System Down: The Customisable Hacker Card Game!

[Dabem]

Hmm. I was thinking multiple system cards. There would be a standard number that you need to have like 4 or 5. If you have 5 3 value cards it's going to take a while to wear through your defenses but every time you lose a system your opponent gets a major (possibly crippling) advantage. Splitting the same amount of life in different ways prevents one player from starting the game 'ahead' damage wise if the effects are good though it shouldn't matter if they are ahead since tearing down their walls gives you more forward momentum.

I like the risk/reward concept of activating by reducing damage. I think that's a brilliant idea. Perhaps every ability requires you to 'release' a certain amount of damage cards you've placed under a system card.

I personally think the single system card would probably work fine but allows for less customization.  You have way less options so people will likely just choose the one that ends up being the 'best'.

And I'm personally used to bring a bag of counter beads to most of my ccgs. If you want to change that then putting cards under a system to show damage is a great idea. It also allows for the advantage of you opponent being one card shorter (in a game where 10 cards is a 4th of the deck) to try to be used strategically. I think it'll need some play testing to see if it works.

[3XXXDDD]

It was a mechanic inspired by Vanguards "counterblast" to activate effects people would flip their damage taken, so more damage taken, more effects activated.

I personally think the single system card would probably work fine but allows for less customization.  You have way less options so people will likely just choose the one that ends up being the 'best'.

This is very true as I mentioned in my PM (if you got it.) I think it's best to stick with the variable Systems instead of the Single one, I personally don't see us ever using the single system in this game (unless someone wants a 9 value system).

And I'm personally used to bring a bag of counter beads to most of my ccgs. If you want to change that then putting cards under a system to show damage is a great idea. It also allows for the advantage of you opponent being one card shorter (in a game where 10 cards is a 4th of the deck) to try to be used strategically. I think it'll need some play testing to see if it works.

The deck size will possibly be needed to increase back up to something like 50.

Also if you didn't get my PM, I mentioned the possiblity of adding speeds to Input cards and or the possibility of making a half-way card between Anti-V and Virus cards that have a constant value of 0.

As well as enjoying the idea of giving power to cards for customization issues, it would help us to balance the cards better by making them more complex and therefore mutable/versatile.

[3XXXDDD]

System/Value 1
Restore System: Look at 1 Random card in your Opponent's hand.

System/Value 2
Restore System: Discard 1 Card. Draw 1 Card.

System/Value 3
Restore System: Each Player discards a Card.

System/Value 4
Restore System: Terminate a Virus

System/Value 5
Restore System: Terminate an Anti-Virus

System/Value 6
Restore System: Terminate a Program

System/Value 7
Restore System: Draw 3 cards.

System/Value 8
Restore System: Discard up to 5 cards from your Opponent's hand.

System/Value 9
Restore System: Terminate up to 5 Programs.

[Dabem]

Okay these are neat abilities. The problem is if you're using a 2 ? 3 systems and your opponent has a 6 system his advantage he can use repeatedly where yours seems like only once in a great while. What if some advantages did not require restoring the whole system but just 'replacing a drive'
Or destroying a certain amount of damage cards.

If the 7 damage ability is 'terminate a program' I would use it all the time since it would require my opponent to completely start per for a minor advantage. Perhaps there should not be systems higher than a certain level. I was thinking 3 would be a good cap before but I can imagine a plae for 4-6 level systems too, their abilities must be debating though to risk back tracking that much.

[3XXXDDD]

While I agree the effects should be refined why would we need to add to release a certain amount of cards instead of an amount equal to the System Value of that card?

I mean, it's already has a mutable cost assigned to a card, so why would we need to divide it further? Shouldn't it just be the power of the effect be balanced to the cards System Value.

For an example, your suggesting to have a system like this

System/Value 4
Release 2 Cards. Draw a Card.

But my counter-point is to have this instead

System/Value 2
Release 2 Cards. Draw a Card.

Same System but adding to the customisability. The releasing a specific number of cards is redundant when you can just intergrate the effect into a smaller system card equal to the amount of cards you need to release.

[3XXXDDD]

A few design changes that might be in order on the templates.

First of all, on the top left tab, we should place the cards RAM, on the right tab should be it's offence value (if virus) or defence value (if anti-virus). This number would be Black (whereas the RAM for Input Cards could probably be turned to something like Blue)

Secondly, in the URL address bar, where the floppy disk symbol is now, is where the Symbol for the main card type should be moved (main card type being Virus, Anti-Virus and Input)

Also I noticed the URL bar has very little use for Input Cards considering there not likely to have a specific archetype or key word collection they belong too. In fact, the whole Input card could potentially be redesigned to something fairly different to the basic browser template for the Anti-/Virus cards. Just not entirely sure what, maybe some form of Chatbox, Editor or DOS window.

[3XXXDDD]

Most likely one of the hardest areas of any game to balance. The various battle System ideas are below.

Virus attack in Unison
Anti-Virus block in Unison

Virus attack in Unison
Anti-Virus block independently

Virus attack Independently
Anti-Virus block Independently

Also, how about "System Down" for a name.

[3XXXDDD]

Mulligan Rule included - Once at start of game, select which cards you don't want, shuffle them back, draw equal amount of cards.
Life = 10 (Game is fast-paced enough to use it without ending lightning fast)
Delete/Input/4/Terminate 1 Program should really be Delete/Input/2/Terminate 1 Program

Anti-Virus may block the same Virus independently or together.
Anti-Virus may only block one Virus (Certain)
Anti-Virus should kill Virus reactively when blocking. (Certain)
If the defending and offending units have the same power...either both or neither are destroyed.
 
Battle Phase Summary

1. Opponent declares which Virus' are attacking
2. Opponent assigns Anti-Virus to block
3. Critical (1) Damage is dealt to the defending player's system for each Virus they didn't block.

Problem is, if I'm not mistaken, this is the same combat system as M:TG which is a bit eh.

[Dabem]

Sorry I've been AWOL. I had company for the last couple weeks so I didn't have much free time. Games got shoved to the backburner.

I think both viruses and anti-viruses should be able to attack/defend in unison. It makes things more interesting than units attacking each other one by one. In order to avoid losing all your viruses at once though perhaps the defending player can only eliminate one virus for each AV defending?

If I may, this battle systems is not exactly that different, but it does create some variety strategically

1. Player one declares which viruses are attacking
2. Player two chooses which (if any) anti-virus(es) to defend with
3. Critical damage is inflicted if player two chose not to block
4. If player two blocks defeated units are removed from play
5. player two has an opportunity to attack
6. if he passes player one may attack again
7. the battle phase continues back and forth until both players pass

So if a player decides to attack with all these tiny viruses he still only does one damage, unless he attacks with them on separate attacks in which case they probably won't survive player 2's defenses.

[3XXXDDD]

@Step 2: You can block a Virus with more than one Anti-Virus but you can't block more than one Virus with the same Anti-Virus?
@Step 5: You mean with the Virus Cards?
@Step 7: Each card may only attack once though?

[3XXXDDD]

Just as a note, I feel the game is different enough on a whole (No Lands, No Summoning Sickness, Balance-Limiter System rather than Limited Resource System) to be able to get away with borrowing the combat mechanics from M:TG. Even then, having our creatures separated into Offenders and Defenders rather than both doing the same also adds some difference to it.

[3XXXDDD]

Okay here is the base template for the game mat.



On the right in ascending order is the directory (deck), discard pile (recycle bin) and archive (removed from play)

Across the board, you have the System Zones. Each colour represents a different damage value, when a system would be damaged, you'd place a card covering the next coloured block. Each System card will have at least 2 and no more than 5 System Value.

I did plan to create a bit of a battle design but one I wasn't bothered and two I wasn't sure what to put there anyway.

[3XXXDDD]

I think that, while good, this game is so full of 'rename-anything-to-fit-the-computer-theme' vernacular that it's almost ridiculous. That might be close to a problem with the game itself though... a game with such a limited theme(especially with all the vernacular) can only appeal to so many people. The reason YGO and the like are so popular is partly because they have all sorts of themes- dragons, ninjas, robots, what have you, so anybody that wants to play can run what suits them most. It's like, what if yu-gi-oh only had machine-type cards? or just dragons?

Guy has a point.

[nickyinprogress]

I think that, while good, this game is so full of 'rename-anything-to-fit-the-computer-theme' vernacular that it's almost ridiculous. That might be close to a problem with the game itself though... a game with such a limited theme(especially with all the vernacular) can only appeal to so many people. The reason YGO and the like are so popular is partly because they have all sorts of themes- dragons, ninjas, robots, what have you, so anybody that wants to play can run what suits them most. It's like, what if yu-gi-oh only had machine-type cards? or just dragons?

Guy has a point.

Sometimes a good game for a niche audience is better than appealing a wider one at the cost of the game. Besides, it's the age of the internet. LOTS will get the theme.

[Dabem]

Both those are valid points.

perhaps we went overboard in renaming things, but many games have. For example cards are called spells in magic, decks  - libraries, units - creatures, etc.

I'm not sure this is a weakness, since it adds to the storytelling element of the game. Perhaps we should re-examine to see which renames add to the flavor and which just make things confusing.

Niche games don't sell as well as games like Yu-gi-oh true. However they also don't have a multimillion dollar company and television show already backing them either. If you make your game have just as many themes as a game like yu-gi-oh many players may not see the difference. Even if the mechanics are drastically different many players would rather just stick to what they know. Niche games can combat this trend by highlighting a theme that is not well covered by other games or is interesting enough to delve deeper into.