design. this would enable some agendas grant 1 VP, while others grant 2 or even 3 VP.

@Tutoring agendas: i said this before and i repeat the issue only once: im against tutoring agendas automatically. there is no need to add a extra rule to the game, that is not even written on one of the cards. we have enough agendas AND there is a repeating agenda on every nation card. i really dont see the neccessity.

@all: In my point of view the core rules are quite finished, the rulebook is not. there are still points to flesh out here and there but i think we got the "big picture" almost ready. to further explore the rules, maybe it would be an idea trying to design a very first pre-alpha set. whats really missing and whats already at the right place, will only be shown once we have a few cards. has anyone any ideas that go into that direction? thanks!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 25, 2011, 05:01:40 AM
TADA! - okay here we have my first try on a actual Galaxian CCG Trading Card.

Im working on a group of agenda cards. Each card utilizes one of the major game concepts we have so far (military, diplomacy etc.). The first card in this group is geared towards expansion and resource control. In addition to that, im presenting a somewhat tweaked card layout and a experiment with a flip mechanic.

1. The number in the flame icon represents the Victory Points you get for scoring the agenda
2. The number in the brown planet icon represents the Solaris this card is able to provide (once it was flipped).
3. Only the owner of this card can attend this agenda. there will be a special card subtype for public agendas (or global agendas, whatever they will be called).

Please tell me what you think! (also about the adjusted template)

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/agenda1.jpg)(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/agenda1f.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 25, 2011, 07:09:25 AM
FANFARE! - One more for today, this time its a nation (or house) card for the Omicron Combine. And by god i bet you're already drooling all over!

@Ascent: I just have not been able to the put the peace/war states of the nation cards on a single card side. so there will be the war state on the front and the peace state on the back of the card - im sorry, but its not possible otherwise (because i just cant squeeze so much information on one card side). yes i know double sided cards open exploits and cheating, but the nation cards are never part of the deck and begin the game right in play - so its okay i guess.

@all: we slowly grasp how this game is supposed to look and feel - don't we?  8)

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/combine.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 25, 2011, 07:20:31 AM
The template look great! I would only suggest that instead of writing on the card how many progression counters you would need, there should be an icon with a number that represents that amount. That would be nicer looking, plus it would make the agendas easy to compare on the table and in your hand.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 25, 2011, 10:32:12 AM
Looks pretty good. I guess the peace side is blue?

Still against nation, but that comes later :P

Also, we need more icons for the stats. -_- Still torn about diplomacy & intrigue
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 25, 2011, 11:14:41 AM
@r0cknes: Good idea, i try to get it on the template in the next version. I will still keep the numbers in the card text too - ok?

@Dragoon: Glad that you like it, i think it looks cool and spacey. Yeah we can change nation, i also begin to dislike it (alliance, faction, house ... whatever).

yep, peace side will be blue of course (tried green but looks gross)

and yes, we need icons for the stats - but im lacking horribly at icon design and havent found anything in the net yet.

Both D and I will stay. D is a more political, peaceful approach while I is more evil and has to do with murder, sabotage and blackmail. they stay, word.


I have another day off tomorrow, maybe i can get another template ready
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 25, 2011, 03:00:51 PM
I love those two templates! Great job!

I also don't like insta-search agendas.

Why do you need the text of two agendas on the Nation card?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 25, 2011, 03:16:46 PM
A "Collective" doesn't just mean "the Borg". Corporations and people often work together to accomplish a common goal in a "collective", using a horizontal consensus means of self-governance. That's my proposal for the name.

Though "Combine", as depicted in the flavor text, is also decent.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 26, 2011, 03:05:46 AM
@Ascent Combine is just the name for this single faction, nation is the card type. We are thinking about changing the card type name from nation into faction / alliance or whatever.

@all

Im still messing with the nation cards and encountered a few problems, please help:

1. As it turns out - Nation cards will be the "power nexus" of your whole empire. they act like triple-type-cards: Nations are Fleets, Resources and Agendas in one. This prevents a lot of traps and bad-draw issues other ccgs have:

* you can use your nation like a fleet, providing minimum protection even if you have no other fleets
* you always have a agenda to fulfill, even without agenda cards
* you can always generate solaris income, even without other resource cards

i really like it, but my fear is that it may become clumsy and tacked-on if we do not solve the following issues:

2. Nation cards can be tapped to produce their solaris income (the planet icon/number on the top left) or participate in attribute conflicts. Being horziontal cards, tapping them looks stupid - do you think this does matter at all?

3. We now have split cards (like the agenda i posted earlier) and double sided cards (like the nations). card text currently just says "flip" - but we should change it into "flip" (for turning the card face-up/face-down) and "switch" (for rotating the card 180 degrees). just a minor issue but i think is makes things clearer?

4. This War/Peace thing freaks me out: I want a nation card that flips to change its state NOT being able to produce income this turn. So it also has to be tapped according to the rules. This means every time you flip a nation card, you also have to tap it - wich altogether is weird and clumsy (see Nr. 2). any ideas?

5. When you flip your nation card, you loose all progression counters on it - wich cancels your current agenda progress. i think thats good, it prevents players from flipping all the time. also: on the war side of your card is usually none or very low solaris income. this means players will shift between war and peace, depending if they want to play aggressive or build their nation.

6. the agendas change when you flip your nation card, wich is a good thing. you loose all progression counters so it does not matter at all. also, i have no problem with changing abilities in the card text. but changing the attributes also throws up more questions: are changing attribute ratings really necessary? as you cannot attack while in peace state, the military attribute should not matter at all. on the other hand, re-distributing the attributes could put the focus elsewhere will at war or peaceful.

7. When you are in peace mode - you cannot attack, as simple as that. When you are at war - you can attack anyone. Easy and good. BUT - what about attacking opponents who are in peace mode? there has to be a penalty.

8. So, here is the updated nation card for the omicron combine - this time in peace mode. please compare it to the war version. The attribute totals alway sum up to 8 (fictive number for now), its just their distribution thats different. Other changes:

* Added hard shadows to numbers and re-centered a few of the boxes
* Added small sun icons to the VP score on the top right. theese icons indicate how many progression counters you have to place on the card to score the VP of the built-in agenda.
* re-toned the color of the solaris income (top left) to grey as the brownish tone clashed with some of the other card type backgrounds.
* Distributed the attributes evenly over the left side of the card, added a placeholder attribute labeled "C" because i feel the necessity of adding a fifth attribute to balance things out more.
* Ingore the flavor text for now, also this card side still features not real special ability.

phew, there goes my day-off: please contribute lots of feedback!

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/combines.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: yudencow on December 26, 2011, 03:42:04 AM
Ithink it should act only as agenda and you basic abilities. Like it isn't in the rulebook draw 1 cardm, there should be add 2 solaries, or t will be written on the card but it will happen in the beginning of the turn automatically rather than tapping it. It shouldn't be a fleet card. If you want you could do that in a state of war the nation card may inflict damage or bad effects to the enemy carss in the beginninig of your turn.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 26, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Looks pretty good.

I suggest faction instead of nation.

Also, when you are attacked, you can still defend while not being at war. Just as you are *should* be capable of self-defence. Also, war factions should get a penalty for attacking peaceful factions. As a last note, if you are attacked, and you are peaceful, you MAY chance to war for no penalty (except progression lose, but no income penalty, etc.)

Switch/flip is okay. (I'm just against split cards. In my humble opinion a agenda should have something like "When achieved, claim it as a resource. Resource: Tap to generate 1 solaris. When another resource you control leaves play, lose THIS." Just my hate against split cards. Don't let my opinion hinder your design.)

Tapping is a bit stupid, I agree.

What we could do, is every time you activate a card, you have to add a limit token to it. You cannot give it more tokens than it's limit number. (Activating a faction could give you a fleet option or 1(?) solaris or some other ability You'll have to choose.)

Addendum: Also, I want a Dalek-like faction EXTERMINATE!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 26, 2011, 06:55:04 PM
"Faction card" is fine.

1. I also like it acting as all 3: a fleet, agenda and resource. Having fleets working together with faction cards would be fun and they could be used to interact in new and interesting ways.

2. I've said all along, I don't like tapping for these mechanics. Tokens might work, but it sounds to me like a simple declaration is fine. If the effect is continuous or has any durative portion, it's not difficult to track as long as it's on the board. In other games, you  usually have to reduce a resource to activate something and no token is ever placed (at least not coded in the rules).

3. I like switch/flip, not for the reasons you stated, but that if each is considered its own mechanic, you can use them separately or together (by saying "switch or flip").

4. I agree. It shouldn't earn while on the war side.

5. I agree, you should lose progress to flip.

6. War mechanics on one side, peace mechanics on the other. I think you're on the right track.

7. Maybe there could be a rule that a fleet can only attack while your card is in War mode. If attacked, it can allow the opponent a free flip, as long as you flip it to war mode. I like Dragoon's no penalty for defending yourself in war. This allows some advantage on the home team.

8. The updated card looks good. But I like the softer shadows.


I'll take a gruesome-looking, but at the same time beautiful, inhuman benevolent insectoid race. :)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 27, 2011, 05:04:32 AM
I think it should be possible to switch from peace to war easily, but it should take a (expensive) diplomacy/intrigue card to turn back to peace.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 27, 2011, 07:15:44 AM
The expense to switch back to peace could be printed on the card itself. I feel that the losing of agenda progress and some other advantages switching back and forth would keep people from doing it all the time anyway.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 27, 2011, 11:11:38 AM
I'm not sure we want to "keep them from flipping all the time". We simply want them to have to pay for starting a war and for achieving peace. Both should have significant advantage, but both should cost, but in a balanced way that allows freedom of play.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 27, 2011, 11:33:41 AM
I'd like to take the time to point out the success of this project so far and to say "I told you so" ;). When everyone understands who the decision maker is and no one is expecting horizontal consensus, everyone cooperates easily and lends well to the project without a bunch of bickering. If this were a 100% community project with no final decision maker, the bickering could have been endless as everyone vies and politics for their mechanic to be adopted by the group. But with a decision maker, we only seek to convince the decision maker and aren't expecting that the person will adopt our ideas. It works every time. :)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 27, 2011, 11:52:19 AM
Thank you for the feedback so far (especially Ascent and his encouraging speech), i read all replies and being the "decision maker" - here is the result (most has already been said):

1. The nation cards will be renamed to FACTION cards
2. faction cards will fulfill three roles: agendas, resources and fleet. please note that they cannot attack on their own, but only help in a defense (faction cards are considered to be a factions home planet, so we can assume they also maintain some kind of defensive fleet there).
3. we now have both a SWITCH and a FLIP mechanic.

the flip costs for faction cards end up something like this:

* Factions will loose almost all ability to generate solaris income while at war (war-disadvantage).
* Progress on agendas will be lost when flipping the faction card (war-disadvantage).
* attacks are only able when you are in war mode (war-advantage).
* you loose all progress when flipping back into peace mode (peace-disadvantage).
* in peace mode your fleets can only defend (peace-disadvantage)
* you can only generate solaris while in peace mode (peace-advantage).

im also evaluating theese ideas:

A. when you attack a peaceful enemy, he is allowed to freely flip into war mode.
B. once in war, you can only flip back via special cards OR by fulfilling your war-mode agenda (!)
C. to reduce tapping, i think about a Income phase during the turn. all players gain income equal to the ratings on their cards (they look at the faction card and all resource cards that are active and add the solaris income together). factions at war do not generate income. this would remove tapping at least from the resource generation part of the game (only problem is that they can activate special abilities in the same turn they generated solaris income). i think we still need tapping for fleets and other cards.
D. there will be cards that can only be played in WAR or PEACE mode.

more later, im still at work
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 27, 2011, 12:44:11 PM
Instead of "losing progress". How about you simply can't achieve the agenda while the Faction card is flipped on the other side? Because it seems to me that losing all progress is counter to performing such an action. At least keep it as an option to be explored, as we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner. It seems to me we should want the flip mechanic to be used multiple times per game, not just once or maybe never.

Effects can cause a fleet to tap. My only problem with tapping was hard coding it into the mechanics. It's fine for use with an ability. Perhaps you can't switch a Fleet while it's tapped along with not being able to perform an attack. Tapped means that its current mode is to the right while horizontal.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 27, 2011, 02:34:10 PM
@Ascent: Again thank you, your advice keeps to be very helpful while trying to get this "thing" somewhere.

But, i just had a horrible vision: Imagine a match of magic:the gathering where you can attack or play land cards and tap them for mana only every second turn or a few times during the game. would this be interesting? no - it would be horrible.

so, we have to do everything to prevent this concept going that road. there has to be a real benefit to go to war, as well as it has to be rewarding going the peace route. and players must be encouraged to focus on one - or switch multiple times during a game - depending on their play-style/deck.

EDIT: the word "horrible" was a bit extreme. but i just want to go sure we use the war/peace mechanic for good, as it could also turn out to slow the game down.

there is one good thing though: remember that i wanted a really unique feature for the game? well, there is no need for that anymore. we already have it - the war/peace switch mechanic is unique enough i guess. especially if we attach card-cycles, rules and themes to it in the future.

if done right, there could be lots of potential for both: deck building and expanding the game.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 28, 2011, 02:05:42 AM
Your wording seemed a little ambiguous to me. So just to make sure, you do understand that I was talking about making the flip mechanic more usable and allowing it to be used more frequently?

Perhaps the War side doesn't need an agenda. Perhaps what it needs is something to help your fleet succeed in war. This way, it encourages players to seek to end wars quickly and get back to resolving their peace time agendas. So the War side would not accomplish an agenda on its own, but it may be needed to get around to resolving the Peace side's agenda.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 28, 2011, 02:41:20 AM
@Ascent Yeah, it was written in a hurry - and english is not my mother language so its sometimes difficult to exactly express what i mean.

but, you got me "back on the track". the point is:

Rather then forbidding the player to perform certain actions while at war/peace, this mechanic should encourage/discourage the player to these actions, depending in what mode it is.

so war mode should make attacking easier while peace should make it harder - but not impossible.

i see the whole mechanic as a track switch, instead of stopping the train completely, it just redirects it to another track.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 28, 2011, 01:40:22 PM
Update: Event cards now come in three different flavors. Black events are neutral and can be played during any state. War/Peace Events can only be played when you or your target (this depends on the event card text) is in the corresponding state.

Thats all for today, more later!

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/event.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 28, 2011, 02:09:01 PM
I don't think that card fits the theme of the game!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Just joking. The templates look awesome. I am drooling over the chance to play this game eventually.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 28, 2011, 04:30:16 PM
There's a matter of process I'd like to broach in regard to set development.

During set expansion development, I recommend, at first, the group should remain as it is now, with Malagar taking the lead, for about the first 3 sets, until everyone gets used to designing for the game. After that, open the floor up to let others take the lead. At the end of each set, if there's a candidate for taking the lead, they can toss their hat in the ring and the others can vote or the previous lead can abdicate to the new person. From the fourth set on, I recommend the following.

The SWTCG Independent Development Committee (IDC) has developed a process in which one person  comes up with the idea for a set (it doesn't have to be the group's lead), the group's lead takes the temperature of the group and makes the decision, or perhaps even asking for a vote, and then the person who proposed the set does most of the design work and acts as the project lead (separate from the group lead), or as much as they feel like accomplishing, We have lots of fun with this and it has provided some pretty decent ideas.

The project lead (the person who came up with the idea for the expansion), as the name implies, takes the lead in the set's development and the others try to respect his vision as much as possible and try not to change his card designs around unless necessary. The group lead, on the other hand, has the final say on what goes in. However, If a person's idea is turning out to be a disaster, the group lead may suggest a complete redesign if he has no confidence in the set, but the group has to agree to the redesign, otherwise the set goes forward as designed. Then, if they agree to redesign, everyone steps in and redesigns, from scratch if necessary, until the set works. Because, frankly, not everyone is a good card designer and not everyone is a good expansion planner.

That said, expansion design requires these things:

- An expansion theme (WOTC works in blocks, with one person acting as both group lead and project lead, who comes up with a "block" of expansions for the entire year based upon their plan.)
- A story for the expansion that is related within the flavor text. (A definitive story does not need to be written if the story is well explained in the flavor text.
- Various strategies unique to each faction included in the expansion that are reactive to each other to provide a cohesive impression.
- New mechanics introduced in the expansion. This may be a new keyword, card type, faction, game rule or other gimmick.

Everyone in the design group should read up on card design theory in the many articles available online, especially from WOTC.

SWTCG IDC does closed design, meaning we invite people into the group to be designers, graphic design, rules people and so on. But since this game doesn't have any popular base to start from, it will probably have to be purely open design from conception to retirement. If, by any strange fortune, the game becomes so popular as to have too many cooks in the kitchen, then it will need to become closed development with invitation only.

Doing things this way has kept things very loose and moving fast. There is some bottleneck that can't be avoided in graphic design, but if everyone is working together with minimal contention, the set can get finished quickly.

Encouraging people to create dream cards is a good way to train designers in the game's community and maintain interest. You will need a forum for it as well. You might ask Trevor if he's willing to create a section on these boards specifically for this game. Perhaps there would be a whole Card Game Development section in which each game's group gets their own forum. That way, it maximizes participation in the design of each game. (I don't need one for mine, I don't think anyone's interested.)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 29, 2011, 01:30:36 AM
@Ascent very insightful, i cannot add much because im usually working on projects all alone - but the set design process you explain sounds good and reasonable.

different story, but: i would also add a point value to all mechanics, common special abilities and attributes. this way its easier to calculate the cost of a card (roughly). i did that with previous game concepts and kept a table with ability names and a so called "design point cost". once your card is finished, you add up all the design points you spent on it and translate that number into a real card cost. But: Of course you then have to take the card text (wich is most often unique) into consideration.

About the forum: That would be a good idea, i thought about putting a forum on my site but i wonder if anyone is willing to move (tried something like that years ago and it was failure). maybe its better to have a forum section here, where we all feel at home.

Also, with the things Ascent is saying i had the idea of creating a "CCG Design Manifesto", something like a thought-cache where we can put all ideas and stuff into. Maybe, if i ever have the time i could create such a section on my site and add the most intriguing thoughts we posted here (if you allow).
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 29, 2011, 05:44:19 AM
Fine by me. I'm more interested in spreading knowledge than hording it to myself.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 29, 2011, 06:05:19 AM
I forgot to mention that I've been wanting to design a game where the card's story is expressed in the wording of the effect, rather than in flavor text. Kind of like a Monopoly card, but perhaps a little more integrated.

Example: A card says, "Your opponent's suppression of sapient rights leads you to perform an embargo on carbonized cosmium, so that your opponent can't draw during their next draw step."

If you don't like that idea, let me know. I'll just use it on the other game.

Which reminds me of the 4 basic rules of a card game that should be hard coded in the rules:

1. Owner over controller. If a card would go to a controller's hand, discard pile or deck, it goes to the corresponding zone of its owner instead.
2. Card over rules. If a card contradicts the rules, the rule is ignored, except where it violates rule 1.
3. Can't over can. If one card or rule says you can (or "may") and another says you can't, the "can" or "may" is ignored, except where it violates rule 2.
4. First player first. The player who starts play first, goes first in all things, except where it violates rules 2 or 3.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 30, 2011, 11:49:56 PM
@Ascent The wording idea sounds interesting, but maybe not for this project. But maybe the name, picture and flavor text of a card can be chosen carefully to really suit the rules on a card (like they managed to do a few times in magic the gatherin).

Nothing new, we have too much work at the company right now. Expect an update in a couple of days.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 31, 2011, 05:47:49 AM
I tried that wording idea once on a card game. It doesn't fit for long effects and most people found it very annoying to read all it. A better idea would be "Embargo - Your opponent can't draw during their next draw step." Still captures the flavor, but doesn't interfere as much with the wording.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 31, 2011, 06:37:36 AM
@Dragoon Yes, keywording effects with atmospheric ability names and such is a very good idea. They did it a lot in the "Dreamblade" collectible miniatures game and I use it in my games as often as i can (haven't thought about it for the Galaxian CCG project tough).
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 31, 2011, 07:40:36 AM
What if it is still done as flavor text, per normal, but put the flavor text at the top of the text box, instead of the bottom? So the text is still distinguished, you just have to look below the flavor text, Like this:

Quote
Your opponent's suppression of sapient rights leads you to perform an embargo on carbonized cosmium.

Your opponent can't draw during their next draw step.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 31, 2011, 10:26:44 AM
Some news, i think i am a step further with the resource system for this game. this is how i thought it could work:

@Resource Cards
RESOURCE cards in the Galaxian CCG span everything from planets to space-stations, outposts and other urban areas or points of resource generation. during your income phase, resources provide you with SOLARIS the INCOME of the game. this does not require a resource to be tapped, you just get the income once per turn, at the beginning of your turn. But Resources also feature one or more ATTRIBUTE ratings. usually, the resource cards cannot make use of their attribute ratings (but there are exceptions). the main reason for theese attribute ratings is that they function as PLAY COSTS to bring the resource card into play.

@Fleet Cards
Fleet also feature ATTRIBUTE ratings, most fleets can use their MILITARY rating while its FACTION is AT WAR to attack an opponent. But fleets can also EXPLORE while their faction is in PEACE mode. Exploring allows a player to bring new resource cards into play. In order to do this, he has to declare an explore maneuver during his main phase and then tap enough fleet cards to provide an attribute total to overcome the attribute rating of the resource card he wishes to play. Please note that a player can choose wich attribute of a resource card he wants to overcome, beating just one of the printed attribute ratings is enough. this allows a bit more variety and strategy when selecting and playing resource cards.


Example 1:
A player has a fleet with military 3 in play and wants to play the resource "Proxima 3" wich features a military rating of 2. he taps his fleet and as it provides enough military, he is allowed to bring the resource card into play.

Example 2:
Player fleet with military 1 and science 6. he wants to play "Mars" wich features military 5 but no other attributes. the player is not allowed to tap the fleet in order to bring mars into play. altough his fleet provides lot of science, it has not enough military strength to overcome the mars military rating of 5.

Example 3:
A player has two fleets with military 1 and science 2 each. he wants to play "Venus" with features military 4 and science 3. he taps both fleets and decides to overcome "Venus" science rating. The science total of both of his fleet cards is 4, the science rating of Venus is just 2 - so he may bring venus into play.

@War-Machine
This is a special ability found on fleet cards. it actually represents a drawback, as fleets with the "War-Machine" ability are not allowed to participate in EXPLORE maneuver.

@Explorer
Another special ability, this time found on CHARACTER cards. usually, groups of people and individuals cannot participate in EXPLORE maneuvers. but cards with the "Explorer" ability may be tapped during such a maneuver to add any of their attributtes to the total.

any thoughts?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on December 31, 2011, 01:52:58 PM
Good idea's. Maybe we should have characters that can pilot fleets, increasing their attributes.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on December 31, 2011, 02:25:57 PM
Just so I get this straight. Resource cards require "payment" through fleet attributes, while all other cards only require solaris. Right?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on December 31, 2011, 03:16:45 PM
@r0cknes: Exactly. So there are actually two interweaved resource systems. i hope this does not make the game unneccssary complex, but there has to be a limit to both: bringing resources into play AND playing other cards.

plus: i dont expect this game to be easy, or mainstream - as it develops this will be more like a full blown "twilight imperium" in CCG form, with  bit of "Throne World" and "Cosmic Encounter" mixed into it.

PS: i started working on the first few cards, just some basics to begin with, but they will be cool ;-)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on December 31, 2011, 09:45:02 PM
Should they "Pilot" or should they "Crew" the Fleets?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on January 01, 2012, 05:42:17 AM
Crew would be better. Then engeneers may help in the fleet :P
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 01, 2012, 06:00:19 AM
Happy new year!

2012 brings more Changes:

1. CONSTRUCTION
cards with this keyword can be brought into play face down, you have to pay only a part of its cost. put counters on it equal to the costs you already paid. during each turn you may continue to pay the cost of this card, once there are counters equal to the cards cost on it - you may turn the card face up and it is considered to be in play.

2. VICTORY POINTS
i decided to increase the number of victory points needed to win the game. its currently 10 but this has to be decided during intensive play testing. 2 or 3 VPs are just not enough to provide design space for longer games and more complex cards/card interactions.

3. CARD TYPES
cards that feature a attribute rating are considered to be of that card type, in addition to all other card types. this allows to shorten card text and target cards that feature one or more attribute ratings. Wording definition:
* A card with  a military rating is considered to be a military type card.
* A card with a science rating is considered to be a science type card.
* etc.
Wording example:
* Destroy target military card (means: destroy target card with a military attribute rating on it).
* etc.

4. CONFLICTS
whenever players compare attribute ratings (like miliitary or science) this procedure is called a conflict. conflicts can also be target of effects. wording example:
* Target a military conflict
* When you participate in a intrigue conflict
* When you loose a diplomatic conflict
* etc.

5. RESOURCE CONFLICTS
as explained earlier, a player has to beat a resource cards attribute in order to bring that resource into play. this equals a conflict, because you compare attribute ratings - this whole procedure is called a RESOURCE CONFLICT. resource conflicts can be target of effects. wording example:
* When you win a resource conflict
* Target a resource conflict
* etc.

thats all for today. cards are in progress, stay tuned!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on January 01, 2012, 06:29:27 AM
Where does the resource card go if you fail the resource conflict. Does it go back to your hand or to the discard pile. This is how I envision this taking place.

1. Player declares a resource card to explore, by placing it face up on the table.
2. That player then taps cards to explore it.
3. Other players have a chance to counter that exploration through effect cards. These can be peace or war cards.
4. If the result is a failed exploration then the resource card is discarded.

If it goes back to the players hand then it is almost pointless to counter it. I don't think that it should happen often, but it is a nice touch to the game i think.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 01, 2012, 07:22:53 AM
@r0cknes: Yes, this is how i thought it should work.

I am creating a space on cardgameforge.com for our project, i also recommend to really check out that site because it offers a lot of tools for ccg game creators.

the project on www.cardgameforge.com is set to private, because there are so many spammers on the site. if you want to participate you have to register and tell me your user name and i add you to the group of people allowed to access the project.

i will publish all cards on that site, because it provides a free and easy, searchable and commentable card database. its a perfect tool for ccg designers.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 01, 2012, 10:26:48 AM
It's set to private. Are you sure you want to limit your pool of helpers?

Not to be negative, but that site looks like a graveyard for failed CCG projects.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 01, 2012, 10:58:44 AM
@Ascent: yes you are right, that was a stupid idea. i will remove the protection when there is something to see.

@All:

i encountered a design problem, but dont know if its severe. its about how and when certain conflicts are played.

right now players can initiate both Military and Resource conflicts easiliy (by attacking or by bringing resources into play)

but all the other conflicts (like diplomacy, intrigue, science etc.) can currently only be accessed when a player uses cards to produce theese conflicts.

this means that military and resource conflicts are much easier to access and therefore are more common and appear more often than the other conflict types. this sets back the other conflict types. if a deck misses cards to initiate e.g. a science conflict, there is the chance that there wont be any science conflicts during the whole match.

a solution would be, to allow players to initiate the others conflicts without having to rely on special cards alone. but - this would increase the amount of base rules the players have to learn and remember.

example: similar to attacking, players can also tap cards with the "Diplomacy" attribute to initiate a Diplomacy conflict during a players main phase. this is only possible while peaceful. if you win the conflict, you may draw a card (or whatever).

then we need mechanics for the other attribute types as well (intrigue, science etc.). i guess this would "bloat" the core rules a lot.

is there another idea to make conflicts more common? your ideas?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 01, 2012, 11:23:35 AM
Producing a standardized mechanic for them all would be the way to keep the rules down. Otherwise, I have no ideas at this time.

As for cardgameforge.com, I say use it as a staging area, and if anyone drops by there, go ahead and incorporate any ideas they have that you like and perhaps direct them here to help out. Nothing wrong with expanding the base.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 01, 2012, 02:02:12 PM
@Ascent: I only have a half-solution for the Conflict problem, wich i will explain later. Thank you for the feedback.

@All:

Okay, im publishing the first 20 cards here now in textform and later on cardgameforge as templated images.

please dont think i want to work on the project alone all the time, but with exception of Ascent and ro0cknes - who both provide valueable input - this thing is almost completely propelled by myself. so i decided to design theese cards in my fashion, without the agreement of a comitee (or whatever). I have really mixed feelings about the card-text design so far, your feedback would be most valueable because i dont know if this is the road we want to take. a few facts:

* The 20 cards are all agendas, as theese are independent from factions and are required in decks of any type.
* all cards where designed to be aligned to conflicts
* cards where designed in circles with repeating mechanics
* as gaining VP for scoring an agenda is unrewarding, i decided to add additional effects to them (like cantrips in M:TG)
* the CLASS line is just a internal design note and wont appear o the card
* VP = Victory Points
* Exert = Tap

GALAXIAN CCG - PREMIER SET AGENDA CARDS 1 TO 20
========================================================

"PRICE OF PROVOCATION"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Military Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a military conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored you may flip your faction to war.

"TRAMPLE DOWN THE WEAK"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Military Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a military conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored you may damage target fleet once.

"ON THE ROAD TO VICTORY"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Military Agenda, Buff
VP: 2
CARD-TEXT: When you win a military conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
two progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Exert to support target military conflict you participate in by +1, if you loose the
conflict switch this card.

"A CALL TO ARMS"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Military Agenda, Tutor
VP: 3
CARD-TEXT: When you win a military conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
three progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Discard this card: Search your deck for a fleet card, show it to all players and put it
into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

"FIRE WITH FIRE"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Military Agenda, Major Effect
VP: 4
CARD-TEXT: When you win a military conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
four progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Switch to destroy target military card.

"EAGER TO SUCCEED"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Science Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a science conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored you may add a construction counter to target card.

"FLASH OF WIT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Science Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a science conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored you may draw a card.

"SCIENCE NEVER SLEEPS"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Science Agenda, Buff
VP: 2
CARD-TEXT: When you win a science conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
two progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Exert to support target science conflict you participate in by +1, if you loose the
conflict switch this card.

"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Science Agenda, Tutor
VP: 3
CARD-TEXT: When you win a science conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
three progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Discard this card: Search your deck for a enhancement card, show it to all players and
put it into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

"SCIENTIFIC AIM"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Science Agenda, Major Effect
VP: 4
CARD-TEXT: When you win a science conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
four progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Switch to add one progression counter to target agenda.

"WORDS ARE A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Diplomatic Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a diplomatic conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored you may flip your faction to peaceful.

"SETTING THE COURSE"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Diplomatic Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a diplomatic conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored, look at the top card of your deck - you may put it at the top or bottom of your deck.

"STRENGTH IN UNITY"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Diplomatic Agenda, Buff
VP: 2
CARD-TEXT: When you win a diplomacy conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
two progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Exert to support target diplomacy conflict you participate in by +1, if you loose the
conflict switch this card.

"GATHERING FRIENDS"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Diplomatic Agenda, Tutor
VP: 3
CARD-TEXT: When you win a diplomacy conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
three progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Discard this card: Search your deck for a personality card, show it to all players and
put it into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

"SEALING THE FUTURE"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Diplomatic Agenda, Major Effect
VP: 4
CARD-TEXT: When you win a diplomacy conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
four progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Switch to look at the top five cards of your deck and put them back in any order.

"SABOTAGE ACT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Intrigue Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a intrigue conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored, remove a construction counter from target card.

"BENEFIT THROUGH CONFUSION"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Intrigue Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a intrigue conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored, target opponent discards a card at random from his hand.

"CRACKING HEADS"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Intrigue Agenda, Buff
VP: 2
CARD-TEXT: When you win a intrigue conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
two progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Exert to support target intrigue conflict you participate in by +1, if you loose the
conflict switch this card.

"ONE EVIL NEVER COMES ALONE"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Intrigue Agenda, Tutor
VP: 3
CARD-TEXT: When you win a intrigue conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
three progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Discard this card: Search your deck for a event card, show it to all players and
put it into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

"FAILING EXPECTATIONS"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Intrigue Agenda, Major Effect
VP: 4
CARD-TEXT: When you win a intrigue conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
four progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Switch to remove one progression counter from target agenda.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on January 01, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
Card Text ideas. It seems you are going the route of VP for an agenda and the amount of progress tokens are equal. I think that is completely fine. However, I don't think you need to put the amount of tokens needed in the text if it is always going to be equal to the VP anyway.

I also like how some agendas have constant effects, some have one time effects, and some agendas may be accomplished more than once per game. I think that variability is very good.

I do see the conflict problem. I will think about it, but I am looking forward to what your idea is.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 01, 2012, 06:25:29 PM
Okay, I think I missed the definition of "score". What does it mean? I guess it just means to complete the Agenda? No special action?

We might have to work on some terms that are less ambiguous. Either way, we'll need a glossary.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on January 01, 2012, 06:36:37 PM
I think it just means that you earn the vp associated with the agenda and increase your vp total accordingly.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 02, 2012, 01:02:39 AM
@VP: No, the VP and progress tokens are not tied. we have to test this first. there could be cards that require much more or less tokens gain VP.

@Agenda Effects: Yes, i tried to make them as interesting as possible, i have another 12 agenda cards in preperation. that 32 in total wich should be enough to allow interesting deck building and different tactics.

@Score: Means to "finish" or "complete" a agenda. No other special actions required, it triggers once the last progression counter is put on the agenda. Scoring also includes removing all progress counters from the card again. The name of the term can be changed later of course.

more later, thank you for your feedback!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 02, 2012, 03:00:38 AM
More intuitive words instead of "score" might be "reset" or "clear".
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on January 02, 2012, 05:21:15 AM
I think score is good.

About conflicts. Maybe it's an idea to have each type of conflict giving it's own reward.

Military - damages fleet
Science - draws cards.
Intrigue - Mills decks
etc.

I think score is fine.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 02, 2012, 03:12:50 PM
I also think score is fine, its from the netrunner CCG because they also use the word "score" in combination with "agenda" cards. this is where the similarities to that game end ;-)

@Dragoon: Yes, all attribute types have a "style" and are therefore centered around specific mechanics. military is combat orientated etc. intrigue is discard, removing progression counters from agendas and other obstacles. the same is true for the other attribute types.

the only exception are the tutor agendas, wich allow you to search your deck for a specific card type. and the +1 agendas, wich allow you to support conflicts of the same attribute. both agendas act as universal tools once they are completed.

so, i thought about the cards before posting them here :-)

But, we need another term for removing cards from play. its currently called discard, wich is misunderstood too easy. maybe trash or scrap or whatever.

4 new agenda cards added:

"NO NAME YET"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Resource Agenda, Cantrip
VP: 1
CARD-TEXT: When you win a resource conflict, score and discard this agenda. When this agenda is
scored, add x solaris to your pool. Where x is the income of the conflict target.

"NO NAME YET"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Resource Agenda, Buff
VP: 2
CARD-TEXT: When you win a resource conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
two progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Exert to support either side of target resource conflict by +1. if the side you support
looses the conflict switch this card.

"NO NAME YET"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Resource Agenda, Tutor
VP: 3
CARD-TEXT: When you win a resource conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
three progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Discard this card: Search your deck for a resource card, show it to all players and put
it into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

"NO NAME YET"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Resource Agenda, Major Effect
VP: 4
CARD-TEXT: When you win a resource conflict, put a progression counter on this card. When there are
four progression counters on it, score this agenda and switch this card.
SWITCH-TEXT: Switch to put target resource card on top of its owners deck.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Dragoon on January 02, 2012, 03:22:03 PM
What's wrong with the good old destroy?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 02, 2012, 03:45:29 PM
@Dragoon: Sounds okay. What i like so much about "score" is the shortness of the word. So maybe something like "blast" would fit. "blast target card..." - hmm, well...

Last post for today:

This is how i would like to solve the conflict problem (at least to some degree): just by introducing a new card type called "Conflict" card that provocates a conflict using one of the attributes. I admit this idea is stolen from the old babylon 5 ccg, but i dont care as our game is already unique enough. card example to show the new possibilities opening up:

"ERUDITE IMBROGLIO"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS: Science Conflict
COST: 2
CARD-TEXT: Initiate a science conflict. The player who wins this conflict may draw x cards, where x is the amount his conflict total exceeds the second highest total of participants (up to a maximum of 3 cards).

so if i tap a card that provides science 5 and you tap a card that just provides science 3, i may draw 2 cards as a result of this conflict.

conflicts could affect: all participants, some participants, the winner, the looser, all non-participants etc. this card type has a lot to offer

just dont know if a resource cost is really required for this card type.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 02, 2012, 04:35:16 PM
I also think score is fine, its from the netrunner CCG because they also use the word "score" in combination with "agenda" cards. this is where the similarities to that game end ;-)
The most important mechanic in the game is just like Netrunner, so we adopt the same nominclature to highlight that fact?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 03, 2012, 02:39:03 AM
@Ascent: Well my idea wasn't very creative - but your comment wasn't very constructive either.

So, im trying to get stuff done actually. redoing the templates a little bit to make the spotting mechanic easier. But im not quite there yet.

Attribute types under the cost of a card to show the spotting requirement:

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/spotting1.jpg)

Attribute type/types inside a cards textbox as a watermark to show the attribute type of this card:

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/spotting2.jpg)

this way its easy to spot the right cards just by looking at the symbols, without the need to read a single line of text. we could later exchange the icons with fancy symbols (alien language / ornaments / whatever)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 03, 2012, 09:21:30 AM
@Ascent: Well my idea wasn't very creative - but your comment wasn't very constructive either.
Offering alternatives was constructive. 'Nuff said.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on January 03, 2012, 11:01:18 AM
I think the symbols should be a bit more related to the thing they represent, but I like the mechanic and having the symbol be a watermark is a pretty good space-saving technique. Can't way to try this thing out!!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on January 03, 2012, 12:29:46 PM
Given the Spotting mechanic will play a large role in this game, I do like how different the shapes are from each other. I am in agreement with Cyrus that the symbols should relate to what they represent, but how do we do that?

If we go with an "alien" language what language would it be? There are so many races that will be in the game. Frankly, although it makes sense in the television world, races from different planets should speak different languages. I would not hate the game for this, but it would not be something I would like. I purpose that you use those shapes, but put related icons inside of them.

Military: A sword or another weapon (RED)
Science: A Beaker (Blue)
Intrigue: A book or file folder (Grey)
Diplomacy: Peace Symbol (Yellow)

Colors would help distinguish from the others even more. I suggest not using green and blue as color blind people most often have trouble with those colors the most.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 03, 2012, 01:36:00 PM
@Cyrus @r0cknes : Thanks for the feedback!

@Regarding the icons: yes we should iconify them using very simple icons. the alien language was just a sudden idea, but maybe we can make the icons look more "alien"?

The color coding is a idea - but there would be problems placing the watermark in the background of the textbox. i like to keep the watermark in grey, so maybe all icons would be grey also. in addition - the cards are very colorful because the card type is also color coded, maybe this would be too much altogether? dont know... i thought about theese icons:

Military: Rocket
Science: Gearhweel
Intrigue: Eye
Diplomacy: Hand

@Why Spotting at all?

Playing a card that features three "Intrigue" Spot icons requires you to have three intrigue watermarked cards in play. This means that in an all Military deck, you just cannot begin playing strong cards from the other attributes types. Translating this into Magic: The gathering this would mean playing counterspell (blue) in an all red deck because the resource system treats all cards as colorless.

Therefore the spotting mechanic is required to branch the cards into different paths wich lead to victory. in order to use cards of all attributes, a player has to provide the right resource and consider this point in deckbuilding also.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 05, 2012, 02:23:22 PM
Small update. Been working on some icons...

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/icons.jpg)
(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/science_icon.jpg)
(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/military-icon.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 05, 2012, 03:48:40 PM
As a point of information, Mark Rosewater, the head of M:tG card design at WOTC, regrets ever having made the colorless mechanic.

On that point, just because you make the mini-icons have a color and a raised, beveled edge, doesn't mean the watermark also has to have it. You can have a gray watermark, but the symbols can be colored and beveled in the number slot.

Also, I like the gear and the alien fan, but for the Von Neumann gear, I think you might make it a little more simplified. I love the idea, it just needs to look less static. Making the inner parts of it look larger and more visible, maybe even designed based on a real Von Neumann gear, it wouldn't fade out in the number slot or look so cluttered as a watermark.

The eye you could make have fewer radiating points. I think it would look good with three radiating points on top and 3 on bottom, grouped a little toward the center, with the center point a little longer.

Great work, by the way.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on January 05, 2012, 07:57:38 PM
I like them. I am still for colored icons. I can see your point on making the card busy, but they don't have to be ugly colors. You are doing the work so I can't complain too much. :P I am also thankful that you are at least considering the advice we give. Most would probably get a big head about it.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 06, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
Actually i appreciate your feedback at least until you start bugging me ;-)

Next version will be colored

@Ascent: yeah the details on the icons is sometimes still too fiddly. if you zoom out, you cannot really see the detail anymore. i will make the icons a bit simpler and more clear. the idea with the eye is good (three spikes, middle one longer).

BTW: if you have not realised yet, the icons are (top to bottom on the first picture):

Military, Science, Intrigue, Diplomacy

EDIT: Added a quick redo of the intrigue icon, satisfied? if yes i would continue in that manner and rework the other icons as well.

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/intrigue.jpg)
Intrigue - an eye within an eye
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 06, 2012, 03:40:39 AM
That's perfect. It does indeed look more alien now. It also has more of the "all-seeing eye" feel to it. Though, since the other spikes were removed, the eye line looks a bit thin. Perhaps thicken it? Maybe even make it look like an eye-lid in shape? (No extra lines, just thicken the line to look like an eye-lid. Perhaps even a sideways eye-lid, though I can't be sure that would work.)

Come to think of it, the secondary ridges do make the fist image look "shaky" or hand drawn in the smaller image.

Any way you could get that raised beveled look in the picture? Perhaps even marbleize it?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 06, 2012, 04:26:29 AM
I didn't know how to express a slant that came to mind, so I thought I'd just throw up a mock-up.

(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t131/Corjay/intrigue.jpg) (http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t131/Corjay/intrigue1.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 06, 2012, 04:33:02 AM
so you thickened the bottom left and top right corners a bit? i give it a try later on
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 06, 2012, 04:34:19 AM
I couldn't figure out how to make the raised bevel, and the marbling wouldn't look good without it.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 06, 2012, 05:40:35 AM
okay, i reworked the icon a bit. i used the tickened lines from your example because it looks good and makes the icon a bit more asymmetrical. i also changed the eye to look less "sleepy", added a bevel and raised edge and a shadow (wich you cannot see in that picture). finally i darkened the color a bit to look more purple and less pink. i wont add a marbling or texture or relief to it.

better or not?

(http://www.zockergilde.net/images/newintrigue.jpg)
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 06, 2012, 06:55:32 AM
I like that. That's sweet.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 06, 2012, 08:06:22 AM
@ascent: thanks

@all: i created a about page on cardgameforge.com and removed the privacy setting. i also updated my sig as the new page will be the hub for this project. not much but a start. i also plan to move the rulebook there. expect more updates within the next days

http://www.cardgameforge.com/games/galaxian
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 07, 2012, 12:23:28 PM
hey,
i talked with a friend today about the game. its good to have some input from another person, my head is quite full with stuff i would like to share - remember this are just thoughts, not decisions:

* Resource Mechanic: We are thinking about exchanging the resource mechanic. The whole "explore planets with fleets" idea is funny but not practicable. imagine: after you draw a fleet, you also need to deploy that fleet and tap it to explore, but you also need a suitable resource card (planet) in your hand to deploy it. even if we say you may "tutor" the resource card (wich i am against) - this system is just too clumsy, slow and cumbersome. we seriously thought about switching to  a much simpler resource mechanic.

We have not found a solution yet, but the most simple system would be to assign a cost to every resource (planet) card. this cost has to be paid just like any other card. its not innovative, but easy and speeds up the game a lot. its also perfectly playable as everyone starts with a resource producing card in play (the faction card). just look at the sheer amount of mana producing cards in M:TG and all of them - except lands - cost mana to bring them into play.

* Currency: This is not important, but tied to the resource system - we tought about changing the name of the currency of the game. first of all the name solaris is from the "dune" franchise, and there is a company also called solaris. anyways - it just sounds unrealistic that all alien nations in the galaxy agreed on a single currency. instead, we decided to rename it to just "energy units" or "energy". as basically everything can be created from energy, there is no need for materials or resources. and energy would be the only thing, that is global to all races and galaxies in the universe.

* Agendas: Finally we thought about changing how agendas work. right now agendas have two variable components: the objective and the reward. for the core-set this might be too much, of course it opens up many possibilities - but to begin with, its maybe to complex and irritating. we thought about keeping the reward variable and fixiating the objective. also we decided to remove both the progression counters and the victory points from the agendas to simplify the game a bit more. we like to leave things open for the future, there might be agendas with variable goals and variable amounts of victory points - but not now, its just too much for a core set.

first, the new agendas are worth 1 victory point (VP) each, once "scored" (or cleared or whatever) the agenda card is set aside (maybe put it under your faction card). instead of increasing the VP an agenda card grants to make it stronger - we thought about increasing the reward instead.

second, we tought about fixiating the objective of all agendas for now. agendas are now geared towards one attribute (military, intrigue etc.) and the player has to apply certain amounts of this attribute to finish the agenda (for example 20 diplomacy). you tap other cards to apply their attribute rating to the agenda and keep track by adding tokens to it. so you can spend several turns and cards to finish an agenda. but your opponents also have time to hinder you or destroy your agenda. once you have enough tokens on the agenda to be cleared, you get the printed reward (like: draw a card or whatever) and put the agenda face down under your faction card. once there are - say 5 - agendas under your faction card, you win the game.

wow, thats so many changes right now - im sorry. remember: nothing is decided and everything is left open for discussion. i appreciate your feedback, although i have the feeling that it would be better to take full responsiblity for this project for now - at least until its put on a solid foundation. then we can turn it open-source or whatever, but the base rules have to be fixed, tested and put into place. this has highest priority right now.

signed - Malagar
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Ascent on January 08, 2012, 12:41:26 AM
Not to pour salt on the wound, but I believe the resource mechanic I had proposed would have resolved most of those issues, including the complication aspect, as well as not give you 4 different elements to track tokens for. You have a planet and a resource card, but if you simply put out at least one planet to start with, then you resolve that issue and don't need the resource card, because the planet would be your resource card.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: r0cknes on January 09, 2012, 08:15:53 AM
*Agendas

I am not sure what you were trying to accomplish by getting rid of the rewards for winning agendas. Frankly, Agendas should give you an advantage when they are completed. It only makes sense. On the other had the objective itself makes you weak enough in some areas that other players can take advantage of you. I don't like the idea of having to place 20 counters on a single card during a game. That is crazy. I understand the one thought about it being the core set and you want to make it simpler, putting 20 counters on a card is not simpler to me.

*Resource

Forgive me but I am not sure I see the problem with this mechanic either. By the looks of your faction cards, they already have a ridiculously high number of resources on them. I can't see a time when you could not put a fleet on the field. I don't think it is so clumsy that it needs to be thrown out. If you do throw it out though then you should just throw out planets all together. Maybe just have structures. We have been talking about how in this game all units are omnipresent. If that is the case then why have any locations in the game at all? Structures are a fine substitute i think, and you can also get away with using you faction's or fleet's "energy" to build them.

Place take everything I have said with a grain of salt. I am not trying to be mean. I am just expressing my concerns with the thoughts that have been discussed.

In review:

1. The new way of agendas doesn't work. too many counters. 1-5 at most would be acceptable, not 20 or more.

2. If you don't like the explore mechanic then get rid of locations. Just have structures that can be built using any cards resources.
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 09, 2012, 01:50:31 PM
I did not get rid of the agenda rewards. did i write that somewhere? yeah you are right about the 20 counter thing, the example number was just badly chosen.

planets have been renamed into "resources" long time ago, planet is therefore just a synonym for "land card" or whatever. your idea of structure cards is identical to the resource cards as we have them right now.

im looking into the other options when i have more time
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Cyrus on January 17, 2012, 11:53:53 PM
oh no! the momentum was lost! any new developments malagar?
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on January 18, 2012, 01:07:41 AM
@Cyrus: As holidays are over, my dreadful job struck me with its fangs again. so currently there is nothing new.

But i if someone else has any insights, please post them here!
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Wisp on February 25, 2012, 05:39:08 PM
Oh man, did i miss some shit...
Title: Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
Post by: Malagar on March 06, 2012, 03:35:40 AM
hey guys,
im sorry - i lost interest in the project.

there i no one to blame except myself, but real life is taking its toll again and i have to focus on my job and my main projects. i have to add that sadly - despite being a community project, most of the work was left up to me. this is a behemoth i just cannot stem at the moment.

as i said in a previous post: "community projects usually end up with one person doing all the work while others just pop up every now and then to give clever tips"

if anyone wants to take up the project from here, just drop me a line - i can send you all the files and templates