Updated with proper battle phase rules. Note Card Images need to be changed to accommodate said rule. Another thing, suggestions for "Insert Term Here" value term name?
System
The Customisable Hacker Card Game!
Aim
To Deck Out your Opponent.
Game-Start
Draw X (5 or 6)
1 Perfect Mulligan (You choose which cards to put back and which to keep).
Game-Phases
Draw ? Turn Player may draw a card from their deck; If they do, they return a card from their hand to the bottom of their deck.
Upload ? Turn Player may upload any number of Virus or Anti-Virus cards. Input cards may not be activated by any Player.
System ? Turn Player may declare attacks against the non-turn player.
End ? Certain effects might activate here.
RAM
Each Player starts the game with a a RAM of 0. Each Virus card has a Negative RAM while each Anti-Virus has a Positive RAM.
When a Player uploads a Virus or an Anti-Virus card, their RAM is added (Anti-Virus) or subtracted (Virus) from the Player's RAM.
If a Player's RAM becomes negative, they must format their field by sending enough Virus Cards to their discard pile until their RAM is at 0 or higher.
Data Input Cards
Data Input cards may be activated by any Player at any time during the game except during the Upload Phase unless it is stated otherwise on the card. Each Data Input card has a RAM cost. To activate a Data Input card, you must pay the RAM cost by returning any number of Anti-Virus cards that have a total RAM equal or more than the cost on the Data Input card.
Battle Phase
During the battle phase, the turn player selects which Virus Cards he wants to attack his opponent with by turning them horizontally. The defending player may choose to block them with their Anti-Virus cards.
When an attack hits the defending player, they send a number of cards, equal to the Virus Card's power, from the top of their deck to their Memory. Then they may draw a number of cards equal to or less than the Virus Card's Recode.
When the defending player chooses to block an attack, they select which Anti-Virus Cards to block with and which Virus cards to block against. An Anti-Virus card can block any number of Virus Cards. However you can't block any Virus card with more than one Anti-Virus.
Then you compare the total of the Virus Card's power with the total of the Anti-Virus cards power. If the Virus Card's total power is equal to or greater than the Anti-Virus Card, the Anti-Virus card is destroyed and the attack proceeds to the Opponent. If the Virus Card's total power is less than the Anti-Virus Card, the attack is stopped (The Virus cards are not destroyed). After an Anti-Virus has successfully blocked an attack, it is returned to the defending player's hand.
Image Templates
Anti-Virus/Virus/Data Input Base Image Template (Credits to Dabem)
(http://www.lackeyccg.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1520.0;attach=764;image)
(http://www.lackeyccg.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1520.0;attach=768;image)
(http://www.lackeyccg.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1520.0;attach=766;image)
Updated!
- Variables no longer have the Quick and Normal Sub-Types.
- All Variables are to be activated from the player's hand and can do so any time during either player's turn (except for the Call Phase) unless stated otherwise.
- Creatures called to defend are no longer discard to the discard pile and are now instead returned to the defending player's hand if the attack was unsuccessful. If the attack were successful all defending creatures along with the original target creature are destroyed.
Also Q: Should the Variable description come before the battle system description?
I like this concept because it allows for a lot of variety in the creatures you play. Since you must play a positive one to play a negative one I can see a huge potential for synergy.
Since this seems to be so mathematical I suggest a physics/mathematics theme or a computer/programming theme.
May I suggest ORC-A or courier become your new favorite fonts?
Also the acronyms are grating on me just a tad. Perhaps NBVs should just be called negatives, PBVs, positives and BVs, nulls, respectively. It's the same amount of syllables either way it's just easier to read and say without the acronyms.
Maths/Programming could be cool, It could be Virus (Negative) versus Firewalls/Data/Memory (Positive) which would also reflect on reason as why one attacks and the other defends. I also have the whole idea of "Virtual Internet Matrix" to pretty much create whatever theme I want with it too, long as it has some techno-feel about it.
The acronyms are currently used in place of something more useful. They will be changed once I find the proper theme for the game. In the case of computer Virus/Data. Also a BV isn't always null, so it wouldn't be a good reflection of the concept.
If I were to adopt a Virus/Anti-Virus theme, I could probably change the terms as such
Total Balance Value = Memory
Positive Balance Value = Data*
Negative Balance Value = Virus
A Virus would eat away at your memory. *Maybe Datadisk/Storage or something that essentially increases the Memory on a computer. However, it's a great idea, since I can still explore other themes art-wise consider anything can be done with programming!
Update. Took your advice. I'm focusing on Virus/Anti-Virus conflict via the Internet Matrix which is a world of it's own. Also for the idea of background here's something I'd like to try for creatures/Data.
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111021011749/yugioh/images/thumb/5/5a/CrashbugRoadVG-TF06-JP.png/175px-CrashbugRoadVG-TF06-JP.png)
Quarantine
BVC: 1
Return 1 target Data to the owner's hand.
Firewall
BVC: 1
You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack; All critical damage done during that battle is reduced to 0.
Quick Update
BVC: 2
Discard 1 Card. Draw 2 Cards. You can't activate another ?Quick Update? until after your opponent's next turn.
Delete
BVC: 3
Destroy 1 target Data.
Pop-Up Blocker
BVC: 6
You can only activate this card when your opponent activates a Variable; Negate the activation and destroy that Variable.
Quick Download
BVC: 2
Reveal 1 Data Card from your deck and place it on top of your deck (after you shuffled the deck.). You can't activate another ?Quick Download? until after your opponent's next turn.
Sort Icons
BVC: 2
Look at the top five cards of your deck and place them back on top of your deck in any order you like.
Recurring Infection
BV: -1
When this card is destroyed as a result of battle and sent to the discard pile, draw 1 card.
Data Logger
BV: -2
When this card inflicts critical damage to a player, that player discards a card.
Undetected Trojan
BV: -3
This card can't be targeted by any Variables that destroy.
Alpha Client
BV: +1
When you call this Unit, you can reveal 1 ?Beta Client? from your deck and place it on top of your deck (after you shuffled the deck.)
Beta Client
BV: +2
When you call this Unit, you can reveal 1 ?Release Client? from your deck and place it on top of your deck (after you shuffled the deck.)
SK-17
Release Client
BV: +3
You can discard this card from your hand to add 1 ?Alpha Client? from your deck to your hand.
I love that you're running with the computer programming element.
I came up with this for a preliminary card design. What do you think?
It draws heavily from early computer and coding influences.
I thought about making the text box white, but thought this was easier to look at.
I was also thinking you could also have certain Icons represent certain keywords and put them either beside the image or in the blue part of the window before or after the text.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
a few questions on cards:
since SK 9-11 are so much better than SK 12-14 why would I ever use 12-14? The names on 12-14 should probably vary a bit more, and they should have a keyword that connects them like Malware or Bots or something. That way even though they may have no effect by themselves you can write variables that affect the keyword.
Alpha Beta and Release clients seem to have the potential for getting out of hand since they can all call each other. I can see the turtle decks forming before my very eyes.
I don't see the point of quick update, since you end up spending 2 cards to draw 2 cards. I guess it helps you reach the good stuff faster?
The vanilla's are just mainly there to test to the actual benefits of various relative BV's without effects clouding it. Their names aren't particularly thought out either.
Alpha/Beta/Release are good but considering their stacking each other, I don't think they would be anything to worry about over-all. I could be wrong though but that's what play testing is for.
Quick Update, simply yeah, a draw card, filler. It would be interesting to see such a card in a game with a very minimal deck size (30).
Also, I do enjoy the use of a classic text box for a text box.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on March 27, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
The vanilla's are just mainly there to test to the actual benefits of various relative BV's without effects clouding it. Their names aren't particularly thought out either.
Got it. Playtesting purposes.
I have a friend that would abuse the heck out of Alpha Beta and Release, especially since there doesn't seem to be any consequences for having an insanely high BV. I could demonstrate once we're able to playtest. Perhaps there should be a BV cap.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on March 27, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
Also, I do enjoy the use of a classic text box for a text box.
Thank you. It seemed appropriate. The colors seem a tad harsh, but they make sense thematically. Any other thoughts on the design?
I don think a cap is the answer, I could add that each card destroys their previous incarnation when called which would slow the increase down to w minimal extra 1 bv while also making sense from a thematic point of view.
Also how about making the text box, more modern and relatable to everybody rather just then hardcore programmers. By which I mean, blue bar/grey box. Also my idea.since this game's inception is to keep the image to the top half and the text (including name) to the bottom half.
I just realized that having a bunch of positive valued cards isn't as broken as I thought if they return to your hand when you use additional cards to defend.
I'll try implementing those design ideas tomorrow. Should I get rid of the 'terminal' elements which only programmers might recognize? Is the green on black too 'oldschool' or harsh or does it add to the theme?
Green on black is good I just think the general contrast shouldd be softer (as in the picture I posted above)
There is an interesting amount of flavour to pop up after changing this to a Data Matrix Hacker theme. Such as
Players = Hosts
Decks = PCs (Personal making so much sense)
Play Zone = Matrix
Calling Creatures = Loading Data or Programming Code
Discard Pile = Spam Folder or Recycle Bin
We also have some icon uses such as
Cursor = Target/Select
Del/Thrash Can = Destroy/Discard
Any other thoughts?
Those sound great. I love the idea of the decks being your 'desktop PC'. I'm not sure how I feel about targeting being cursor. Select makes sense, but cursor would be hard to figure out if you haven't read the rules. The recycle bin sounds awesome for the discard. What happens if you empty your opponent's recycle bin?
I'm loving these ideas. How long before we prototype?
I can perhaps come up with some card ideas too if you'd like. For now I'll focus on design.
Probably a while yet, I'm gonna do some solo testing soon and some with my particular group of gamers with record cards.
As for emptying recycling bin, I'd should come up with some icon that would be good for Remove from game effects but can't think of anything flavourful.
Also, I was thinking I could mess around with the text box a bit more with a "filepath"
Blue Bar = Name of Card
File Path (underneath box) would be like C(for Code):Keyword/Sub-Keyword
Grey Text Box.
I was also thinking (although this may be OTT) that every card could be referred to as a "File" but that might just end up confusing. Such as "Select/Destroy/Discard File" but again may be OTT.
By the way, were you saying the world "Select" is good to note targeting effects or did you mean the Cursor is good for "Select" but not "Target"?
I don't think that calling cards files is taking things to far. There are lots of games that call cards a thematic name.
cursor just sounds like a noun and not a verb. I think that's my problem with it. So I think select would be a great word for targeting. In what cases would you want to 'select' but not target?
So you want the 'filepath' below the blue bar? Typically it was in the blue bar.
We can even put the keywords where the 'file, edit, help' bar would normally be.
Just a warning, I've used 'select' for 'target' before and had complaints about strange sounding text. Personally I think its a good alternative term though
Dabem: I never suggested to use the word Cursor but the Icon of a cursor to denote Targeting.
We could base the card more so like a browser, a tab for the name, url path for keywords then not entirely sure about the actual text box.
Oh. Well now I feel silly. An icon of a cursor would be interesting. We can test to see if it adds to the design or takes away from it.
The only problem I've found with replacing words with pictures is it makes your database a tad screwy, and gives players one more thing to remember. The cursor/select connection should be close to second nature, but there will always be someone who asks why does it say '> data file'.
I like the browser idea. I'm going to come up with a few different versions for you to critique tomorrow.
Here's my latest version. Sorry I don't have more options to look at. I had planned on it but time took over.
I think I incorporated quite a few of your ideas. I still haven't adjusted to make it less contrasty yet. What do you think of the browser. Any comments, concerns, complaints?
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
So I've updated my first post with some revised game play and terminology.
Also Dabem: I'm liking the over-all look of the card template. Although my main concern is the BV Box, I think we should place that somewhere within the Text Box. An idea would be instead of the Minimize, Maximize, Exit buttons we could have 3 Boxes one with a Red (Negative), a Black (Neutral), Green (Positive) and depending on which card it is, 2 of them would be 0's and that cards BV or BVC would be increased.
Green = Anti Virus (PBV)
Black = Data Input/Variable (BVC)
Red = Virus (NBV)
The green border may also could do with saying being a bit thicker, softer and rounded? You know like those tubes on that Windows Screen Savers? As a play testing template it's great though these suggestions are just for when it is refined for perfection.
Why the fancy fonts? What's wrong with normal ones :'(
System is looking interesting though :)
Quote from: Dragoon on April 02, 2012, 09:53:24 AM
Why the fancy fonts? What's wrong with normal ones :'(
System is looking interesting though :)
The Fancy fonts in the OP or on the Card text on Dabem's template?
I spent a weekend out of town so I haven't had designing projects as a high priority. I think I can come up with something that resembles the browser design you made in paint too so you can do a side by side comparison. I'm not sure how I feel about the RAM value ending up inside the text box, but I'll create a version like that so you'll be able to see it. I have the feeling the top bar will need to be larger.
I noticed the some major changes to the rules and objectives. I like it, I just have one question: Can you target a system with more than one card?
Quote from: Dragoon on April 02, 2012, 09:53:24 AM
Why the fancy fonts? What's wrong with normal ones :'(
I'm guessing this was directed toward my template. :-\ Nothing is wrong with normal ones. I just like fancy ones that capture the feel better. If it's a readability concern than I understand, and I can look for another font that's both readable and fun to look at. ;)
Quote from: DabemCan you target a system with more than one card?
Not at the in the same step. Your target with one Virus/Anti-Virus and your Opponent interrupts with one Virus/Anti-Virus. Then you can target the same System with a different Virus/Anti-Virus afterwards.
I'm not sure about the RAM Box either but just in general, I think if we could have the main card area contained to the Image Part and the Text Part boxes.
Also I'm going to post those templates (crediting you of course) to other Sites where the game info is located, just wondering if that is cool with you?
Also I hope your Browser variant comes out much better than mine :P
I'll let you be the judge.
This of course is not where things must be but rather where they can be. I didn't quite figure out where to put the RAM on here. I was thinking about where the _ []X boxes are like you said. I just think the boxes add a good bit to the design and recognition of the theme.
Let me know if you'd prefer something to be in a different place, as in keywords where the subtitle is or something. I like the keywords as browser shortcuts though, it makes it to where we can make an icon to put next to them too.
I can also remove or change the back/forward icons and the refresh icon to be something else if you'd like.
I made a safari variant too. I can also make one that seems more apple-esqe if you'd like I just figured more people know what browsers look like in windows.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Getting lots of feed back on the first design (with the tab.)
I'm thinking over it and should be able to get back to you with a few more ideas soon enough.
While waiting, would anyone like to suggest any archetypes or sub-themes they would like to see for the starter kit? (Tron, Matrix, Classic Arcade Games, Social Networking, MMORPGs Characters lost in Cyberspace, SOPA/PIPA/ACTA vs Republic of the Internet?)
Generally looking for two themes that have some opposition towards each other for the first round.
Okay, first of all I like what you did with the Tabbed-Browser and this following reply will be for that variation, I'm actually looking for two variations of what I'm about to suggest. Before I go any further though, I'm going to list what information would be needed to display on the card itself just to refer back to so I won't miss a step.
Functional Information
Name
Type
Sub-Type
Value
Image
Effect Text
General Information
Set Name & Number
Edition
Rarity
Illustrator's Name
Copyright Info
Flavour Text
Now before I go further on the listed items, back to the two variations, basically with one variation of the image I'd like these things to be changed
1. The Mini, Maxi, Close buttons in the top-right hand corner gone and just replaced by the general colour of that area
2. The X by the card name (and any other tabs) gone.
3. The Open New Tab button gone
Onto the general design, going to work from a top-bottom basis;
Tabs
3 Tabs with Card Type Symbol, Card Name, Card Value/Cost in that order.
There are 3 Card Type Symbols; Anti-Virus is a Bold Green Up Arrow, Virus is a Bold Red Down Arrow and Data Input is as of yet undefined but I'm leaning towards the Enter Key Symbol (coloured black).
Back/Forward/Refresh
I would like to replace the Back/forward keys with the Set Code, 2 Characters per box (eg. SK in the back tab and 01 in the forward tab) as for the refresh tab I'd suggest to use it for edition (1st or Unlimited). We could probably just colour the refresh symbol for this, Gold for 1st, Black for Unlimited)
Address Bar
At the start of this we have that Star for the Bookmark, we could use this symbol area to denote the card's rarity if it has one. If no rarity exists in the card, could get rid of it all together. If we do keep it though, I'd change the Star Symbol to something more unique (e.g Rarity depicted by forms of media sharing, the older media such as floppys being commons and MP3s being rare or vice versa, maybe could also do it in forms of upgraded technology from PC ? Common, Laptop ? Uncommon, SmartPhone ? Rare)
As for the address bar, leave it as is, with the Subtitle being the main Archetype Keyword(s) for the main card, different keywords seperated by Slash or Period characters.
Bookmarks Bar
Your currently have they key words listed here but since they've moved to the address bar, we have some space and I would suggesting using these area for Illustration Credit on one side and Copyright info on the other side. Also if the game were to be published, space somewhere here could be made to create small holographic patterns to determine authencity (or QR codes if it's possible?)
The rest is pretty straight forward, Image in the middle, Effect text in the box, flavour text double spaced under it.
As per your earlier suggestions of fonts, I'd avoid using it for the effect text (for clarity sake) but I believe we could have the flavour text in Courier and the name in Orc-A.
So yeah, that's my heavy-suggestion based reply.
Well I made a few variations and I think I have exactly what you want. I also have another version that is my own interpretation.
With the other tabs crowding out the top area I don't think I like the _[]X boxes as much any more, but I like the new tab button still. I say one or the other but not both. That just makes the top right way too crowded. I think removing the x from the tab windows was a good call, so i didn't even make a version with it.
So anyways this is my understanding of what you wanted. I didn't throw any images in because I didn't want to waste time on an illustration before all the other design elements are finalized.
Hope you like it!
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
I actually hope you like these versions better actually. These are my favorite. Pretty much the only difference is the icons for Virus, Anti-Virus or File, but I think these icons look way better than simple arrows by far.
I forgot to mention in the last post: only one and maybe half a keyword will fit in the address bar at it's current size. I can fit about three to four more letters after it's current stopping point. That's why I left room for another keyword in the top left. You don't have to use the slot, but it could be used if you need it. I included a version of what it looks like without it.
the other thing I wanted to mention was from my current understanding of your planned marketing strategy mentioned in the other thread there wouldn't be a rarity. The floppy or whatever icon goes there could represent the set or booster icon. It could also be a place to put icons related to keywords. Keywords are great but sometimes a visual icon makes scanning for keywords a tad quicker. Just some more thoughts.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Amazing!
I don't think any card game really uses Sub-Type/Archetype's Keyword combinations that contain more than 20 Characters anyway.
Market Strategy likely has to be revised once I understand that area more. Regardless, Set Symbols or Keyword Icons (potentially more suitable considering the position) are also a welcome idea. The Fonts also worked out much better than I imagined.
Also, Thank you, I was going crazy thinking of finding more suitable symbols for the main card types.
I won't comment too much on market strategy. I have always been a designer and not entrepreneur. I'm great at coming up with images, cards, and games, but it ends there. In other words I can be an asset through the entire process until the end, then someone with more discipline and knowledge of that arena needs to take over.
I have some friends that are much more skilled in that area and I may refer them over to your threads.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on April 03, 2012, 05:59:19 PM
Amazing!
...
Also, Thank you, I was going crazy thinking of finding more suitable symbols for the main card types.
Thank you very much! I worked hard on it, glad it's what you were looking for. Now that the card design is hammered out let's get back to some game design elements.
I really like the concept of systems, I think they make for a unique playstyle and objective to the game. The concern I had was that you could only use one card at a time. That makes the 1s and 2s somewhat useless if there is a 3 out. This continues my concern about turtle decks and makes it slightly more acute. What I liked about the original design is that 4 -1s could take on a 3.
There also doesn't seem to be a way to directly eliminate your opponents cards that are bothering you. Was that on purpose? Perhaps one could also attack anti-virus or virus cards in their system phase?
Depending on your intended use of the word 'effect' could 'process' be a similar thematic word you could use in it's stead?
Some Effects might activate here. Some Process' might activate here. Counter an effect. Cancel a Process. Could work.
I'm aware of that main problem, this Phase is quite complicated. I'm thinking Virus should only be able to attack your System generally, certain variations could have an effect that attack your Anti-Virus cards. Whereas Anti-Virus could generally target Virus with only certain ones able to re-activate a System OR the other way around, they'd generally re-activate System but an Anti-Virus card with the ability "Scan" could attack a Virus card.
I think Virus cards (maybe of the same sub-archetype) could work in Unison, whereas Anti-Virus (considering their real life counterparts) could work independently. So to compensate for the increase of speed/combination in Virus Cards, we give them a low Value and to compensate for the Anti-Virus only being able to work independently, we give them a large value. For example, Virus Range would be 1-3 whereas Anti-Virus would be 3-5.
This is just me rambling one or two ideas out and the System Phase will likely get changed over and over again till perfection.
Edit:
Not a huge deal but someone pointed out to me with the M/M/E boxes gone with have more room at the top, maybe to make the tabs slightly bigger. Just something that's been noticed.
Some key word Ideas I was messing around with.
Not all of these should need Keywords. Some Keywords may have been over-complicated and the basic term is fine. Not all of these need Icons to represent they Keywords either.
Player: Host
Deck: PC Or Directory (Directory sounds like a Modern version of M:TG's Library)
Field: Cyberspace OR Data Matrix OR Global System OR Global Link OR Anything else, open to interpretation.
Hand: Folder
Discard Pile: Recycle Bin
Remove From Play Area: Hidden Folder/Directory OR External Storage
General Card: File
Effect: Process
Draw: ??
Discard: Delete or Thrash
Destroy: Delete or Thrash
Remove from Play: Hide/Store
Call: Upload OR Install
Return: Download OR Uninstall OR Refresh
Revive: Recycle
Counter: Cancel
General design note, I think the cards should have a Black (Maybe Navy/Blue?) as a base color with a Blue or Green glowing Power Button in the Center such as
(http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3271481-542573-glowing-power-button.jpg)
(http://static4.depositphotos.com/1002188/278/i/450/dep_2780884-Glowing-Power-Button.jpg)
[imghttp://www.colourbox.com/preview/3271480-542572-glowing-power-button.jpg][/img]
Maybe System (or whatever final name) in Chrome/Silver Just over it as well.
My thoughts:
Most of these are perfect. I'll only comment on the ones that seem to need tweaking. Overall I think they sound awesome and I love the flavor going into it. It's becoming like a well seasoned dish.
Deck: 'Desktop PC'? I like directory too. It sounds more technical. I like desktop PC because it's a Players Cards on the top of the desk.
Field: Network? WAN? :-\
Draw: ??
Discard: Delete (I assume you meant trash and not thrash regardless I'm not fond of either.)
Destroy: Hard Delete
Call: Upload OR Install (I like both but I think upload fits the internet concept better)
Return: Download OR Uninstall (same here)
I'm not exactly sure what these are for. Is that if you put cards in a hidden area like in VS?
Remove From Play Area: Hidden Folder/Directory OR External Storage
Remove from Play: Hide/Store
The keywords seem fine to me, but to me remove from play usually means in the hand or in the discard. I think a hidden area might be interesting for this game, especially if there are some viruses that AVs can't get to.
I like the ideas for attacks and defenses in the systems phase. It makes sense that viruses would be weaker but might attack as a group. Perhaps bot could be a virus keyword that is a bunch of viruses that work exceptionally well together.
Is the power button the idea for the card back? I really like the top image, but it seems incomplete. I'll see if I can make something just as awesome. I doubt it but I'll try. On the other design note I'm not sure why it seems like there is more space on the card with the boxes. I literally did not move anything I just turned a layer on or off. That's the only difference between having the boxes there or not. If you like it better with them on they can stay. Should the new tab box go then?
Personally, I think the design is fine over-all. I'm curious what the tabs would look like a bit more Centered (in that case probably would be best to get rid of the new tab box, otherwise it could stay)
Some idea's revised, if I haven't mentioned some, that's because the previous post had them perfected already.
Deck: Directory. I like Directory because it has a similar although more modern feel than M:TG's library and a Deck is essentially a Directory (a collection of files)
Field: Desktop for each individual field because when hacking/preventing hacking, that is exactly what your looking at. This is also a reason for not using Desktop PC for the Deck, also because you PC is everything you have, it's your hand, recycle bin, deck and field. Though your field is the more visual area of it.
Hand: Might be best to stick with Hand. Theres not much difference between Folder and Directory.
Remove From Play Area: Archive (My RFPA is supposed to exist with the potential of getting cards back from there eventually)
Effect: Process (May need revision later but let's see how it goes here)
Draw: Let's stick with Draw.
Discard: Delete
Destroy: Hard Delete presents the idea of never getting it back though. Which causes problems. Terminate might be an idea.
Remove from Play: Archive
Call: Upload (Might be easier to relate for casual non-hacker players)
Return: Download (Ditto)
Counter: Cancel
As for the card back, I'd like to keep it simple yet attractive. What I was thinking, for card images in general we have this background image that is replicated throughout and is reminiscent of Tron, basically a Grid of Blue or Red or Green lines on a black base, then each card image would have a Character image added for personal identity and we'd take this idea for the card back and the Character image would be the power button.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on April 05, 2012, 06:23:42 AMDestroy: Hard Delete presents the idea of never getting it back though. Which causes problems. Terminate might be an idea.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by destroy. I'm not a magic player so I'm not exactly familiar with some of the differences in terminology for that game. I thought you meant Remove from Game, in which case hard delete sounds valid. If not delete should do the trick.
I'm curious how this RFPA will work. It'd be awesome if there was a hidden area like VS. for some viruses to attack from called the hidden folder. Archive sounds great if it's just a place to store cards though. Typically archived files do nothing while hidden files might do something but be difficult to find.
Well, I'm going with Delete for cards in hand, while Terminate to kill active process (ie cards on field). Some effects might need to differentiate between the difference.
Terminate also works in tandem with the Counter Key word, Cancel "Cancel 1 Process & Terminate that File." (I realize terminate usually means for the actual process but some adjustments need to be made for the flavors consistency)
The RFPA is really just a storage area. Just means it's harder to get at than your discard Pile. I don't actually want to use RFP as the name because if it returns to play, then it was never really RFP in the first play (See: Yu-Gi-Oh and the new term "Banish")
Another thing, more important. This Combat System still requires some thought.
Right now it's 1 Vs 1. No damage for successful defense (as opposed to bouncing earlier)
I'm currently thinking of these changes
Virus may attack in Combination but have low power.
Anti-Virus may not attack in Combination but have a higher base power.
After defending, Anti-Virus need to Flavour wise "Update their Database" which functionally means they return to your hand as it was in the previous game.
Also does anyone think re-activating Systems should exist? It just over-all seems to unnecessarily complicate combat and gives Anti-Virus too much of a Pro Active presence rather than a re-active one.
Simply put,
5 Systems to de-activate
No System re-activation (also meaning no Virus attacking)
Attacks may be made in Unison
Anti-Virus bounce after defending.
Ok. I can see now. Archive seems appropriate.
I can't prioritize the 'tron-like background' today. The perfectionism in me is making it take a lot longer than it should. Mostly I'm just toying around to see how I can tweak the look, but I can tell I'm a long way off from liking how it looks. I'll see what I can come up with in a few days.
I think the missing thing is you don't have a name for the viruses, Anti-virus and data files as a whole. Perhaps they could be called programs? 'Terminate target program' sure sounds good.
Onto the important topic of the combat system. Perhaps some cards could reactivate your systems, but likely they would probably be few and far between. Functionally this would be like regaining life in some games so it needs to be controlled carefully.
I like the idea of some anti-virus cards being able to target viruses. That should definitely happen. Otherwise you are only passively whittling down your opponents forces when they have to reformat, which means they get to choose what stays and goes.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Patience is a virtue. Perfectionism is welcome.
Well I was using "File" for all of them. Program also sounds good. As you said Terminate Target Program works well. Program likely makes more over-all sense.
That's the same thing I was thinking regarding System. Especially considering it's not a huge amount like MTGs 20, YGO's 8000. (More like 80 dumbed down).
I was thinking
Virus Attack Systems
Anti-Virus Attack Virus. Simply doesn't make sense to have an Anti-Virus destroying a computer.
Though, I still don't like the idea of Anti-Virus being so pro-active, so how about they Counter-attack instead.
E.g. Attack Phase
Attacking Virus(es) are declared
Anti-Virus defends. If it wins, the attacking Virus is destroyed (which makes sense considering that's what AV's actually do)
Anti-Virus then bounces for to "Update"
I may actually be in two minds about centering, Does look kind of better the other way and also leaves us some room for small tabs in future with Icons.
'files' could still apply to cards in general, i was just thinking cards already in play (the ones you teminate) could be called programs.
i think you are at the place now where some prototying and playtesting is in order. I suspect there being no direct way to attack viruses will get annoying. Maybe not though, and if the game works as is why fix it?
I think left aligned looks better too. My browser tabs are never centered!
Meta-Ware
A Piece of Software created to be Dynamic and ever-evolving as it scoured the Web. It grew and eventually after it absorbed enough information, it became what we call conciousness and now it seeks with the help of the other inhabitents of Cyber-Space to break free from this world and onto what it believes to be it's heaven but which we know as our world, It seeks first to drag the unsuspecting humans into it's own world to learn more about them and then eventually to infect not a program, not a computer but a human, to gain a body that it can control outside of Cyber Space and within reality.
Meta-Ware is essentially a "God" or "Devil" depending how you see it overall and it will be the driving force for creating expansions and non-existent virus/anti-virus. It is also a pun on the words Ware as regarding software, Meta as regarding All and on Aware as being consciousness of. Simply some could read it as Meta-Ware or MetAWARE.
----------
Anyway, yes, it probably is. It requires me to create a couple of effects as well though. If you have any ideas already, it might be handy to help this stage along.
There will be one way to directly kill Virus'es via effects but of course that requires some patience.
To help this game grow I need some ideas to help play test with.
This is what I've got so far but other ideas are welcome. Try to stay in line of the BV from -5 to +5. Try to avoid null valued cards.
Synchronized Fire (or Parallel Circuitry)
Data Input
3
This attack is an additional -1 for each bot attacking.
In the clouds
Data input
2
You may move a file from the desktop to it's owner's archive.
Abort
Data Input
3
Target opponent skips their system phase.
Retry
Data Input
4
You may move a card from your recycle bin into your hand
Y/N
Data Input
2
Your opponent chooses: You may draw a card, OR they must delete (discard) a card from their hand.
Refresh
Data Input
1
Return 1 Card on the field to it's owner's hand.
Buffering
Data Input
3
Search your Directory for 1 Card and add it to your Archive. During the start of your next turn add that card to your hand.
Cancel
Data Input
5
Cancel 1 Card your opponent attempts to activate or upload and terminate that card.
Delete
Data Input
4
Terminate 1 Program.
Version Variation
Anti-Virus/Updater
+3
If a System was not de-activated during the turn this card terminated a Virus, you may draw 1 card during this turn's end phase.
Seeker
Anti-Virus/Scanner
+3
Scan: During your System Phase, you may select 1 Virus with a RAM of 3 or less and terminate that program.
Alpha Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+1
When you upload this Card, you may search your directory for 1 ?Beta Test? and place it on top of your directory (after you shuffle your directory)
Beta Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+2
When you upload this Card, you may search your directory for 1 ?Pilot Test? and place it on top of your directory (after you shuffle your directory)
Pilot Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+3
Once per turn, when you upload an ?Alpha Test? or ?Beta Test?, you may draw 1 Card. You may only control 1 ?Pilot Test? at a time. You can discard this card from your hand to add 1 ?Alpha Test? from your directory to your hand.
TOBOR [which is robot backwards](or a much better name)
Anti-Virus/Firewall
1
If this file is defending a system bot files do no damage.
CVC [Center for Virus Control] (or some better name)
Anti-virus/Quarantine
+3
Quarantine: Each time this antivirus successfully defends a system you may choose a virus file and flip it face down. If this file leaves play all virus files that it affected face up.
Internet Virus-Scan
Anti-Virus/Suspicious
+3
When you play this file you may search your deck for virus file with the suspicious keyword
Key
Virus/Data Logger
-3
When this card attacks and is not terminated by an Anti-Virus, you may select 1 random card in your opponent's hand and look at it.
Corrupting File
Virus/Datalogger
-2
When this Virus de-activates a System, Your opponent must discard a card from their hand.
Persistent Pop Up
Virus/Datalogger
-1
When this card is terminated, draw a card.
Trojan Horse
Virus/Hidden (or Trojan depending on what you prefer the keyword to be)
-3
This file is played into your archive instead of the desktop. If this file is in your archive during the system phase you may attack with it. If you do it is moved to the desktop.
System Shut-Down Sleeper
Virus/Malware
-5
Noticed Threat
Virus/Malware
-1
Domo.Arigato
Virus/Bot
-1
This file cannot attack a system unless another bot file is too. (The wording seems clunky but you get the point.)
Asimov
Virus/Bot
-1
This Virus must attack if another bot file is attacking.
Thank you for any and all help!
Keyword Post:
Scan: An Anti-Virus with the ability Scan may declare a Target Virus during your turn and attack it. Other Anti-Virus or Virus programs may not interrupt it.
Quarantine: Each Time an Anti-Virus blocks a number of Viruses it can destroy one of the blocked Virus'es. If it has the ability Quarantine, then you can select another blocked Virus and turn it upside down. That Virus may not attack until the Anti-Virus that Quarantined thing it is removed from the field.
I had an idea for a corrupt keyword that would enable you to take control of an opponents files.
I like quarantine. It seems like it'd be a tad overpowered if it was on a powerful anti-virus, but it's a cool concept. There should be a way for the player with the virus to make sure that the anti-virus with this keyword bounces.
looks like you have about 14 cards so far. How many would you like for the first round of playtesting? I can already see some strategies emerging from what you already have out there.
I didn't quite get the Meta-ware thing. It sounded like a cool concept and story to add to the game. I just didn't understand this sentence.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on April 07, 2012, 03:26:00 PM
Meta-Ware is essentially a "God" or "Devil" depending how you see it overall and it will be the driving force for creating expansions and non-existent virus/anti-virus.
So is one player taking on the role of meta-ware? I don't get how the virus/anti-virus relates.
Well I haven't finished it over-all but basically MetaAware creates a Cult within Cyber Space and speaks of "Ascending into heaven" (our world) and some programs try to get out and follow him whereas others do their duty and try to stop him. Something like this, basically he's one of those "Gods" that pit "people" against each other.
Corrupt for stealing files is pretty good. Anyway, say I'd need up to 20-25 total cards for some flexibility. Will be making a deck of 40 cards (30 seems too small after the games updating) and I want to say 4 copies of a card. Just seems to make sense to me.
Here's some ideas:
Abort
Data Input
3
Target opponent skips their system phase.
Retry
Data Input
4
You may move a card from your recycle bin into your hand
Y/N
Data Input
2
Your opponent chooses: You may draw a card, OR they must delete (discard) a card from their hand.
Trojan Horse
Virus/Hidden (or Trojan depending on what you prefer the keyword to be)
-3
This file is played into your archive instead of the desktop. If this file is in your archive during the system phase you may attack with it. If you do it is moved to the desktop.
CVC [Center for Virus Control] (or some better name)
Anti-virus/Quarantine
+3
Quarantine: Each time this antivirus successfully defends a system you may choose a virus file and flip it face down. If this file leaves play all virus files that it affected face up.
Internet Virus-Scan
Anti-Virus/Suspicious
+3
When you play this file you may search your deck for virus file with the suspicious keyword
UndercoverWare
Virus/Suspicious
-3
In the clouds
Data input
2
You may move a file from the desktop to it's owner's archive.
Domo.Arigato
Virus/Bot
-1
This file cannot attack a system unless another bot file is too. (The wording seems clunky but you get the point.)
Asimov
Virus/Bot
-1
This Virus must attack if another bot file is attacking.
Synchronized Fire (or Parallel Circuitry)
Data Input
3
This attack is an additional -1 for each bot attacking.
TOBOR [which is robot backwards](or a much better name)
Anti-Virus/Firewall
1
If this file is defending a system bot files do no damage.
Looks good! You make those cards with the thing while I attempt to work on a Lackey Plugin.
Various aesthetic changes
Instead of bouncing cards back for things like Anti-Virus, we start "buffering" them by which I mean we play them face-down. Not sure if the same should apply to Data Input costs but it would make sense, essentially when we input data into a computer, it uses some RAM to perform that action (as far as I know) and in turn, without risking some damage to the system, we can't input too much data at one time. This also creates uploading too many cards at once as a risky situation and much more punishable as it would if we returned them instead.
Cards are then Re-loaded during our Upload (or maybe just Load phase).
Forgot to post this too, considering name change to Meta-Ware which is an amalgamation of
Meta (as in Metaphysics) and Ware (as in Software). With A from the meta prefixed onto the ware to be "Aware" as well.
I like system better. It'll ring clear what the game is about better. Meta-Ware or rather MetAware is a good booster name, but not quite system name.
I still don't understand meta-ware's place in the game concept. To me it seems more user vs. user rather than entity vs. a user.
Meta-Ware will be a good keyword for sure. Perhaps you can have 10-15 cards connected to it.
I liked the returning the cards to the hand thing just because that made the action seem different than when you tapped or flipped cards in other games. As far as I understood it that was still a risky situation because you could only play a data input card after the Load phase so you wouldn't be able to drop the anti-virus back down until your next turn. So uploading too many cards at once could still turn out to be a really bad idea. Flipping is the essentially the same thing I guess, but more things are out on the field. It's your call, but i liked the 'recall' concept because to me it seemed new and different.
Well yeah, it's just something I'm considering.
Keyword is going to be buffering anyway.
System has it's own problems, such as Vs System connotations and it just seems a bit too straight-forward too me. I'd like if it could be a bit more...exotic.
Motherboard: System Overload CCG
People'd call it Motherboard for short... MSO doesn't have the best ring to it buuuut can't win 'em all
I thought the "System" system had a nice ring to it but that was just me. :P
I can see why you'd want to avoid the confusion there.
I like the name Motherboard: System overload. MSO is even the abbreviation for microsoft office.
Or perhaps Motherboard System Sabotage?
I have a great idea on the tip of my tongue it just isn't coming out just yet. I'll let you know when it decides it's done hiding.
lol Motherboard would be a pun if this game was a Board game.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on April 11, 2012, 03:53:03 AM
lol Motherboard would be a pun if this game was a Board game.
(http://magiccards.info/scans/en/tr/36.jpg)
Maybe we should call it mothercards?
Nah, I'll get a few names up and have some people vote on them. Should focus on play testing for now.
Well, I just drew a few quick hands. The whole Alpha/Beta/Pilot tests are way too good, even with just a test hand.
Yep. ;)
I was thinking about something as I was making the cards. I realized due to the nature of the costs in the game any Anti-Viruses with awesome abilities need to remain low valued to keep their 'cost to play' high. I don't know what to do with alpha beta and pilot tests though. Some cards with searching synergy is nice, but that's clearly too powerful at the moment because it chains. One way to make it less powerful is you have to discard, or move each iteration to the archive after searching and playing the next one.
i.e.:
Alpha Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+1
You may pay an 1 RAM and archive this card to search your deck for "Beta Test? and put it into play.
Now that's actually a decent idea.
And yeah, I was using it and it like chained thanks to Pilots test.
So yeah, eye out for anything that will make ram too easy to accumulate.
Finally finished the cardback image!
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Interesting, shouldn't the image look a bit more centered though? The bottom looks a bit..plain.
In other thoughts, I think I'm either going to need to re-introduce a Sorcery Speed card or curve my current Data Input cards effects.
Maybe even take it to the extreme and take out Input Cards out of the equation entirely. Though that would make most of the RAM Cost idea null.
not exactly the reaction I was hoping for. I'll work on it again.
I didn't center it because I like the way it looks off center better, but I'll go ahead and center it too. There were some other things i wanted to toy around with.
Edit: Gah. I'm out of town right now so I'm working on my secondary computer. It works fine, i just left a lot of the things I need to do this right on the other computer. If I come up with anything cool I'll let you know. I doubt I'll make anything better than that before Monday though.
Well although I'm missing a few tools I think i came up with something you'll like better. It's a tad more bright and vibrant and the power image is centered.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
I gotta say that does look siiiiiick
Thank you Cyrus! Much appreciated!
So in my initial card draws my hands turned out fine. I did have a lot of anti-viruses; 18 in fact, and 16 of them had 3 RAM. I had 10 input cards and 12 viruses.
I didn't have any trouble with RAM just a bit of trouble getting out the viruses when I needed them.
Well, it's been 10 days since you last commented on this 3XXXDDD. Does that mean your interest has waned? Are you play testing this on the side with a local group?
I don't want to see this game fall apart.
Looking for some play testers, I kind of had to take bit of break lest I burned out. It's in my mind, still plenty of things to fix with it.
OK. That makes sense. We hammered through a ton of stuff very quickly.
My recommendation is make some more positive ram cards to replace alpha beta and pilot test.
With a deck that is at least 45% positive ram cards I had no problem with having enough RAM but I didn't necessarily get the viruses that quickly.
I'm kind of looking to test the game in formats such as this:
Formats
Format 1
Deck: 30
Individual Card Limit: 3
Hand Size: 5
Life: 5 or 10
Format 2
Deck: 40
Individual Card Limit: 3 or 4
Hand Size: 5 or 7
Life: 5 or 10 or 15 or 20
Format 3
Deck: 50
Individual Card Limit: 4
Hand Size: 5 or 7
Life: 10 or 15 or 20
To help better define the best flow the game could have.
Oh this came up when trying to test this myself. How many cards would you draw per turn?
Just 1.
Also, well there are various archetypes such as Bots, Trojans, Loggers. I was thinking about creating an archetype called "Profile" which would reflect the cyber-personalties of the many people who access their computers on a day to day basis, such as face-bookers, bloggers, hackers or anti-hackers themselves, MMORPG'ers. I would like to keep the world of this to Cyber Space but in a more personified manner (such as worms actually being drawn as earth worms slithering over a micro chip or something).
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on April 23, 2012, 06:26:37 PM
I'm kind of looking to test the game in formats such as this:
Formats
Format 1
Deck: 30
Individual Card Limit: 3
Hand Size: 5
Life: 5 or 10
Format 2
Deck: 40
Individual Card Limit: 3 or 4
Hand Size: 5 or 7
Life: 5 or 10 or 15 or 20
Format 3
Deck: 50
Individual Card Limit: 4
Hand Size: 5 or 7
Life: 10 or 15 or 20
To help better define the best flow the game could have.
Ok, so simply put 50 is too much.
So the formats are now scaled down to the following:
Deck: 40
Limit: 4 or 3
Life: 5 or 10 (Each damage being 1 Critical regardless of that units Value)
And
Deck: 30
Limit: 3
Life: 5 or 10
5 Cards are hand, some would imagine more due to games like M:TG but since I don't have any restriction on the cards being slammed down on the table, 5 is enough, anymore would be insane.
10 life is looking to be decent with.
30 is probably much too small for a deck and games would end way too quick.
40 feels like a good number for a deck. All I need to determine now wheter 3 or 4 cards are better. Games with 4-Copys always seem a bit cloggy to me personally.
Also yeah, the "Test" cards are way too good.
Okay, I've done some test-drawing and I believe the best mix is
40 Cards
3 Card Limit
5 Card Hands
This is, and at the same time, isn't a resource based game. That is to say, our Resources do other things beside than give us Resource to pay with and even more so than the Location cards in other games, So increasing our deck size to a standard fifty would create nothing but an overload of cards, plenty more than is needed. This is the same with having too many copies of the same card, not to mention less copies create more re-playability value and in a round about way gives players more space to work with (since due to the looseness of this games design, "staples" are sure to be created.)
The hands is an interesting one, in this game I feel a hand limit is indeed necessary to restrict some play. I was actually thinking keeping it at a 5, I'm still unsure of this.
I am also unsure of the life values but I do seem to be leaning towards 10 with every successful attack equalling one critical point of damage.
So who agrees/disagrees?
So profile cards would replace system cards? Perhaps system cards could still exist in a sense as a buff for profile cards.
I also think some profiles should have more or less life than others. Some are more vulnerable in real life too.
What? No. There wouldn't be System Cards anymore, just System Points.
Profiles are just an idea for a Virus/Anti-Virus Archetype to help make the theme a bit more flexible and can relate to other people as well as the usual sci-fi fans.
Oh I though profiles were going to be like a 'hero' card of some sort.
System cards must have disappeared on the playtesting floor because I didn't see it happen until just now.
It's your game and you should take whichever direction you feel is best. However I think the move from the system cards to an abstract value is a step backwards, not forwards. System cards that give you certain advantages is clever, and different from any other game I'm familiar with. An abstract value your opponent must whittle down has been done to death.
System Cards are incredibly hard to balance. They might be included later but right now abstract System Points would be the best way to develop other areas of the game.
Quote from: Dabem on April 25, 2012, 02:14:55 AM
Oh I though profiles were going to be like a 'hero' card of some sort.
System cards must have disappeared on the playtesting floor because I didn't see it happen until just now.
It's your game and you should take whichever direction you feel is best. However I think the move from the system cards to an abstract value is a step backwards, not forwards. System cards that give you certain advantages is clever, and different from any other game I'm familiar with. An abstract value your opponent must whittle down has been done to death.
Would you have any suggestions for system cards? Should they be one card with 5 different effects or 5 different cards with an effect reach? What kind of effects would System cards have? Maybe every 2 damage inflicted gives you a boost such as being able to scry the top card of your opponents deck before they draw and place it on top or bottom as one of the more powerful effects?
Although this might change deck size ideas, I'm considering tapping into the BattleTech CCG idea of milling your opponent to win, which would also somewhat fit into the idea of disrupting your opponent, it might not be a system card but it could prove to be much more flexible than any other conditions.
Not to mention, players would then need nothing but their main deck, no paper/pen, no extra cards (Systems) and might give it a much more fluid feel.
Could also include an "Infected" or "Quarantine" zones where they milled cards go to so they wouldn't be as accessible as cards in the Archive or Recycle Bin.
Scratch that! System Cards are back!
However it should be noted they will only have "Activated Abilities" which will require a cost regardless of being on or off, to help balance them while giving the controlling player an option (versatility) instead of a passive bonus (Basic Strength)
That's a clever solution. I've been watching the thread but I haven't had much time to reply since I was covering for two people who were out of the office last week and getting ready for a dinner party in my time at home. Anyways I think system cards should only offer a bonus to the opposing player after they've been deactivated. As in:
RAM 3: Draw an extra card next turn.
Decking someone might make sense in a game designed off of it but I think it'd require a rework of a few mechanics.
I recommend they are 5 different effect cards, each with their own life values. One card might have 1 life while another has 3. The ones with low life values gives a smaller boost to the opponent when activated. The higher life are harder to deactivate, but give major bonuses when they're through.
If we come up with or 7 cards it'll make the total life value variable and more strategic.
To start though there should just be 5 cards with 2 life that all give a decent bonus.
Note:
I may have taken a break from this game in favour of Macro but that's just because this game is intended to be a much larger project and requires an insane amount of thought, practice, testing and revision!
I do intend to finish a Prototype in the future sometime.
That's fair.
I just realized that right now the cost and attack values of cards are exactly the same. Perhaps changing that would help balance a little. I'm not certain, it was just an idea.
Anyways, PM me when you intend to start working on this again.
That most likely should be implemented. The cost/power value was the same in the earlier version to keep the game simple but it's kind of gone past that now.
Well this is odd idea.
Each time a System is damaged, a card (top most likely) of the opponent's deck is placed under that card to note how much damage it has taken. Simply so to avoid needing to bring any unnecessary item's to the game other than your cards. If a System is fixed (re-activated) those "Infected" cards go to the discard pile.
Also Dabem, I saw you suggesting life variables? Do you mean both players have various System Cards that = a Total X (say 9) amount and it's split in different ways, like you have 3 systems with a value of 3 each and your opponent has 2 systems, one at a value of 6 and the other at 3.
Or do you mean closer to WoW? Where the HP total is different depending on the Hero used.
As another idea (inspired by the WoW thought) what if Players use just 1 System Card? And the effects they would be allowed to use de-activating the System cards of the older rules is rather gained progressively, so on 1 Damage to system, you can activate an okay effect. Then once you reach 3 damage, you can do something even cooler and then when you reach like 9, even something more insane!?
Also here's a great kicker idea to that, the activation cost of this progressive effects, is reducing the damage down to the level of the previous effect? Essentially, your trading Tempo Damage-wise for Tempo Card-Vantage wise?
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.
It was a mechanic inspired by Vanguards "counterblast" to activate effects people would flip their damage taken, so more damage taken, more effects activated.
QuoteI 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).
QuoteAnd 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
Okay here is the base template for the game mat.
(http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i342/3XXXDDD/Custom%20Game%20Mats/Untitled-1.jpg)
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on May 20, 2012, 05:10:40 AM
QuoteI 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.
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.
Some of the thematic titles will be reduced to purely functional ones but plenty should stay intact.
Just a clarification/revision of battle.
Offending Player targets a System to infect and taps the Virus cards who are attacking. Defending player may defend any number of Virus Cards with a single Anti-Virus.
If the total value of the blocked Virus cards is equal to or greater than the Anti-Virus, it is destroyed and the targeted System is damaged per attacking Virus (including those who destroyed the Anti-Virus) HOWEVER a System can't be infected/damaged More than it's System Value.*
If the total value of the blocked Virus Cards is less than the value of the Anti-Virus, the attacks of the blocked virus don't infect the defending players system and the Anti-Virus that performed the block is returned to the defending player's hand.
After the Battle Step (Attack/Block/Damage) for one System Card has passed, your Opponent may target another System Card (besides the one that has already being targeted) and perform the battle step again*
In writing this, I'm considering going back to one Single System, at least for a Beta anyway, I've been having many ideas lately and feel that I could think up enough useful effects of various kinds of System Cards.
Also as a note, Anti-Virus cards DO NOT terminate one or more Virus Cards when blocking, Giving a resource-fuelling card that amount of power could be quite difficult to balance.
It might indeed be a wise call to move away from system cards until you can make sure the battle system is balanced. So can I defend with multiple anti-viruses or will my anti-viruses just get swarmed?
The current way that system damage is calculated rewards attacking with swarms of low cost viruses, was that your intent?
Single Anti-Virus vs Multiple Virus.
It was my intention so players wouldn't be so keen of decking huge cards to over-come various defensive resources of the opponent.
Although, I could do it the other way Multiple Anti-Virus Vs Anti-Virus (aka MTG Style).
Theory-wise, what do you think would be preferable?
Flavor-wise, an up-to-date anti-virus can stop multiple virusses.
However, this might mean that a player can't attack unless he has amassed a massive army of virusses.
Well yeah that's how it is now but what Anti-Virus cards can't do in the current format is block in unison.
The change I'm suggesting is to allow Anti-Virus Cards rather than a Single Card block various virus.
I've been changing this game up so much, that I'm losing track of it all, I forgot I added a new power value separate from the RAM value, which makes what is working now work.
I'd have to see it on on paper. Basically the way I see it is the way it is currently why don't you just wait until you can get 4-5 viruses on the board then unleash a massive attack.
There needs to be a way to limit your enemy from swarming with a higher power level than all the anti-viruses you have.
It seems to support a certain strategy, so you'll have to introduce specific cards to give players reasons to play other strategies. The bot cards should also be way more expensive in this system, since they seem like they would be the favorites. We need to avoid zerg rushes from making the game end before it gets fun.
We'll just have to keep the Virus:Anti-Virus Power Ratio relative to stop that from happening. Maybe we could leave it up to the deck builders and work from there.
I'm an idiot. I just realised, as Dabem noted, with this method they will just rush the first attack with all the Virus cards overpowering the single card.
So that settles that debate blocking will work so that AV may defend in unison. *This could change AVs being able to block more than one but probably not.
Also this discussion made me realise, there is absolutely no risk to rushing each turn with the Virus cards. In M:TG, this is solved by the fact that the defenders strike back but I'd be wary about giving AV's too much power.
Furthering the MtG comparison, allow the defender to select precisely which viruses are being blocked by their anti-virus. If the AV has higher strength than the viruses then the viruses are deleted. For example, the attacker uses 5 viruses of strengths 1,2,2,3, and 5. The defender has an AV with strength 5. The defender decides to block both of the strength 2 viruses, deleting them. The attacker would have an unopposed attack total of 9 (1+3+5) on the system, however he would have permanently lost both of his strength 2 viruses.
This sort of setup allows a defending player to wear down the attackers strength whilst still allowing the attacker to deal some damage. It becomes a war of attrition between both players with constant attacks and defences whittling away their resources (which seems pretty on theme to me).
I'll test it out anyway.
Some interesting background concepts from Tron Fan-Art.
(http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/319/1/f/viral_azula_by_dragon_fangx-d32y8ri.png)
(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/309/1/0/darin_and_manci___tron_ready_by_dragon_fangx-d3280we.png)
(http://th01.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/042/3/f/mm_5_sombody_by_narret-d4pei9p.jpg)
(http://th00.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/008/9/2/quorra__tron_legacy_fanart_by_hidrico-d36q80b.jpg)
Personally I like the third and the fourth, the third because it works much more in a generic manner and the fourth because it leaves room for other background objects.
ooh!!!
I like the 4th.
I think I can manage that pretty well. I'll see what I can do.
New card images with some of the updates you requested. If you would like me to redo all the card images I could. If you have a spreadsheet of all the cards after adjusting them I can do the changes pretty quickly.
I haven't worked on changing the card back yet, but I do have an idea or three for it.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Awh yeah, that looks awesome. I can probably edit in the card effects myself (I've learned how to use some editing software!). There isn't much to addy in now. Whats the font they numbers are in?
the numbers and card names are both in "OCR A Std"
The URL is in "Chaparral Pro", 6pt
The collector numbers are in "Arial", 6pt. The ? is in Arial also 4pt.
The game text is in "American Typewriter" Bold, 6pt.
Super amazing! I would play this alright :D
Card style is superb, I'd love to get my hands on editing in one day, though with this schedule and my own CCG that's pretty much impossible. I'll follow this though.
I've been following this thread a little bit and just noticed a cool free font that you might be interested in for this game. It's called Heavy Data: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/Heavy-Data (http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/Heavy-Data)
That's not bad. I also found "System" in paint which could be cool.
Though whats with the 5+6 combo?
Pretty sure that's just a mistake with the display rather than how the font looks.
Thanks for the font suggestions. I'm always on the lookout for cool fonts.
This game needs quite the revamp. As it stands, it isn't anything much more than M:TG with a fancy dynamic resource system.
In saying that though, I feel that the card design will still be suitable for whatever I could morph this into.
I also love the idea of healing your Opponent to activate effects, it's kind of the closest I can come to the idea of hackers being found out in hacking.
I need more new kind of stuff like that.
Any ideas on how to create a way for a losing player to make a come back?
So far I was thinking of a mechanic similar to Vanguards counter-blast (flip damage you've taken to pay for effects).
This is also part of the win condition deck out idea. When a player takes damage, an equal number of cards would come off from the top of their deck to an "Infected Zone". Then a player may pay a cost by moving X Number of Infected Cards to their RFP Area.
Though I feel that just might be a bit too similar to Vanguard.
As for the Deck-Out idea, I'm liking it considering this is a hacker themed game, it makes sense to damage players via the corrupting of their files throwing off their "Computers System" (in functional terms "Deck Strategy").
I thought we had explored this idea with the system cards before. I liked it then too.
The deck-out actually makes sense thematically. You're trying to destroy your opponent's resources with a DoS style attack. Perhaps rather than the 'system' cards there could be 'script' cards. These cards allow the damaged player to do something with their damage, but it requires that they delete some of their corrupted files.
All art builds upon the influences most liked by their artists. Don't worry about what's been done, just focus on what you want to do.
Perhaps a DM mechanic when loosing itself actually helps you.
As in, a player with 1 health left (whatever we define as health) is actually at his strongest. For example, and this is just free-styling, if we're using milling to symbolize DDos attacks and the like, perhaps all damage is done via drawing cards?
Quote from: Kosmosis|Omegan on July 18, 2012, 02:19:33 PM
Perhaps a DM mechanic when loosing itself actually helps you.
As in, a player with 1 health left (whatever we define as health) is actually at his strongest. For example, and this is just free-styling, if we're using milling to symbolize DDos attacks and the like, perhaps all damage is done via drawing cards?
o.O
I came, I saw & I fell in love with this Idea.
How would it work flavour-wise though? (I'm not the most authoritative source on computer things XD)
It may not work drawing a number of cards equal to the damage you took but maybe 1 per virus that hit and the rest go or each hit, you can swap up to a number of cards from your hand for the same number of cards from that pile.
Also DM?
Quote from: Dabem on July 18, 2012, 01:39:28 PM
I thought we had explored this idea with the system cards before. I liked it then too.
The deck-out actually makes sense thematically. You're trying to destroy your opponent's resources with a DoS style attack. Perhaps rather than the 'system' cards there could be 'script' cards. These cards allow the damaged player to do something with their damage, but it requires that they delete some of their corrupted files.
All art builds upon the influences most liked by their artists. Don't worry about what's been done, just focus on what you want to do.
System Cards were all sort of clunky.
Okay, so taking Cosmosis's idea I've got it.
You take damage, you reveal the top next X Cards where X is the amount of damage you took. So these are your files being infected but you become aware of that via security alerts, so a little bit too late and so you can only save 1 file out of the X. So you add that 1 Card when the rest of the files goes to one of those More-than-RFP'ed zone.
Works for me.
An added consequence of having decking as the win condition anytime you draw a card it'll be like taking damage. Granted it will be much slower, it'll be like taking 1pt of damage when you have 40 total. You may want to introduce mechanics that allow you to avoid drawing, or shuffle things back into the deck. All deck manipulation cards should be significantly more expensive then they are in other games, since moving cards back into the deck is like gaining health in addition to having a card you need.
Well, what if you were to use an Input card that would go to a temporary zone for the turn and all of those inputs in that zone get shuffled back into the deck at the end phase?
Destroyed cards however go to the recycle bin.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on July 19, 2012, 04:34:07 AM
Well, what if you were to use an Input card that would go to a temporary zone for the turn and all of those inputs in that zone get shuffled back into the deck at the end phase?
Destroyed cards however go to the recycle bin.
Hmm this might create a problem when you get down to the few last cards and get access to more powerful input cards over and over and over again.
Though considering by that time your basically on your last breath, it could be allowed to help emphasis it as a Player comeback mechanic.
Glad you like it. See, I told you we shoudl collab. ;D
The "more than RFP'd zone" should be called the Damage Zone, or Infected Zone if we're being more flavorful.
Depends if I include it first.
Anyway, found some art on Google Images with a transparent background, just to see what the cards might look like with a basic background.
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/561096_344309895648119_1863214841_n.jpg)
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on July 20, 2012, 04:48:14 PM
Depends if I include it first.
Anyway, found some art on Google Images with a transparent background, just to see what the cards might look like with a basic background.
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/561096_344309895648119_1863214841_n.jpg)
Looks decent. I would suggest the following. If possible, add icons to the two top numbers. I guess one of them is cost, but I can't see which one. Secondary, I suggest a better letter type for the name/cost. At last, remove ALL unnescessary icons from the second bar. (Does the 21 pt have anythign t do with the game?) And remove the 'C://' '/Software/Scanner' is good unough for a card type.
The font is just me messing around with some stuff.
The PT21 is the Set name & number.
Would Icons be really necessary? Provided players the rules and learn about the card design. Not to mention the right icon is colour coded.
Though, I'm not sure of any kind of icon to add to the right number but the left number is a power value so maybe I could add something in for that.
Something is nibbling away at me about this game, there is something it needs, just some icing somewhere to top it off into Alpha perfection.
As far as the 'safe play vs. reckless play' is concerned, I think safe play is more common. Tournaments are filled with players that have 'unbeatable' decks. Some because they are damage heavy, some because they are like a fortress of defensive cards. Most often they don't want to lose a single unit to achieve their victory. Anytime you can encourage players to do something that breaks the mold and do something outside of the ordinary you are on to something special. Whether it is awesome or bizarre and useless is usually up to the players.
However drawing a card for each piece of damage dealt seems like too much of a reward for losing. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. Draw every other card makes sense to me, or every card with a hand limit makes sense. Just as long as your opponent doing 10 damage doesn't end up sucking for them way more than it did for you. That encourages turtling and might make the game take FOREVER. I see the dominant strategy for that type of gameplay being trying to eliminate your opponent's units while not doing any damage to them, while saving yours to try and finish them off all in one turn.
I just had an odd thought though. What if receiving 'damage' was the only way you could draw cards? It could make things, shall we say, interesting.
On field space being limited I like the idea. It forces the players to choose their favorite units. The problem is if you have one unit that is a juggernaut it might end up being over-used.
QuoteI just had an odd thought though. What if receiving 'damage' was the only way you could draw cards? It could make things, shall we say, interesting.
Okay, that is woah.....
Though, if both players get unusable hands it might cause a stalemate, so I propose a cycle draw mechanic, you can draw at the start of your turn, provided you discard a card beforehand so your hand size doesn't change from this draw but will open options to let the game move forward.
Sounds like a pretty good idea. Most players probably wouldn't use the draw/discard mechanic unless they actually needed it.
Should it be Ditch-Draw or Stack on bottom of deck then draw?
I imagine the first because that's pretty much self-inflicting damage to draw, which seems to make sense and give reason not to do it.
If we were to have fixed Zones, it would have to be an Odd number in order to favour your blockers or attackers and not give players best of both.
Quote from: Dabem on August 02, 2012, 02:23:02 PM
I see the dominant strategy for that type of gameplay being trying to eliminate your opponent's units while not doing any damage to them, while saving yours to try and finish them off all in one turn.
Like in DuelMasters or Kaijudo. They amend this by putting a hard and fast limit to how much you can get rewarded, and by making it so that if you turtle you can easily be rushed/swarmed.
How does Kaijudo limit it's rewards?
In reviewing this just now I realized that a fixed number of fields does help fix the problem. That does limit the amount of damage you can do all in one turn.
However you mentioned something before that struck me as odd now. With an odd number of fixed fields wouldn't you always favor anti viruses (or defense) since they are what gives you the RAM to play other cards?
Your forgetting that values of Anti-Virus are variable (as is there power) so you could play two big Anti-Virus cards and then fill the other 5 Zones with small Virus cards as well.
So you wouldn't all the time. I'm thinking 7 personally as a field limit.
There are only five shields, so you can onyl get five cards off damage at max. CardFightVangaurd also lets you use damage as a resource.
We could add a "Draw Value" onto Programs. Kind of like a critical value in game, what would happen is the defending player would ditch X Cards from the top of their deck (X = Cards power value) but would Draw Y of those cards (where Y is the Draw value, it should probably be either the first X or last X of cards to draw).
Updated the OP.
I'm not sure having a draw value is the way to go. It's an interesting idea, but it is one more stat and thing to keep track of.
P1: "I attack with malware"
P2: 'I don't have any defenders left so I have to take it'
P2: 'What the draw value of that card you just attacked me with'
P1: "2"
P2: 'And how much damage does it do?'
P1: '3, so you have to discard one more card from the top of the deck.'
I dunno. I don't hate it. It actually presents some interesting possibilities of making some cards able to keep more cards from you opponent's hand. I just don't think most players will want to do algebra to discard X-Y cards. You explained it simply in the rulebook. Just make sure to test it with others (without explaining it, let them try and figure out the rulebook themselves) to make sure it doesn't detract from the fun.
At some point you should definitely have a playtesting session with two friends who are completely unfamiliar with the design thus far. Have them play each other without your help using only their cards and the rulebook.
Also what was the decision on drawing cards? The rulebook should at least mention it. If you don't draw except by being damaged that should be stated, with the additional rule to prevent getting stuck with a suck hand.
I wasn't sure about it but the Recycle-Draw Mechanic doesn't do much to stop your Opponent from beating you down since your Quantity of Resources will never change, only the Quality, which doesn't present any Risk to the Offending player. I think I may have done it in a terrible manner now that I think about it. It shouldn't be X-Y because I'm now doing what I did when treating it as a stat. I should probably change it to something like
Power Value - 3
Draw Value - 2
1. Mill 3 Cards
2. Then, (you may?), Draw 2 Cards.
That's probably a better way of doing it.
Recode was a name suggested to me for the Draw Value.
Also, I thought I did mention it?
QuoteDraw ? Turn Player may draw a card from their deck; If they do, they return a card from their hand to the bottom of their deck.
Sound good or still confused?
so if you draw then you are down 5 'health'? X+Y?
Is this one of the more powerful cards or just a common scenario? With only 40 cards in my deck that's an 8th of my deck. I may avoid the draws just to conserve some health.
This is very close to being something incredibly awesome, it just needs to be finely tuned.
Recode makes sense to me for the draw mechanic. Maybe download for the mill/draw?
The draw mechanic as written seems fine. I'm sorry I skipped over the phases part and missed it.
Yes. Down 5 Cards if you draw. Also It's just an example of what could happen, weaker virus may have no recode at all. So don't look too deep into the specifics of it until we come to proper Card Design stage of the game. By the way was thinking more along the lines of 50 card decks considering it's also a resource based deck.
Yup, that's why I was thinking about the optional (may?) in brackets. (in reference to skipping draws in order to conserve health)
I was thinking more like Infected/Corrupted for the Mill (if anything).
Also that's cool, just making sure.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on August 10, 2012, 06:35:31 PMI was thinking more like Infected/Corrupted for the Mill (if anything).
That sounds good. I meant in regards to the cards you draw from the attack. Recode to me made sense for the 'throw away to get a card mechanic' because it made it sound like you were refining your hand.
I agree to not to look too closely at things yet. I'll let the numbers fix themselves in playtesting.
Quote from: 3XXXDDD on August 10, 2012, 03:35:05 PM
I wasn't sure about it but the Recycle-Draw Mechanic doesn't do much to stop your Opponent from beating you down since your Quantity of Resources will never change, only the Quality, which doesn't present any Risk to the Offending player.
I think this is fine. There are two sides to the coin:
Wanting the mechanics to help the losing player make a come back; or
Wanting the mechanics to reward players for playing well by letting them build up advantage.
The "take X damage = draw X cards then discard X cards" model is still my favourite, because it's elegant and I think letting the losing player improve their card quality is a big enough advantage. If you have "answer" cards in your game, then a player taking lots of damage will get to keep digging through their deck to reach a good answer for the opponent's threats.
With the other models you are proposing, there might be a risk that a losing player will not want to attack the winning player, because if they do, they will be giving the winning player even more resources to crush them with.
I guess as with all things, playtesting will be the key.
You do have a point and this game was made with the intention of punishing over-extension severely, having a draw mechanic could make that all sorts of sloppy.
Having a draw & recycle mechanic would either prevent players from being reckless and provide players with answers.
However that could also conflict with the current draw-phase mechanic and would force players to gain advantage through sheer beat-down or some clever control card.
I doubt I could have a Draw 1 - Recycle 1 for the base Draw Mechanic and a Draw X, Recycle X for the battle catch up mechanic. If I did, the game would likely be slow (not necessarily a bad thing) and force conservative players lest one of them takes an minus to early and has an incredibly hard time recovering.
Too tired to make an index of cards; so just throwing previous ones here;
Quarantine
BVC: 1
Return 1 target Data to the owner's hand.
Firewall
BVC: 1
You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack; All critical damage done during that battle is reduced to 0.
Quick Update
BVC: 2
Discard 1 Card. Draw 2 Cards. You can't activate another ?Quick Update? until after your opponent's next turn.
Delete
BVC: 3
Destroy 1 target Data.
Pop-Up Blocker
BVC: 6
You can only activate this card when your opponent activates a Variable; Negate the activation and destroy that Variable.
Quick Download
BVC: 2
Reveal 1 Data Card from your deck and place it on top of your deck (after you shuffled the deck.). You can't activate another ?Quick Download? until after your opponent's next turn.
Sort Icons
BVC: 2
Look at the top five cards of your deck and place them back on top of your deck in any order you like.
Recurring Infection
BV: -1
When this card is destroyed as a result of battle and sent to the discard pile, draw 1 card.
Data Logger
BV: -2
When this card inflicts critical damage to a player, that player discards a card.
Undetected Trojan
BV: -3
This card can't be targeted by any Variables that destroy.
Alpha Client
BV: +1
When you call this Unit, you can reveal 1 ?Beta Client? from your deck and place it on top of your deck (after you shuffled the deck.)
Beta Client
BV: +2
When you call this Unit, you can reveal 1 ?Release Client? from your deck and place it on top of your deck (after you shuffled the deck.)
SK-17
Release Client
BV: +3
You can discard this card from your hand to add 1 ?Alpha Client? from your deck to your hand.
Synchronized Fire (or Parallel Circuitry)
Data Input
3
This attack is an additional -1 for each bot attacking.
In the clouds
Data input
2
You may move a file from the desktop to it's owner's archive.
Abort
Data Input
3
Target opponent skips their system phase.
Retry
Data Input
4
You may move a card from your recycle bin into your hand
Y/N
Data Input
2
Your opponent chooses: You may draw a card, OR they must delete (discard) a card from their hand.
Refresh
Data Input
1
Return 1 Card on the field to it's owner's hand.
Buffering
Data Input
3
Search your Directory for 1 Card and add it to your Archive. During the start of your next turn add that card to your hand.
Cancel
Data Input
5
Cancel 1 Card your opponent attempts to activate or upload and terminate that card.
Delete
Data Input
4
Terminate 1 Program.
Version Variation
Anti-Virus/Updater
+3
If a System was not de-activated during the turn this card terminated a Virus, you may draw 1 card during this turn's end phase.
Seeker
Anti-Virus/Scanner
+3
Scan: During your System Phase, you may select 1 Virus with a RAM of 3 or less and terminate that program.
Alpha Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+1
When you upload this Card, you may search your directory for 1 ?Beta Test? and place it on top of your directory (after you shuffle your directory)
Beta Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+2
When you upload this Card, you may search your directory for 1 ?Pilot Test? and place it on top of your directory (after you shuffle your directory)
Pilot Test
Anti-Virus/Updater
+3
Once per turn, when you upload an ?Alpha Test? or ?Beta Test?, you may draw 1 Card. You may only control 1 ?Pilot Test? at a time. You can discard this card from your hand to add 1 ?Alpha Test? from your directory to your hand.
TOBOR [which is robot backwards](or a much better name)
Anti-Virus/Firewall
1
If this file is defending a system bot files do no damage.
CVC [Center for Virus Control] (or some better name)
Anti-virus/Quarantine
+3
Quarantine: Each time this antivirus successfully defends a system you may choose a virus file and flip it face down. If this file leaves play all virus files that it affected face up.
Internet Virus-Scan
Anti-Virus/Suspicious
+3
When you play this file you may search your deck for virus file with the suspicious keyword
Key
Virus/Data Logger
-3
When this card attacks and is not terminated by an Anti-Virus, you may select 1 random card in your opponent's hand and look at it.
Corrupting File
Virus/Datalogger
-2
When this Virus de-activates a System, Your opponent must discard a card from their hand.
Persistent Pop Up
Virus/Datalogger
-1
When this card is terminated, draw a card.
Trojan Horse
Virus/Hidden (or Trojan depending on what you prefer the keyword to be)
-3
This file is played into your archive instead of the desktop. If this file is in your archive during the system phase you may attack with it. If you do it is moved to the desktop.
System Shut-Down Sleeper
Virus/Malware
-5
Noticed Threat
Virus/Malware
-1
Domo.Arigato
Virus/Bot
-1
This file cannot attack a system unless another bot file is too. (The wording seems clunky but you get the point.)
Asimov
Virus/Bot
-1
This Virus must attack if another bot file is attacking.
Hmm, as for Recode values, lets just put 1 RV for every 2 Power. (so 0 RV for 1 or 0 PW)
Here are a few more (some might just be copy/edits).
Alpha Test
1/Anti-Virus/Database
When you upload this card, you may search your Directory for 1 "Beta Test" and place it on top of your Directory (after you shuffle your Directory).
1
Beta Test
2/Anti-Virus/Database
When you upload this card, you may search your Directory for 1 "Pilot Test" and place it on top of your Directory (after you shuffle your Directory).
2
Pilot Test
3/Anti-Virus/Database
You may send this card from your hand to the Recycle Bin to search your Directory for 1 "Alpha Test" and place it on top of your Directory (after you shuffle your Directory).
2
Buggy Scanner
1/Anti-Virus/
You may Terminate this card to Terminate a Virus Program.
1
Quarantine
2/Anti-Virus/
You may return this card to your hand to return a Virus Program to it's owners hand.
2
Password Field
1/Anti-Virus/
When this card defends, choose one of the Virus Cards it's defending against and return that card to it's owner's hand.
2
Clean File
2/Anti-Virus/Benignware
3
Diomedes' Pony
1/Virus/Trojan
This card cannot attack. When you upload this card, If your Opponent's RAM is +2 or more, you may switch control of this card.
Diomedes' Mare
2/Virus/Trojan
This card cannot attack. When you upload this card, If your Opponent's RAM is +4 or more, you may switch control of this card.
Diomedes' Stallion
3/Virus/Trojan
This card cannot attack. When you upload this card, If your Opponent's RAM is +6 or more you may switch control of this card.
Pop Up!
1/Virus/Adware
When this Program is terminated, you may draw a card.
1
Recurring Pop Up!
1/Virus/Adware
When this card is terminated, upload a "Recurring Pop Up!" from your Directory, then shuffle your Directory.
1
Pop Up! Link
1/Virus/Adware
When this Program is terminated, you may upload an "Adware" from your Directory, then shuffle your Directory.
1
Morris Worm
3/Virus/Worm
You may terminated this card to upload 2 "Internet Worm" cards from your Directory, the shuffle your Directory.
3
Internet Worm
2/Virus/Worm
You may terminate this card to upload 2 "Net Worm" cards from your Directory, then shuffle your Directory.
2
Net Worm
1/Virus/Worm
1
Empty File
3/Virus/Malware
2
Refresh
1/Input
Return 1 Program to the Host's Hand.
Boost
1/Input
Select a Program and add +2 to it's power until the end of the turn.
Drain
1/Input
Select a Program and add -2 to it's power until the end of the turn.
Restore Item
2/Input
Return Target File from your Recycle Bin to your hand.
Disconnect
2/Input
Target opponent skips their system phase.
Cancel
3/Input
Cancel Target Input.
I'm looking over this and was thinking what if this was placed on a Grid System? Say 5x4
You would have 5 Anti-Virus Cards on the first Row. These would essentially be your life or what is blocking it. Then you play Virus Cards on the second row, they could move to the next row if it was empty during the next turn or they could defeat a virus card, then move to the next row to attack the Anti-Virus card.
Players would be able to play down another Anti-Virus if one got destroyed but if 5 Anti-Virus get destroyed, you lose. So in playing an extra one to increase RAM, You're also at risk of giving more opportunities to lose.
Roughly anyway.
Interesting.
Where would the new AV card go if you placed down more than 5?