Author Topic: Theoretical Community CCG Project  (Read 33872 times)

yudencow

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #45 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #46 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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 04:39:16 AM by Malagar »

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #47 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)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 04:40:11 AM by Malagar »

Dragoon

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #48 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #49 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!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 05:36:31 AM by Malagar »

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #50 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?


Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #51 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.

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #52 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.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #53 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)

BrotherM

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #54 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?

yudencow

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #55 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

r0cknes

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #56 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. >:(

Ascent

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #57 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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 11:01:38 PM by Ascent »

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #58 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!

Cyrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • ^Yay that's me
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #59 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.