Author Topic: Theoretical Community CCG Project  (Read 33345 times)

yudencow

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #30 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.

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #31 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #32 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.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 12:44:38 AM by Malagar »

BrotherM

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #33 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! :)

Cyrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • ^Yay that's me
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #34 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #35 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

Dragoon

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #36 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)

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #37 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

  • A traditional CCG game with the setting of interstellar space.
  • The desire is to have a game that involves mostly empire building with warfare used as a tactic to increase or diminish another's empire.

Mechanics desired

  • Resource management of some sort
  • Victory Conditions either based on faction or on flow of Game. (Challanges, Complete certian tasks based on the faction you are using
  • Non-Combat player interaction (Trade, Diplomacy)

Card Types

  • Planets: Collect Resources (Almost ruled out, but I am still standing by them :D)
  • Ships: Ships are used for combat and to complete challenges
  • Achievements: In a sense these are the traditional attachment cards that would either have an action the may perform or increase the stats of the attached card.
  • Challenges: Played either by yourself or your opponent. These could be used to hinder progress of your opponent or to achieve progress for your empire.

I may have missed a few things here and there so feel free to add to my list.

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #38 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?

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #39 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #40 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.


« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 02:16:33 PM by Malagar »

yudencow

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #41 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.

BrotherM

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #42 on: December 17, 2011, 12:38:24 PM »

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.

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #43 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #44 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.