Author Topic: Theoretical Community CCG Project  (Read 7928 times)

Ascent

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #105 on: December 24, 2011, 06:26:33 PM »
It does look like the Aliens vs. Predator template.

Ascent

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #106 on: December 24, 2011, 06:28:57 PM »
In the Deck Building Rules section, it states "A deck may not include more than THREE copies
of a card with the same title." I've noted that, for whatever reason, sometimes designers forget that a card was already given the same name or perhaps choose to have two different cards with the same name. I think you shouldn't cut that off from the designers or the players. So I suggest modifying the rule to simply state: "A deck may not include more than THREE copies
of the same card."

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

I didn't really think too hard about it before, but I guess spotting is similar to the trickle (limiting) mechanic I was referring to.

yudencow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #107 on: December 24, 2011, 08:58:18 PM »
I second Ascent, you should search you library or play from your hand agendas if you don't have one active already. It could be that completeing each agenda gives you Dominance, and you need a certain amount of dominance to win.

If the cards have subtitles it is okay and even welcomed to have different cards with same name/title.

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #108 on: December 25, 2011, 02:11:29 AM »
@Template: Yes it is based on the Aliens VS. Predator template you saw elsewhere. Actually its based on my "bubbly boxes" template wich is easy to modify and replicate. who cares? i guess no one, as long as it looks good. feedback appreciated!

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

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

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

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

@all: In my point of view the core rules are quite finished, the rulebook is not. there are still points to flesh out here and there but i think we got the "big picture" almost ready. to further explore the rules, maybe it would be an idea trying to design a very first pre-alpha set. whats really missing and whats already at the right place, will only be shown once we have a few cards. has anyone any ideas that go into that direction? thanks!

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #109 on: December 25, 2011, 05:01:40 AM »
TADA! - okay here we have my first try on a actual Galaxian CCG Trading Card.

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

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

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

« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 05:23:22 AM by Malagar »

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #110 on: December 25, 2011, 07:09:25 AM »
FANFARE! - One more for today, this time its a nation (or house) card for the Omicron Combine. And by god i bet you're already drooling all over!

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

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


r0cknes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #111 on: December 25, 2011, 07:20:31 AM »
The template look great! I would only suggest that instead of writing on the card how many progression counters you would need, there should be an icon with a number that represents that amount. That would be nicer looking, plus it would make the agendas easy to compare on the table and in your hand.

Dragoon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Master Templatist
    • View Profile
    • Kingdom at War official site
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #112 on: December 25, 2011, 10:32:12 AM »
Looks pretty good. I guess the peace side is blue?

Still against nation, but that comes later :P

Also, we need more icons for the stats. -_- Still torn about diplomacy & intrigue

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #113 on: December 25, 2011, 11:14:41 AM »
@r0cknes: Good idea, i try to get it on the template in the next version. I will still keep the numbers in the card text too - ok?

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

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

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

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


I have another day off tomorrow, maybe i can get another template ready

Ascent

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #114 on: December 25, 2011, 03:00:51 PM »
I love those two templates! Great job!

I also don't like insta-search agendas.

Why do you need the text of two agendas on the Nation card?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 03:14:34 PM by Ascent »

Ascent

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #115 on: December 25, 2011, 03:16:46 PM »
A "Collective" doesn't just mean "the Borg". Corporations and people often work together to accomplish a common goal in a "collective", using a horizontal consensus means of self-governance. That's my proposal for the name.

Though "Combine", as depicted in the flavor text, is also decent.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 03:18:41 PM by Ascent »

Malagar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Designer | Writer | Creative
    • View Profile
    • 1manstudio - card game design
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #116 on: December 26, 2011, 03:05:46 AM »
@Ascent Combine is just the name for this single faction, nation is the card type. We are thinking about changing the card type name from nation into faction / alliance or whatever.

@all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 03:36:45 AM by Malagar »

yudencow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #117 on: December 26, 2011, 03:42:04 AM »
Ithink it should act only as agenda and you basic abilities. Like it isn't in the rulebook draw 1 cardm, there should be add 2 solaries, or t will be written on the card but it will happen in the beginning of the turn automatically rather than tapping it. It shouldn't be a fleet card. If you want you could do that in a state of war the nation card may inflict damage or bad effects to the enemy carss in the beginninig of your turn.

Dragoon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Master Templatist
    • View Profile
    • Kingdom at War official site
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #118 on: December 26, 2011, 03:43:05 PM »
Looks pretty good.

I suggest faction instead of nation.

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

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

Tapping is a bit stupid, I agree.

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

Addendum: Also, I want a Dalek-like faction EXTERMINATE!

Ascent

  • Guest
Re: Theoretical Community CCG Project
« Reply #119 on: December 26, 2011, 06:55:04 PM »
"Faction card" is fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'll take a gruesome-looking, but at the same time beautiful, inhuman benevolent insectoid race. :)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 07:00:25 PM by Ascent »